Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is set to introduce the No Kings Act, challenging the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Donald Trump presidential immunity.
According to the Guardian, the bill aims to assert that presidents are not shielded from criminal conduct, addressing the court's contentious ruling and its impact on the judiciary.
Last month, the Supreme Court's decision, which provided former President Trump with considerable immunity from prosecution, triggered a substantial reaction from Democratic lawmakers.
Schumer will introduce the No Kings Act to the Senate today, marking a major step towards challenging presidential immunity. This proposed legislation applies not just to presidents but also to vice vice presidents. The act has already gained significant traction, with over two dozen Democratic senators acting as cosponsors.
In a statement, Schumer emphasized the urgency and importance of this legislative move:
Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented.
He also pointed out the constitutional role of Congress to check and balance the powers of the judicial branch, underscoring the bill’s necessity.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority recently ruled that Trump had broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his presidency. This ruling has major ramifications for the Justice Department's investigation into Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, drawing widespread criticism from Democrats.
Reacting to the ruling, President Joe Biden called for significant changes to the Supreme Court and proposed a constitutional amendment to curtail the executive branch's powers. Biden emphasized the founding principles of the nation, stating, “This nation was founded on the principle there are no kings in America, each of us is equal before the law.”
Vice President Kamala Harris echoed Biden’s sentiments, advocating for reforms including term limits and new ethics regulations for Supreme Court justices. The response from the executive branch signals a robust effort to address what they view as an overreach by the court.
The No Kings Act stipulates that Congress, rather than the Supreme Court, holds the authority to decide the applicability of federal criminal laws. This proposed shift is intended to reassert legislative control over such fundamental legal determinations and counterbalance judicial interpretations that could undermine accountability at the highest levels of government.
The Supreme Court's ruling, praised by some as protective of presidential prerogatives, has been met with dissent from within the court itself. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” Her concerns were echoed by Biden, who said, “So should the American people dissent. I dissent.”
Not all lawmakers are against the Supreme Court's decision. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson lauded the ruling as a victory for Trump and future presidents. He characterized the decision as a setback because of what he viewed as partisan actions by the Biden administration’s Justice Department. "Today’s ruling by the court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith,” Johnson remarked.
The introduction of the No Kings Act represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing dialogue regarding presidential accountability. Schumer's proactive approach, coupled with Biden's call for judicial reform, marks a concerted effort to realign the balance of power among the branches of government.
As reported by People magazine, Michelle Obama took to Instagram on July 29 to honor her late mother, Marian Robinson, on what would have been her 87th birthday.
Marian Robinson, who passed away on May 31, was commemorated by her daughter Michelle Obama, aged 60, through a touching social media post. Expressing gratitude for the support her family received, Michelle reminisced about her mother's resourcefulness, contentment, and ability to make others feel valued.
Robinson, known affectionately as the "grandma-in-chief" during the Obama presidency, moved from her lifelong home in Chicago to live with the then-First Family in the White House. Known for her grounding presence, she played a pivotal role as a grandmother and stabilizing force.
Michelle Obama's tribute began with heartfelt words: "Today would have been my mom’s 87th birthday. These past couple of months have been tough without her, and I am so grateful for the outpouring of love you’ve shown our family along the way."
She continued to express how her legacy deserves celebration, although her mother is no longer with them. Emphasizing Robinson's satisfaction with life, Michelle recalled the small apartment they lived in and the creative ways her mother would make holidays special.
Further highlighting her mother's influence, Michelle noted Robinson's ability to uplift others. "Because she felt like she was enough, she could help others feel that too. She did that countless times for me and my brother Craig. She did it for her family and friends. She did it for the staff at the White House. She did it for everyone she knew," said Michelle.
Robinson began living with the Obama family at the White House during Barack Obama's presidency, bringing with her a sense of stability. She was instrumental not only as a grandmother but also as a source of support for the entire family.
The Obama family collectively acknowledged her invaluable presence, reinforcing that they needed her during those significant years and reminiscing about her role in their lives. They described her as a source of strength, stating, "We needed her. The girls needed her. And she ended up being our rock through it all."
Robinson's dedication to her grandchildren was also prominent. Despite upholding household rules, she always sided with her "grandbabies," believing that their parents were too strict.
In the same Instagram post, Michelle Obama committed herself to perpetuating her mother’s legacy. "I am committing myself to carrying forward her legacy of lifting up others the best I can," she pledged.
Marian Robinson's influence transcended the family and extended to people she interacted with, from close friends to White House staff. The Obama family expressed their ongoing admiration and intention to honor her memory.
Michelle’s post stands as a testament to Robinson’s lasting legacy. "In our sadness, we are lifted up by the extraordinary gift of her life. And we will spend the rest of ours trying to live up to her example," the Obama family said in a joint statement.
Marian Robinson's memory is celebrated not just by her family but by everyone who had the privilege to know her. Through Michelle Obama’s words, her legacy of resourcefulness, contentment, and nurturing spirit continues to inspire.
According to the Independent, former first lady Melania Trump is facing difficulties discussing the recent attempt on Donald Trump’s life.
Donald Trump shared his perspective on the incident and the Secret Service’s response during an interview with Fox News’s Laura Ingraham.
Melania Trump was watching the Pennsylvania rally live on TV when a gunman, Thomas Crooks, nearly succeeded in killing her husband. The incident left her deeply shaken, as Donald Trump revealed during the interview, stating that Melania “can’t really even talk about it.”
Donald Trump described how Melania reacted when the attack happened, expressing her fear and helplessness. “When I went down, she thought the worst had happened,” he said, indicating the depth of her distress.
This near tragedy has drawn significant attention to the actions and coordination of the protective detail surrounding the former president. Text messages disclosed that local police had suspicions about Crooks' behavior prior to the shooting.
Despite these warnings, the coordination between the Secret Service and the local police force was insufficient, leading to a breakdown in security measures. This aspect has garnered criticism from many, including within political circles.
In his interview with Laura Ingraham, Donald Trump showered praise on his Secret Service agents for their courage during the attack. “They were very brave. I have to say that,” he remarked.
Despite the failure of preemptive security measures, Trump acknowledged the agents' quick and decisive action during the critical moments of the shooting. Their bravery undeniably played a role in his survival.
He also used this platform to criticize current political figures, specifically Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. He labeled Harris a more radical candidate than Biden.
Furthermore, Trump hinted at a possible debate with Kamala Harris, indicating a shift in his campaign strategy. His comments reflected his belief that Harris's policies were more extreme than those of her political partner.
In addition to his critique of Harris, Trump defended his vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance. Responding to criticisms of Vance’s past remarks, he emphasized Vance's dedication to family values.
“He’s not against anything. He loves family. It’s very important to him,” Trump stated, defending Vance's character and positioning him as a strong advocate for traditional values.
The dramatic event at the Pennsylvania rally significantly impacted Melania Trump, while Donald Trump discussed it publicly and praised his Secret Service. Criticism persists over the lack of local police coordination. Trump used the incident to bolster his campaign points, criticize opponents, and support JD Vance.
Daily Mail reported that President Joe Biden has unveiled a sweeping plan to reform the United States Supreme Court.
Biden's proposal comes in response to recent controversies involving justices and high-profile rulings that have disrupted longstanding legal precedents. Key elements include judicial term limits, a binding code of ethics, and a constitutional amendment restricting presidential immunity.
President Biden advocates for term limits for Supreme Court justices in his plan, which is a first in the nation's history. He also urges the adoption of a binding ethics code, aiming to restore public trust eroded by recent scandals.
The president referenced a "crisis of confidence" within the democratic framework, exacerbated by certain court decisions impacting individual liberties. Biden's changes are seen as necessary interventions to re-establish the credibility of judicial processes and uphold foundational democratic principles.
Biden emphasized that no individual, including those in the highest offices or on the Supreme Court, is above the law. The critical reforms target both presidential power and judicial accountability.
Although the White House has highlighted the importance of these reforms, the likelihood of Congressional approval appears slim given the deep political divisions. With 99 days until Election Day, the proposal also serves as a strategic move to pivot voter attention to judicial integrity.
Senator Elizabeth Warren praised the initiative as a compelling reason to support Democratic candidates in the upcoming elections. On the other hand, Senator Lindsey Graham accused Democrats of undermining the conservative majority that now shapes the court's direction.
Vice President Kamala Harris described the current election as a choice between maintaining freedom and descending into chaos, aligning the Democratic ticket's success with the proposed judicial reforms.
The Supreme Court's ethical controversies have garnered increasing attention, particularly involving Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. Recently, allegations surfaced about Justice Alito’s refusal to recuse himself from cases pertaining to former President Donald Trump.
Biden's plan includes a constitutional amendment aimed specifically at curtailing presidential immunity, directly impacting the legal landscape for future presidencies. This proposition stands as a response to the perceived overreach of executive power, an issue spotlighted by Trump's presidency.
Although the Supreme Court adopted an ethics code in November following disclosures about undisclosed travel expenses, critics argue that the voluntary guidelines lack effective enforcement mechanisms.
Trump has publicly decried the proposed amendments, viewing them as politically motivated attacks intended to influence the presidential election. He believes these efforts threaten to erode the foundational principles of justice and judicial independence.
President Joe Biden has proposed significant reforms to the Supreme Court, including term limits, a binding code of conduct for justices, and a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity. Citing recent ethics scandals and controversial rulings, Biden aims to restore trust in democratic institutions. Despite the slim chances of approval from a divided Congress, Biden's proposal is intended to rally voter support ahead of the election.
According to the New York Post, the Biden-Harris Justice Department has handed $2 million to former FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as part of a legal settlement.
This settlement stems from an infamous series of text messages between Strzok and Page on government-issued phones. The texts, critical of former President Donald Trump, were leaked and publicized during the early stages of the 2016 "Russian interference" investigation. Their case claims these leaks violated their privacy rights.
Strzok and Page, both central figures in the probe, argued the Justice Department mishandled their private communications. The situation recalls the department's 2021 controversial decision to reinstate retirement benefits for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
McCabe was dismissed in 2018 due to allegations of unauthorized disclosures to the media and deceiving federal investigators. This contradicted normal Justice Department protocols and led to wide criticism of the department's internal practices.
Moreover, this controversy can be traced back to the Clinton campaign’s 2016 efforts to cast a shadow on Trump, accusing him of collusion with Russian powers. A British researcher was reportedly engaged in fabricating allegations, igniting what would become a thorough investigation and widespread media frenzy.
Major media platforms and elite circles in Washington intensified the unrest, leveraging the contrived narrative to amplify their agendas. Strzok and Page were among the prime agents pushing forward with the probe despite questionable practices.
This sequence of events has raised questions about the political motivations embedded within the Justice Department. Strzok also played a pivotal role in the choice not to press charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.
The settlement and previous decisions, such as reinstating McCabe's benefits, suggest alignment in political inclinations between the current leaders of the Justice Department and those once accused of bias. Critics argue these actions demonstrate favoritism toward allies over impartial justice.
The narrative that included serious accusations against Trump initially began as an effort to undermine his campaign and presidency. The Justice Department's recent decisions have rekindled debates on whether it can maintain objectivity.
The Strzok and Page settlement arrives critically as Donald Trump vies for another term in the White House. His potential return threatens significant reforms aimed at cleansing perceived biases within the department.
If elected again, Trump's promises to overhaul Justice Department dynamics indicate ongoing tensions in American politics. Observers watch closely, noting these legal actions' influences on the electoral landscape and government accountability.
In conclusion, the $2 million settlement between the Justice Department, Strzok, and Page has revived political bias and procedural integrity discourse.
The resolution of this lawsuit amidst the historical context of the Trump-Russia investigation and subsequent internal decisions at the Justice Department highlights enduring challenges. With Trump potentially returning to power, the balance within this vital federal institution remains precarious and subject to scrutiny.
President Joe Biden's shocking announcement last Sunday marked the end of his re-election bid, setting the stage for Vice President Kamala Harris to become the likely candidate for the Democratic ticket in the upcoming election.
With many wondering whom Harris will select as a running mate, a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll conducted from July 19 to 22 reveals no clear favorite among Democrats for the role.
The poll indicates a significant portion of Democrats remain uncertain, with 30% of respondents indicating they are "not sure" and 6% preferring "none of the above." Among the leading candidates, California Gov. Gavin Newsom enjoys 30% approval, followed by Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg at 25%, and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer close behind at 24%. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro also holds 24% approval, with Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly rounding out the top contenders at 18%.
Newsom emerges as a popular choice among Democrats, garnering 30% approval. Newsom, a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump and a national figure for anti-Trump liberals, has an appealing profile. However, sources indicate he is not currently being vetted, raising questions about his actual chances of securing the vice-presidential slot.
Despite his leadership in a large and influential state, there are concerns about the optics of having two Californians on the ticket. Additionally, past incidents, such as a controversial pandemic-era dinner at French Laundry, may present issues.
Buttigieg follows closely with 25% approval. Known for his Midwestern roots and continuity with the Biden administration, Buttigieg has maintained a strong national profile through numerous television appearances. Although his Indiana roots may not shift the state towards the Democrats, Buttigieg remains a viable, possibly even strategic choice, albeit with potential criticism from Republican circles.
Whitmer stands at 24% approval, despite her public declarations of disinterest in the role. Whitmer, a key figure in a critical swing state, has reportedly submitted vetting documents at the request of Harris's campaign, suggesting she remains a serious candidate.
The governor's success in the 2022 midterms boosts her appeal; however, there are concerns about the potential ramifications of an all-female ticket. Harris appears inclined toward selecting a running mate with a different profile to balance the ticket.
Similarly positioned with 24% approval, Shapiro is actively being vetted and seems open to the possibility. Shapiro's significant victory in Pennsylvania, combined with his practical governance and popularity, makes him a strong contender.
Kelly, with an 18% approval rating, adds an interesting dynamic to Harris's potential vice-presidential picks. Kelly's impressive background and focus on immigration could strengthen Harris's stance on key issues, yet his relatively low national profile and Arizona’s political risks might outweigh his advantages.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear enjoys 15% approval and confirms he is undergoing vetting. Beshear's popularity in a predominantly Republican state may provide a strategic advantage, though it is unlikely Kentucky will swing Democratic in the election, potentially limiting his broader impact. North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, with 11% approval, is reportedly being considered. Cooper’s moderate stance could appeal to a wide range of voters, especially in a swing state like North Carolina. However, his age and the succession implications with his lieutenant governor could present challenges.
Other individuals mentioned include Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who has not yet been asked for vetting materials but remains open to a call. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is indeed being vetted and expresses his willingness to take on the role if chosen. Cedric Richmond, a senior advisor to Biden, was taken aback by the consideration but voiced his readiness to assist Harris in any capacity necessary.
As the Democratic ticket takes shape, each potential running mate brings unique strengths and weaknesses. Harris's decision will reflect a blend of strategic calculation and personal inclination. Her selection could significantly impact the Democratic campaign's direction and voter appeal in the upcoming election. In the coming weeks, Harris will need to weigh each candidate's contributions against potential drawbacks to make her final choice. The poll’s mixed results underscore the diversity of opinion within the Democratic Party and the complex nature of this critical decision.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has delayed the progress of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appeal concerning improper storage of classified documents by President Trump.
The delay in the documents controversy means that the matter may not be resolved ahead of the November presidential election, despite Smith's hopes of a swift trial, as the Gateway Pundit reports.
The court has taken up Smith’s appeal against the dismissal of a high-profile case involving national security secrets allegedly mishandled by President Trump. Judge Aileen Cannon had dismissed the case on Monday, citing issues with the special counsel's appointment and funding, in a decision also dismissed charges against Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
The court has released a briefing schedule for the case with filings due through mid-October, indicating that oral arguments and a subsequent decision will likely occur weeks or even months later. This adds to the uncertainty surrounding the resolution of this significant case before the next presidential election.
President Trump was originally indicted in June 2023 on 37 federal counts, primarily concerning the storage of presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Thirty-one of these counts were for willful retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act, while six were for process-related crimes.
Judge Aileen Cannon based her dismissal on what she determined were unconstitutional aspects of Smith's appointment and the unlimited funding, which lacked congressional approval. This has led to significant delays in further legal proceedings.
The established schedule for legal briefs extends through mid-October, suggesting that the appeals case might not even reach the oral argument stage before the election. This timeline significantly postpones any final decision.
Smith's chances of reviving the case rest on his ability to challenge the legal validity of Judge Cannon's grounds for dismissal. These grounds centered around the alleged unlawful appointment of the special counsel and the manner of his office's funding.
This development has stoked concern among those closely watching the legal proceedings, highlighting the intricate balance of legal and constitutional questions involved in this case. The protracted timeline of the appeal process only heightens the stakes and uncertainty as the election approaches.
In dismissing the case, Judge Cannon's ruling emphasized that unlimited funding without congressional approval for the special counsel's office was a significant constitutional issue. The case's complexity has been compounded by this dismissal and the ensuing appeals process.
The charges dismissed included serious allegations of mishandling national security secrets, adding to the gravity of the claims. The lengthy appeals process now anticipated underscores the potential for unresolved legal issues to extend well into the election period.
Special counsel Jack Smith and President Trump's legal teams are preparing for a drawn-out fight that may not conclude before voters head to the polls. This uncertainty highlights ongoing legal battles involving the former president as a significant aspect of the political landscape.
Given the mid-October briefing schedule, both sides will have ample opportunity to present their arguments. Nevertheless, the final ruling may be months away, given the standard pace of appellate court procedures.
According to the Washington Examiner, New York officials have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit from Missouri that challenges former President Donald Trump’s criminal sentencing.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has initiated legal action against New York in an effort to prevent Trump’s criminal sentence and lift his gag order. Bailey asserts that the conviction infringes on the constitutional rights of Missouri’s voters and electors.
The lawsuit aims to use the Supreme Court’s authority to resolve disputes between states. However, New York Attorney General Letitia James responded with a 48-page brief arguing that Missouri's claims lack basis and are grounded in an ongoing criminal case in New York.
James emphasized that the issues raised by Missouri are already being addressed in New York state courts. She argued Missouri’s claims are without merit and are speculative since the outcomes are currently under review.
In her response, James stated, "Missouri’s suit is based entirely on an ongoing criminal case between the Manhattan DA and former President Trump and does not present an actual controversy between sovereign States.” New York contends that Missouri’s attempt to intervene seriously undermines judicial integrity and risks establishing a dangerous precedent.
Bailey’s lawsuit contends that New York’s legal actions breach the First Amendment rights of Missouri residents. However, James countered that Missouri’s efforts to interfere are speculative and unwarranted.
James added, “Moreover, former President Trump has already raised, and the New York state courts are already adjudicating, the same issues Missouri seeks to raise.” This indicates that the legal proceedings in New York should intellectually and legally resolve the matter.
In May, Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. The payments were intended to affect the 2016 presidential election.
James further argued that Missouri lacks the necessary standing to bring a complaint, as Bailey’s claims are based on speculative grounds. She believes the entirety of Missouri’s lawsuit should be dismissed due to this lack of standing.
“Even if the motion [to vacate the jury verdict] is denied, he can appeal his conviction, and his sentence may well be stayed pending appeal,” James wrote, underscoring that the issues Missouri is trying to push are already being actively contested.
Trump, who has denied having any affair with Daniels, has stated his intent to appeal the conviction. This highlights that there are multiple avenues through which the matter is being contested, reducing the urgency or necessity of a Supreme Court intervention.
According to James, allowing Missouri’s suit to proceed would allow an “extraordinary and dangerous end-run around former President Trump’s ongoing state court proceedings.” This could lead to a proliferation of similar, meritless litigation.
In summary, New York officials are seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention to block Missouri’s lawsuit concerning Trump’s sentencing. They argue that the issues Missouri raises are already being handled within New York’s jurisdiction and that Missouri’s claims are speculative and lack standing.
President Joe Biden's unexpected COVID-19 diagnosis in Las Vegas triggered a tense, high-speed return to his Rehoboth Beach residence in Delaware, leading to his swift withdrawal from the 2024 election race.
The Daily Mail reported that President Biden was diagnosed with COVID-19 while in Las Vegas and had to make a rapid return to his Rehoboth Beach home in Delaware. His health and the abrupt change in plans led to his eventual withdrawal from the 2024 election race.
The White House press corps was caught off guard when, less than half an hour before takeoff, they learned of President Biden’s positive COVID-19 test.
As Air Force One ascended at high speed, it began to shake, and flight attendants struggled to maintain their balance.
Reporters onboard Air Force One faced challenges as they lacked Wi-Fi access, leaving them without the flow of real-time information. Moreover, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to provide updates on Biden’s condition.
No further details were furnished about the medical care Biden was receiving, and he remained out of the public eye for almost a week following his diagnosis.
This lack of transparency added to the turmoil as journalists tried to piece together the unfolding situation.
President Biden's 52-year career in politics culminated abruptly with this health crisis, ending within mere days of his diagnosis.
On Monday, July 15, President Biden appeared in high spirits at Joint Base Andrews, where he addressed various press queries.
He reassured reporters of his trust in his Secret Service detail and dismissed Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as a “Trump ‘clone’.”
Biden's agenda included significant appearances at the NAACP National Convention and the Hispanic UnidosUS conference in Las Vegas. He delivered a robust speech at the NAACP convention on Tuesday, though his subsequent health decline was rapid and highly visible.
By Wednesday noon, Biden was an hour behind schedule and appeared visibly pale and fatigued at a Mexican restaurant. His next public engagement was subsequently canceled, causing speculation and concern among those present.
At 3:12 PM that Wednesday, an official announcement confirmed President Biden’s COVID-19 diagnosis.
The motorcade swiftly transported him to Harry Reid International Airport.
Despite assuring reporters that he felt well, Biden's appearance suggested otherwise as he waved with a thumbs-up while boarding Air Force One. The flight to Delaware lasted almost four hours, arriving at Dover Air Force Base at 10:29 PM (EST), with Biden looking pale and unsteady as he deplaned.
Within 72 hours of his diagnosis, Biden declared his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race via a published letter on social media.
Reflecting on the events, the anxiety and rapid developments over President Biden’s health have cast a shadow on his long-standing political career. From an optimistic mood at Joint Base Andrews to a sudden, concerning retreat to Delaware, the sequence of events highlights the unpredictable nature of health crises in high office.
This whirlwind period serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerability that accompanies positions of power, and how quickly circumstances can change. As the nation processes this abrupt political shift, the emphasis remains on the President’s recovery and the future of the democratic process.
In summary, President Biden's COVID-19 diagnosis, coupled with his forced return from Las Vegas and ultimately his retreat from the 2024 race, marked an unprecedented ending to a long and storied career.
The Justice Department has found transcripts of President Joe Biden's conversations with a biographer, becoming part of an ongoing criminal investigation concerning his handling of classified material.
Politico reported that The Department of Justice recently informed a federal judge that transcripts of President Joe Biden’s talks with a biographer had been located.
These transcripts are linked to a criminal probe examining Biden’s management of classified documents prior to his presidency.
The findings were highlighted in special counsel Robert Hur’s February report, which described President Biden as “a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Since then, the DOJ has experienced a surge in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits from media outlets and conservative groups seeking access to records related to Hur’s investigation.
Concerns about President Biden’s cognitive abilities and overall fitness for office were amplified following his recent poor debate performance against former President Donald Trump. On the heels of these concerns, Biden announced on Sunday that he would no longer pursue reelection.
The Justice Department has resisted demands to release audio recordings of Biden's discussions, arguing that doing so would encroach upon his privacy, risk potential abuse, and discourage future witnesses from consenting to recorded interviews.
In defense, Biden invoked executive privilege over these recordings, aiming to prevent House Republicans from holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt.
During a hearing on June 18, DOJ attorney Cameron Silverberg stated, “We don’t have some transcript that’s been created by the special counsel that we can attest to its accuracy.” Silverberg emphasized the immense effort required to process the 70 hours of interviews between Biden and writer Mark Zwonitzer.
On Monday night, Silverberg confirmed that Hur’s office had indeed produced transcripts of segments of these interviews. Biden’s discussions with Zwonitzer, part of his work on memoirs published in 2007 and 2017, contained sensitive information.
The DOJ located six electronic files comprising 117 pages of verbatim transcripts of some of these Biden-Zwonitzer recordings. However, due to the DOJ's policy and the indeterminate nature of Biden’s recollections, prosecutors chose not to press charges.
Recently, the DOJ backtracked on its previous resistance to contacting Hur about the materials integral to his report. This move was followed by conversations with another unnamed individual involved in Hur’s investigation before finally communicating with Hur directly.
Hur's involvement went beyond utilizing the Biden-Zwonitzer audio; he also referenced Biden’s handwritten notes on an Afghanistan memo. Silverberg indicated he would discuss with parties requesting access to Hur’s materials about processing Biden’s notes for public release.
As these developments unfold, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Tuesday morning.
In summary, the Justice Department's discovery of transcripts involving President Joe Biden and a biographer has become a focal point amid heightened scrutiny over Biden's crisis with classified material.
The DOJ is navigating numerous FOIA requests and legal hurdles, while Biden's mental acuity and fitness for office remain in the spotlight following his decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.
Special counsel Robert Hur's investigation continues to impact the discourse, with Biden’s executive privilege and privacy concerns playing a critical role in the handling of these sensitive materials.