Fox News says House GOP says it has proof of Biden corruption

House Republicans remain in a frenzy of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies about President Joe Biden’s connection to his son Hunter’s business dealings, and Fox News is, as always, there on the spot to promote the claims. This is all part of the Republicans’ push to impeach the president even though they have turned up no evidence that he has engaged in wrongdoing. Impeachment has been the plan all along, and the strategic distraction is doubly urgent now that Donald Trump is facing so many federal criminal charges.

Let’s take a look at how Fox News uses smoke and mirrors to make it sound like the Bidens’ accusers have far more evidence than they do. Here’s the latest bombshell report from the “news” network. (Unless otherwise indicated, the quotes come from various Fox News personalities.)

“A new set of bank records linked to the Bidens ...” Linked? How are they linked? To the Bidens? Which Bidens?

“Those who contributed to Hunter’s ventures were then seemingly rewarded with access to his father.” Seemingly? The Fox News chyron here reads, “GOP says it has proof of $20M sent to Bidens,” but then we get “seemingly.” Hmm.

“All that flies in the face, Dana, of what the president and his staff have been saying on repeat.” No it doesn’t, unless you have more than “linked to” Bidens other than Joe and “seemingly.” So far, more than 45 seconds into the clip, we have absolutely no solid information, just insinuation.

“The question is, what was Hunter Biden doing to earn access to this money.” Asked and answered, guys: He had the last name Biden and the ability to create what his business partner Devon Archer testified to the House was the “illusion” of access, putting his father on speaker phone when he was with business associates but not talking about business. It’s not laudatory or inspirational, but it is what it is, and it is not Joe Biden being involved in corruption in any way.

“Republicans on the House Oversight Committee say the new records detail a pay-to-play scheme, proof of $20 million sent to the Bidens from foreign business sources.” Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have said a lot of things, many of them verifiably false. They are claiming here to have evidence of the pay, but what’s the play that’s being paid for? And again, “the Bidens” is not the president—if they thought they had him here, they’d be saying it.

Campaign Action

“The committee says Russian, Ukrainian, and Kazakh oligarchs funneled money to companies tied to Hunter Biden. A Russian billionaire sent $3.5 million to a shell company associated with Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer.” Whoa, whoa, whoa, we’ve gone from $20 million to the Bidens to money going to companies “tied to” Hunter Biden in the sense that they are “associated with” Devon Archer? That’s a flimsy connection to Hunter, let alone his father.

“Then-Vice President Biden dined with the billionaire in Washington.” According to Archer’s testimony, Joe Biden attended two dinners, one in 2014 and one in 2015, that included some of Hunter’s business associates. “I believe the first one was, like, a birthday dinner, and then the second was ‑‑ I think we were supposed to talk about the World Food Programme,” Archer said. So over the course of more than a year, Joe Biden went to a birthday dinner for his son and another dinner to talk about the World Food Programme, and did not control the guest list at either dinner. Got it.

“Another example has Ukrainian money going to Archer and Hunter Biden. Later, Burisma put Hunter Biden on the board.” 1.) Does money that went to Archer count in the previously mentioned $20 million to “the Bidens?” 2.) I think it’s well established that Hunter Biden was on the board of energy company Burisma. We all know that because of Trump’s efforts to extort Ukraine into a sham investigation of Joe Biden and because of Trump’s resulting impeachment.

Next we see House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer alleging that, “The process involved a foreign country or foreign national wiring money to a fake company. Then the fake company would then turn around and wire the money to the Biden family members. They did this to hide the source of the revenue because they weren’t supposed to get money from many of these countries.”

“Republicans are trying to draw a line from these payments to the president,” the Fox News guy chimed in. Republicans have been investigating this for the better part of a year and they are still trying to draw a line, any line, to the president.

Now to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy: “This isn’t about Hunter Biden. This is about paying to play for the Biden family. Because the money goes to nine different members, through shell companies, much like the informant said.” So, again, not Joe? It’s not about Hunter Biden, McCarthy says, but he apparently doesn’t feel he can make any direct allegations about Joe Biden.

Back to the Fox News talking head: “The committee says a Kazakh oligarch transferred $142,000 to Hunter Biden for a sports car. Democrats contend there’s no wrongdoing by the president.” Look, I think we can agree that Hunter Biden’s business dealings have sucked. But once again Fox News used a denial of wrongdoing by the president to substitute for any direct allegation that the president engaged in wrongdoing. “The son did this not-great thing. The father denied wrongdoing on his own part.” How are those things linked, except by a desperate desire to mention the father while lacking any concrete allegation to make against him?

“Some Republicans talk impeachment. The GOP says this is just not pay to play but pay to dine, and drive.” Again, what’s the “play” part here? Right now, Republicans have a lot of evidence that Hunter Biden got paid—although even there, they seem to be trying to pin money on Hunter that really went to Devon Archer. They don’t have any evidence that anyone got anything in exchange for their money. They got to hear Joe Biden’s voice on a speaker phone not talking about business, or see him at his son’s birthday dinner. Republicans have claimed that Hunter got Joe to push for the ouster of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin because he was investigating Burisma—but the reality is that Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma at the time he was forced out, and Joe Biden was one of a chorus of world leaders involved in a concerted effort to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor. So the closest thing to a concrete claim of Joe Biden being on the “play” end of a “pay to play” scheme with his son turns out to be false on multiple grounds.

If Republicans had anything on Joe Biden, we’d know about it. They don’t. And, as Marcy Wheeler points out, all of this screaming about $20 million to Hunter and his business associates is happening when we know that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner parlayed his time as a White House adviser into $2 billion from Saudi Arabia. Jared had an official White House role. Hunter never has. Jared delivered for Saudi Arabia from his White House perch. Hunter has never been in a position to do that for his benefactors and there’s no evidence his father did it for him. Jared got $2 billion. Hunter got some unknown slice of $20 million.

Republicans were desperate to impeach President Biden before they ever took control of the House, but their desperation has increased as Trump’s legal jeopardy has become more apparent. They’re looking to impeach Biden in part so they can claim that Trump’s prosecution on dozens of federal criminal charges is some kind of flimsy distraction. In reality, of course, they are the ones trying to cook up a distraction.

McCarthy dodges Hannity’s questions on Biden ‘bribery scandal’

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Monday declined to label the GOP-led investigation into President Biden a “bribery scandal.”

Republican investigators for months have cited an FBI form that contains an unverified tip alleging that Biden, as vice president, was involved in a bribery scheme to benefit Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that his son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board of. The White House has denied any wrongdoing, and Republicans have been unable to corroborate the claims.

Republicans released a copy of the FBI form, known as an FD-1023 form, last month.

Asked by Fox News’s Sean Hannity if the allegations constitute a bribery scheme, McCarthy deflected.

“The bribery statute, Mr. Speaker, does not demand that somebody benefit themselves financially. In this case, the vice president, as the 1023 form pointed out, took a specific action and his family, you know, was involved in personal enrichment. That being Hunter. Based on his actions, is that bribery to you?” Hannity asked.

“Well Sean, everything that you just talked about, nobody in America knew until you had a change in Congress,” McCarthy responded, before running through various allegations Republicans have mounted.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) gives a press conference in Statuary Hall at the Capitol on Wednesday, July 19, 2023.

Pressed again by Hannity on whether the claims amount to a bribery scandal, McCarthy dodged.

“Do you believe we are looking at a bribery scandal with Joe Biden, who’s now president, actions he took as vice president in exchange for family enrichment?” Hannity asked.

McCarthy responded by running through other points Republicans have cited throughout their investigations, including testimony from Devon Archer, a former business associate of Hunter Biden who spoke to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee last week. Archer said he was “not aware” of any wrongdoing by then-Vice President Biden but did say Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone during some meetings with associates.


Top Stories from The Hill


Archer also testified that he was not made aware of bribe payments made to two different Bidens, which are the crux of the allegations in the FD-1023 form.

“I think there’s enough proof out there that this Biden family needs to come forward and show there wasn’t a pay-to-play,” McCarthy told Hannity. “America deserves more and Americans want to know. And the one thing I will tell you is, as this Congress, the People’s Congress, we will follow the facts and provide it to the American public, just like the Constitution tells us to do.”

The White House on Tuesday, for its part, came out against McCarthy's comments on Fox News, saying the Speaker was "lying" in order to appease the far-right lawmakers in his conference.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, was pressed on the bribery allegations last month and said he was not sure if they were accurate.

“I don’t know if the allegations are true or not,” Comer told reporters before Congress broke for August recess.

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

Asked if he would agree that the bribery claim is just an unverified allegation, Comer said, “I’ll not answer that right now, because we’ve got people coming in that hopefully can answer that question better than I can.”

The conversation about the bribery allegations comes as McCarthy floats a potential impeachment inquiry into President Biden. For months, Republicans have tried to link the president to his son's business dealings.

Last month, the Speaker said that if actions rise to the level of an impeachment inquiry, he would open such a probe.

McCarthy re-upped that position Monday.

“I raised it on this show not long ago, that because the actions of the Biden administration, withholding information, that that would rise to the level where we need impeachment inquiry, to get the strength of the Congress, to get the information that we need to give to the American public and follow through on our Constitutional authority,” McCarthy told Hannity. “That is exactly what we’re doing and that’s exactly what we’ll continue to do.”

White House: McCarthy ‘lying’ to cave to far-right in ‘impeachment stunt’

The White House on Tuesday accused Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) of lying in order to cave to the far-right members of the House Republican Conference and their push for an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, dug into McCarthy’s Fox News appearance Monday evening, saying he “continued lying about President Biden — making a series of plainly false, widely debunked attacks in order to promote the extreme far right’s baseless impeachment stunt that even some members of McCarthy’s own caucus are expressing concerns about pursuing.”

McCarthy on Fox News compared the Biden administration to the Nixon administration, arguing that they both used the federal government to obstruct congressional investigations. Sams called that comparison “bizarre” and “demonstrably false,” highlighting that the Biden administration's Treasury Department and the FBI provided the now GOP-led House Oversight Committee with records and access.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) addresses reporters following a press conference on Thursday, July 27, 2023 to discuss their initiatives passed before the House’s August district work period.

McCarthy on Fox News echoed what House Republicans have characterized as bribes involving then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden's business dealings.

Sams referred to the testimony released last week of Hunter Biden’s old business associate Devon Archer. In the testimony, Archer couldn’t corroborate allegations that Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky made two $5 million payments to Hunter Biden and his father. Archer also said he would disagree with the conclusion that then-Vice President Biden was bribed by Zlochevsky. 

Last month, Republicans released an FBI form that contains an unverified tip that Biden was involved in such a scheme. The tip in the FBI form rests on a years-long allegation that Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in funding to Ukraine unless then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was ousted. 


Top Stories from The Hill


The White House has denied any wrongdoing, and evidence has never been raised showing that Biden called for Shokin’s ouster to help his son.

“Speaker McCarthy has decided the truth should not get in the way of his and House Republicans’ relentless efforts to smear the President. They are prioritizing their own extreme, far-right political agenda at the expense of focusing on what really matters to the American people: working together to make their lives better,” Sams said Tuesday.

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

He called pursuing an impeachment inquiry a “shameless and baseless” stunt and said that McCarthy and the GOP should instead be working with the president to bring down inflation and grow the economy.

“That is, after all, what the American people sent their leaders to Washington to do,” Sams said.

The statement from Sams is the latest example of the White House recently becoming punchier going into 2024, increasingly jumping in and bashing the GOP. 

The White House has hammered Republicans and McCarthy over floating that the House would move toward an impeachment inquiry and has been quick with memos and statements to criticize the GOP attacks on the president.

Media pretends planned impeachment of Biden has some basis in facts

House Republicans have been planning to impeach President Joe Biden since before last November’s midterm elections. They had to come up with an excuse, which they knew would center on Hunter Biden. After months of relentless sham investigations, they are ready: It’s going to be about Hunter, like they planned, and since they haven’t found anything implicating the president in corruption, they will go ahead and lie. Lucky for them, the headlines will focus on Republican claims rather than the fact that they are lies.

Dueling articles at The New York Times and CNN show the multiple ways that the media can cover the Republican impeachment push without ever saying that it’s completely partisan BS. CNN offers up what appears to be a straightforward news report on House Republican plans. Really it’s dozens of paragraphs laundering false Republican claims.

Pelosi calls Trump indictments ‘exquisite,’ ‘beautiful’

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the federal indictments against former President Trump "exquisite” and “beautiful and intricate” in a new interview published Monday. 

“The indictments against the president are exquisite,” Pelosi said in an interview with New York magazine. “They’re beautiful and intricate, and they probably have a better chance of conviction than anything that I would come up with.”

Pelosi was referring to the two latest indictments against Trump unveiled by special counsel Jack Smith.

Last week, Trump was arraigned on four criminal charges related to his efforts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election. In June, he was indicted over his retention of classified documents after he left the White House.  

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.

Pelosi, as Speaker at the time, pushed for an inquiry into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, ultimately creating the Jan. 6 select committee, which many credit with providing the basis for the latest indictment against Trump on related charges.

In the interview, which was conducted Friday afternoon, Pelosi resisted taking credit for any of the work of the committee, apart from appointing its members. She praised the panel for providing a “beautiful balance” in its approach and a “seriousness of purpose.” 

Pelosi warned in the interview about what she saw as the dangers of another Trump term in the White House.

“Don’t even think of that,” she said when asked in the interview. “Don’t think of the world being on fire. It cannot happen, or we will not be the United States of America.”

“If he were to be president,” she added. “It would be a criminal enterprise in the White House.”

Pelosi last week called the latest charges against Trump “heartbreaking,” noting in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, “It’s heartbreaking for our country to have a president of the United States with this list of charges against him.”

New York is key to Democratic House, and Jeffries is in the redistricting driver’s seat

Editor's note: This file has been updated to correct Rep. George Santos's party affiliation.

Democrats are looking to pick up three, four or even five seats in New York to win back the House majority and make Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) the Speaker.  

Jeffries, the House minority leader, has longtime relationships with leaders in the New York state Senate and state Assembly and will have a major say over the state’s congressional map, New York Democratic sources say. The state is drawing a new map after a court determined a version drawn by a court-appointed special master for the 2022 midterm election was a temporary solution.

Current and former Democratic officeholders and party officials from New York who spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity say Jeffries will wield significant influence over the redistricting process — and they note that New York stands to benefit substantially if he becomes Speaker.  

If Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) keeps his job as Senate majority leader and Jeffries gains the Speaker’s gavel, it would put two New Yorker Democrats in charge of Congress.  

“If they don’t listen to Jeffries, they’re crazy,” one Democratic official said of the upcoming redistricting process. “They’re going to want to follow Hakeem’s lead. He’s very well-respected, he’s very well-liked.” 

Among the seats New York Democrats are eyeing is the one belonging to disgraced Rep. George Santos's (R-N.Y.). Santos represents the state’s 3rd Congressional District, to which they are likely to add more Democratic voters to ensure it flips.  

Retired Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) is eyeing a comeback to Congress and has indicated he would run as the Democratic candidate for his old seat in the 3rd District if Santos steps down or is expelled from Congress before his term is over, New York Democratic sources say.  

If Santos stays in his job through the end of the 118th Congress, which he says he intends to do, there would be a crowded Democratic primary race to run against him in the 2024 general election. In that case, Suozzi is expected to announce his decision about whether to run again for Congress in the fall.  

Former state Sen. Anna Kaplan, The Next 50 co-founder Zak Malamed and Nassau County legislator Josh Lafazan are in the mix of candidates who would run for the seat if there isn’t a special election to replace Santos.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (Wash.), chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), announced in April that House Democrats will target five other first-term New York Republicans in addition to Santos: Reps. Nick LaLota, Anthony D’Esposito, Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro and Brandon Williams.  

A gain of six congressional seats would be enough to flip the House to Democratic control. Republicans currently hold 222 seats while Democrats have 212. 

One of those targeted incumbents, Molinaro, told reporters last week that New York voters are getting “exhausted” by the battles over the House district boundaries. 

“However the lay of the land, you know, adjusts, I’ll roll with the punches. I do think, though, voters are getting a little bit exhausted by the multiple changes in districting and it’s just an utterly confusing situation for too many voters,” he said.  

Democrats are feeling increasingly optimistic about picking up three to five congressional seats in New York next year, given their party’s disappointing performance in the state last year, when Republicans picked up three seats and defeated DCCC Chairman Patrick Maloney.  

“Anything is possible. I wouldn’t take any seat off the table, personally. So we will be fighting to mobilize in all of the districts held by Republicans,” said Rep. Grace Meng, who represents New York’s 6th District in Queens.  

Former Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) says Democrats should be able to pick up four or five seats in the Empire State. He ranked the 3rd and 4th congressional districts on Long Island and two upstate as the best pick-up opportunities.  

He also predicted there will be “close coordination” among Democratic leaders in New York and Washington and “Jeffries will get what he wants.” 

Putting out a Democratic-friendly map is no sure thing. The New York Independent Redistricting Commission is in charge of writing the map, which must be approved with two-thirds majorities in both state chambers.  

Democrats got too greedy in the last election cycle and had their map thrown out, but party officials tell The Hill they believe the legislature can draw up a new map that will help Democrats pick up as many as five House seats while staying within the bounds of state law. 

Several Democratic officials who spoke to The Hill predicted that the bipartisan Independent Redistricting Commission will fail to reach an agreement and that drawing a new map will fall to the New York state legislature, where Democrats control supermajorities in both chambers.  

If that happens, they say Jeffries will wind up playing a significant role in influencing the new congressional district boundaries. 

The redistricting debate is heating up behind the scenes because New York officials are talking about moving up their 2024 primary to earlier on the calendar — April 2 instead of June 23.   

Jeffries told reporters at the U.S. Capitol last week that he just wants New York to have a “fair map” and urged the Independent Redistricting Commission to do its job.  

“All we want is fair maps to be drawn all across the country,” he told reporters. “We want a fair map in Alabama, a fair map in Louisiana, fair maps in North Carolina and Ohio, in Wisconsin, certainly fair maps in New York.”  

Jeffries kept his distance from the redistricting debate and insisted it will be up to the Independent Redistricting Commission to draw the new lines. 

“In the case of my home state, I think it’s important that the Independent Redistricting Commission, which is bipartisan in nature be given the opportunity to complete its work to try to find common ground and present a congressional map to the legislature that gives every community — urban New York, suburban New York, rural New York — an opportunity to have its voices heard in deciding in what the congressional delegation emerging from New York should look like,” he said. 

A New York appeals court ruled last month in Democrats’ favor that the state must redraw its congressional map before the 2024 presidential election. Republicans, however, have appealed that ruling to New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, putting the legal battle on hold until September.  

If the Court of Appeals rules for Republicans, then Democrats will be stuck with the same map they had in 2022.  

In the meantime, the Independent Redistricting Commission will be able to hold hearings and solicit input for a new map.  

But Democratic officials are skeptical they will come up with any proposal that can muster the necessary bipartisan support within the commission as well as approval by supermajorities in the state Senate and state House.  

“Either the Independent Redistricting Commission makes a deal or more likely gives it their best effort, fails and then the Democratic legislature steps in, which is what happened last time but they overreached and the rest is history,” said a Long Island-based Democratic party official and former officeholder.  

Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School and an expert on redistricting, said if the Independent Redistricting Commission deadlocks, Democrats in the state legislature should be able to come up with a map that meets court approval.  

“I think the legislature can draw a lawful map that complies with the criteria included in the Constitution,” he said. “It’s the legislature’s responsibility to comply with the new constitutional amendment’s rules and to produce a map that meets population equality, minority voting rights and other criteria. 

“If it does that, then they’re not going to have a problem. If they violate any of the criteria, they could end up in court all over again."  

Mychael Schnell contributed. 

--Updated at 7:41 a.m.

GOP statements on Trump indictment clash with initial Jan. 6 remarks

House Republicans flocked to former President Trump’s side following his indictment on charges stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, criticizing it as politically motivated and accusing the Department of Justice (DOJ) of malpractice.

But some of their responses were notably different from what they were saying privately and publicly around the time of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot — which marked the culmination of Trump’s attempts to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s win and keep himself in power.

The contrast between the reactions underscores the evolution of how GOP lawmakers talk about Jan. 6, which has been fueled in large part by Trump and the firm grip he continues to have on the Republican Party.

The epitome of that shift has been Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who said Trump bore responsibility for the riot shortly after the rampage before careening back to the former president’s corner in the weeks that followed. He cemented that position Tuesday, when he accused the DOJ using the indictment of trying to “distract” from investigations into President Biden and his family.

“[J]ust yesterday a new poll showed President Trump is without a doubt Biden’s leading political opponent. Everyone in America could see what was going to come next: DOJ’s attempt to distract from the news and attack the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, President Trump,” McCarthy wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

McCarthy also referenced a series of points Republicans have been citing in their investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings — which the White House has denied — but did not comment on the charges at hand, a strategy that has become the Speaker’s norm when discussing allegations against Trump.

Days after the Capitol riot, however, McCarthy did not mince words.

“The President bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” declared McCarthy, then the minority leader, on the House floor as lawmakers debated Trump’s impeachment. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.”

“These facts require immediate action by President Trump, accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term,” he added.

Within a month of his floor speech, as it started becoming clear that the GOP would remain squarely behind Trump, McCarthy began softening his criticism of the former president, telling reporters he did not think Trump “provoked” the Capitol riot. Later that week, he said Trump “had some responsibility when it came to the response,” before adding “I also think everybody across this country has some responsibility.”

And days after, McCarthy visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence for a meeting largely focused on the upcoming midterm elections. But the gathering — and a photo of the two men standing side-by-side that circulated after — was perceived by many as an effort to mend the relationship between the two top Republicans as the party was fracturing amid fallout from Jan. 6.

Since then, McCarthy has remained a close ally of Trump on Capitol Hill, defending him amid his various legal troubles and going as far as to endorse an effort to expunge his impeachments — including the one that followed the Jan. 6 riot.

The dynamics reflect the strong influence Trump continues to wield with Republicans on the national stage and within the House GOP conference. Trump threw his support behind McCarthy’s bid to be Speaker, which helped him secure the gavel, and the former president has far more congressional endorsements in his 2024 bid than any other GOP candidate.

Poll after poll has shown Trump remains the unequivocal front-runner in the 2024 GOP primary for president. A New York Times/Siena College survey released this week found Trump more than 30 points ahead of his closest opponent.

Even Republicans who have endorsed one of Trump’s 2024 opponents and were critical of the former president following the Capitol riot are slamming this week’s indictment as an example of the “weaponization” of the federal government.  

In remarks on the House floor on Jan. 13, 2021, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) — who has endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for president over Trump — said Trump “deserves universal condemnation for what was clearly impeachable conduct, pressuring the vice president to violate his oath to the Constitution to count the electors.”

“His open and public pressure — courageously rejected by the vice president — purposefully seeded the false belief among the president's supporters, including those assembled on Jan. 6, that there was a legal path for the president to stay in power. It was foreseeable and reckless to sow such a false belief that could lead to violence and rioting by loyal supporters whipped into a frenzy,” he continued, before going on to criticize the impeachment articles as “flawed.”

But this week, Roy criticized the very indictment that penalized Trump for the actions he condemned in 2021 as “flimsy.” 

“If you profess to care about preserving the ‘Republic,’ you must firmly reject a flimsy political indictment of a former President & political challenger of a current President immersed in a bribery & corruption scandal,” Roy wrote on X.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), another DeSantis supporter, told The Dispatch days after the riot, “I think Trump is at fault here,” adding “people did mislead the folks that came here, and Trump was among them.”

“He insinuated that states wanted their electors thrown out, which was not true. I kept a spreadsheet of every document every state produced, and in no case did a majority of any legislature even put their name on the letter,” he added.

This week, however, Massie said it was shameful for Trump to be charged.

“As Gov. Ron DeSantis has repeatedly pointed out, the AG and DOJ work for the President as a fixture of the executive branch. They are not, nor have they ever been, an independent branch of govt. Biden has now shamefully criminally charged & indicted a political opponent twice,” he wrote on X.

There are also some Republicans who texted Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows amid the chaos of Jan. 6 asking to have the president quell the violence who spoke out about Trump’s indictment this week.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), texted Meadows “POTUS needs to calm this shit down,” according to messages obtained by CNN, but on Tuesday he said Trump  was “a victim of Biden’s weaponized government.” Similarly, Rep. Will Timmons (R-S.C.), who told Meadows, “The president needs to stop this ASAP” on Jan. 6, called the charges against Trump a “politically motivated indictment.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), an ardent Trump supporter, texted Meadows amid the riots, “Please tell the President to calm people,” and, “This isn’t the way to solve anything.” 

This week, she railed against the indictment, re-upped her calls to defund special counsel Jack Smith’s office and expunge Trump’s impeachments, and vowed to vote for Trump in the 2024 election even if he is behind bars by the time Election Day rolls around.

“I will still vote for Trump even if he’s in jail,” Greene wrote on X. “This is a communist attack on America’s first amendment to vote for who THE PEOPLE want for President by an attempt to take Trump off the ballots through a politically weaponized DOJ. People know exactly what this is.”

Moderate House Republicans: We’re ready to fight back. House Democrats: Sure, Jan

This time they really mean it, swing district House Republicans tell Punchbowl News. They’re ready to start working on bipartisan issues and legislation and beat back the extremist Freedom Caucus so they don’t have to keep taking miserable, unpopular votes that will hurt them.

“There’s a lot of opportunities for bipartisanship,” said Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Garcia of California said his group can have real leverage. “The majority is only five seats, so really every faction has the same amount of power, it’s just a matter of strategy and tactics we choose to deploy as a result of that,” the Republican said. “At some point, we need to ease up some of our positions to get to solutions.”

Both are among the 18 Republicans representing districts where a majority voted for President Joe Biden in 2020.

Moderate House Democrats will believe it when they see it.

“For 11 years I have worked in a bipartisan way on bipartisan bills on important issues,” Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, told Punchbowl News. “Now, I find it very difficult because if I try to approach them on a bill that I know we’ve worked on together for years, we get to committee and someone wants to throw a [controversial] amendment on there,” Kuster added.

Campaign Action

RELATED STORY: ‘Centrist’ House GOPers find their line in the sand: Tax cuts for wealthy homeowners

The part she didn’t say is that the so-called moderate Republicans don’t fight to keep those amendments out of bills—and worse: They vote for them.

Consider the traditionally bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that passed in the House last month. It includes amendments to: ban books in military base school libraries; end the Pentagon’s policy of allowing service members leave to obtain abortions; ban gender-affirming health care for people serving in the military and their families; and ban race, gender, religion, political affiliations, or "any other ideological concepts" as the basis for personnel decisions. Those amendments all passed, with votes from most of these same GOP moderates, known as the Biden 18.

Moderates are also apparently shocked that the Freedom Caucus, the extremist Republican group currently running the show, is “selfish and short-sighted and only care about pushing their own agenda in the media instead of working with us to govern.” That quote is from Republican Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia. He’s mad that the extremists are “taking advantage” of the small Republican House majority to force their will on the rest of the conference.

And it only took him seven months to figure that out. By the time we get through August and Congress is back in session, he might have done the math to figure out 18 is bigger than five, so his team can do the same thing.

He and the rest of the Republican moderates will have a chance to put all that tough talk into action when they return in September. If they really want to help themselves and act like real representatives, they’ll figure out how to leverage that bipartisanship they long for and keep the government from shutting down.

It’s a joyous week in Wisconsin, where Janet Protasiewicz’s swearing-in means that the state Supreme Court now has its first liberal majority in 15 years. We’re talking about that monumental transition on this week’s episode of “The Downballot,” including a brand-new suit that voting rights advocates filed on Protasiewicz’s first full day on the job that asks the court to strike down the GOP’s legislative maps as illegal partisan gerrymanders.

Pelosi takes shot at ‘scared puppy’ Trump

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday said former President Trump had looked like a “scared puppy” a day earlier as he traveled to Washington, D.C., to appear in court in his arraignment on charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his efforts to remain in power.

“I wasn’t in the courtroom of course, but when I saw his coming out of his car and this or that, I saw a scared puppy,” Pelosi said in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “He looked very, very, very concerned about the fate," adding she did not see any "bravado or confidence or anything like that" from Trump.

“He knows the truth, the truth that he lost the election,” she continued. “And now he’s got to face the music.” 

Trump appeared at Washington’s federal courthouse Thursday afternoon where he pleaded not guilty to four counts alleging he led a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and attempted to block the certification of votes Jan. 6, 2021. The Department of Justice’s 45-page indictment alleges Trump led a campaign of “dishonesty, fraud and conceit” to obstruct a “bedrock function” of a democracy. 

Pelosi appointed the nine members of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, which investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and surrounding events and communications from those involved.

“Very proud of the Jan. 6 committee, which took us, laid the foundation, created a path or us to get to this place, to seek the truth," she said Friday.

When asked about Trump’s defense’s strategies to delay the trials until after the election if he is the Republican nominee, Pelosi said it’s because the former president is “afraid of the truth.” 

“Instead of having this back-and-forth publicly about delay and that, there are certain options that are available to a person who has been arraigned,” Pelosi said. “But that’s up to the judges to decide. But it’s not up to the arraigned person to say the justice system is not on the level.”

5 takeaways from Devon Archer’s interview with House Oversight

The House Oversight Committee on Thursday released the transcript of Devon Archer’s closed-door testimony, offering insight into the business dealings of his former business associate, Hunter Biden, and an eye into the GOP investigation of the Biden family.

Archer sat for a transcribed interview before the Oversight panel Monday, after which lawmakers on each side of the aisle offered conflicting interpretations of his testimony as observers awaited the release of the transcript.

The clashing narratives continued on Thursday, with the Republicans on the committee saying the testimony from Archer — who they view as a key witness in their probe — “confirmed several critical pieces of information in our investigation of the Bidens' influence peddling schemes,” while the top Democrat on the panel said the interview “failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.”

According to the transcript, Archer testified that Hunter Biden put his father, then the vice president, on speakerphone during some meetings with associates, and the interview covered the Biden “brand” at length, but Archer said he was not aware of President Biden committing any wrongdoing.

Abbe Lowell, counsel for Hunter Biden, in a statement this week said House Republicans “keep swinging and keep striking out” on their pursuit of President Biden through his son.

The release of the testimony was, nonetheless, a notable development in the House GOP’s probe, which for months has sought to connect President Biden to his son’s business dealings — especially as Republicans eye an impeachment inquiry targeting the White House.

Here are five key takeaways from Archer’s interview.

Archer says he’s not aware of wrongdoing by President Biden

Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, is pursued by reporters as he arrives on Capitol Hill to give closed-door testimony to the House Oversight Committee in the Republican-led investigations into President Joe Biden's son, in Washington, Monday, July 31, 2023.

Archer said he had “no knowledge” of whether Biden altered any U.S. foreign policy while he was vice president to benefit his son.

When flat-out asked if he is aware of any wrongdoing by the then-vice president, Archer said, “No, I’m not aware of any.” 


Top stories from The Hill


He also said he had no direct knowledge of the older Biden having any involvement with Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company Archer and Hunter Biden sat on the board of.

Archer said it’s “fair” to say that Hunter Biden was falsely giving the Burisma executives the impression that he had influence over U.S. policy — not that he was actually influencing any policy. He added that Hunter Biden never told him he could get his father to change policy and that he was not aware of him ever asking his father to do so.

Archer says he is not aware of bribes to Bidens

Devon Archer

Devon Archer, a former Hunter Biden business associate, leaves the O'Neil House Office Building at the Capitol after being interviewed by the House Oversight Committee on Monday, July 31, 2023.

Archer couldn’t corroborate allegations that Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky made two $5 million payments to Hunter Biden and his father.

Republicans last month released an FBI form that contains an unverified tip that Biden, as vice president, was involved in a bribery scheme to benefit Burisma. The White House has denied any wrongdoing.

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) on Monday pressed Archer about a statement attributed to Zlochevsky, in which he allegedly said, “It costs five to pay one Biden and five to another.”

“Were you ever made aware of Mr. Zlochevsky paying $5 million to two different Bidens?” Goldman asked.

“No, I’m not. I would assume he’s probably talking about me and Hunter, but I don’t know. But I don’t know anything about those five,” Archer replied.

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

Archer also said he would disagree with the conclusion that then-Vice President Biden was bribed by Zlochevsky.

The tip in the FBI form rests on a years-long allegation that Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold $1 billion in funding to Ukraine unless then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was ousted. Burisma had been the subject of a probe by the prosecutor’s office.

But President Biden wasn’t alone — numerous U.S. and international officials called for Shokin’s removal over his failure to prosecute corruption.  

Evidence has never been raised showing that Biden called for Shokin’s ouster to help his son, and Archer said he had no basis to believe that the then-vice president’s call for him to be removed was connected to Hunter Biden.

“I have no — I have no other — I have no proof or thought that that — that he fired him for that reason,” Archer testified.

Archer described frequent calls between the Bidens

President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, step off Air Force One, Saturday, Feb. 4, 2023, at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in Syracuse, N.Y. The Bidens are in Syracuse to visit with family members following the passing of Michael Hunter, the brother of the president's first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Archer recalled that Hunter would sometimes put his father, then-Vice President Biden, on speakerphone during meetings. 

Archer recalled “maybe 20 times” that Hunter Biden made it apparent to investors or other business contacts that he spoke to his dad and said he had occasionally placed his father on speakerphone.

Archer described the conversations he heard as “generally about the weather and, you know, what it's like in Norway or Paris or wherever he may be.” He recalled one phone conversation Hunter Biden put his father on the phone for, with Chinese businessman Jonathan Li.

“Beijing, how great Beijing is — or Chengdu, whichever city we were in. But, you know, same answers — nonspecifics relative to business and just, you know, an expression of hellos, I guess,” he testified.

Archer described numerous periods of time during which Biden and Hunter Biden would speak every day, which is in line with the close family dynamic the Bidens have, and said the frequency of interactions between them increased when Hunter Biden’s brother, Beau Biden, died in 2015.

But, Archer said he never witnessed them discussing the substance of Hunter Biden’s business during those calls. Rather, he said, they spoke about Beau’s illness and coping.

When he would overhear the vice president and Hunter Biden talking on the phone, the conversations were “not related to commercial business, politics, that kind,” Archer said.

Archer describes the Biden “brand”

President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden, followed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his wife Charlene Austin, walk out to the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, July 4, 2023, during a barbecue with active-duty military families to celebrate the Fourth of July. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Archer said the Biden family’s “brand” provided value to Burisma.

At one point in his testimony, he said he did not consider the “brand” to be “Joe directly,” but noted that the then-vice president “brought the most value to the brand.”

Archer later said he thought “Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn't have the brand attached to it.”

“But that’s different than Joe Biden’s action,” Goldman pressed him.

“Right,” Archer responded.

He said that he thinks having Hunter Biden on the board is why Burisma “was able to survive for as long as it did … just because of the brand.”

Asked by Goldman how that had an impact, Archer responded, “The capabilities to navigate D.C. that they were able to, you know, basically be in the news cycle.”

“And I think that preserved them from a, you know, from a longevity standpoint. That's like my honest — that's like really what I — that's like how I think holistically,” he added.

Archer talks about two Cafe Milano dinners

President Biden and Vice President Harris arrive for an event to establish the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument, in the Indian Treaty Room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus, Tuesday, July 25, 2023, in Washington.

President Biden and Vice President Harris arrive for an event to establish the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument, in the Indian Treaty Room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus, Tuesday, July 25, 2023, in Washington.

Archer spoke to the committee about two dinners that then-vice president Joe Biden attended at Cafe Milano in Washington: one in 2014 and one in 2015 — both during the Obama administration. 

After the 2014 dinner, he recalled a wire transfer of $142,300 from Kenes Rakishev, a Kazakh businessman, to the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account for “an expensive car” for Hunter Biden. Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC was the private equity firm controlled by Archer at the time.

The 2015 dinner centered on the World Food Program, and then-vice president Biden made an appearance at it. Archer described it as “just a regular dinner where there was a table of conversation,” and he denied that Hunter Biden or business associates talked about business at the dinner.