House Republicans Tell Mayorkas He’s Lying, Should Resign

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee told Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas he lied under oath. They said he didn’t prepare for the hearing by responding to requests for information by the committee and wouldn’t answer questions. They also told him he should resign or be impeached.

RELATED: Cruz to Mayorkas: ‘If You Had Integrity, You Would Resign’

Mayorkas appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, which held a hearing on the “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Prior to the hearing, its chairman, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Mayorkas to provide specific data about encounters with illegal foreign nationals, including details about asylum claims being processed. Mayorkas did not appear to provide the information.

After U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, repeatedly asked Mayorkas how many people have been released into the U.S. and deported under Mayorkas’ watch and he wouldn’t answer, Jordan asked the same questions.

“How many illegal aliens has the Biden administration released into the United States?” he asked. “How many illegal aliens has the Biden administration removed from the United States?”

Mayorkas said he would provide the committee with whatever data they requested, after Jordan requested the data prior to the hearing.

“We asked you to be prepared to answer the question,” Jordan said. “The fact that you won’t is bad, the fact that you don’t know is bad.”

Jordan reiterated that Americans want to know the answer. Mayorkas repeated the same reply, saying he will provide the data; “we have been cooperating with the committee.”

RELATED: Why Hasn’t the GOP Yet Walked the Walk on Its Mayorkas Impeachment Talk?

Jordan then showed the documents the committee received from DHS in response to questions it asked about its disinformation board created last year under Mayorkas.

The pages are blank.

U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming, thanked Mayorkas for “your performance. I have watched with fascination as you have danced and dodged and lied, yes lied. We know you’ve lied. You know you’ve lied; more importantly the American public knows that you lied throughout your testimony today.”

Mayorkas repeatedly claimed the border is secure, a claim U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, also affirmed on Wednesday.

Referring to DHS’ disinformation board, Hageman said, “And yet you believe that you and your fellow architects of the censorship industrial complex think that you should be able to determine what is and isn’t true and what is and isn’t untrue.

“You are the walking, talking epitome of the very tyrant that our forefathers recognized would gravitate towards government service. It is because of people like you that they drafted the First Amendment. …You do not have the right to limit our freedom of speech … Thank God we have the First Amendment so that we can stop you from doing what you’ve been doing.”

Former Democrat turned Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey listed what he said were Mayorkas’ failures and said he must resign, and then asked if he would resign.

Mayorkas replied, “No, I will not. I am incredibly proud of the work that is performed at the Department of Homeland Security.”

In response, Van Drew said, “Secretary Mayorkas if you will not resign that leaves us with no other option. You should be impeached.”

RELATED: Biden Admin Ripped Apart for Whining About Illegal Aliens Being Bussed to Blue Cities

U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, told Mayorkas, “I’ve been in Congress seven years. I think you’re the most dishonest witness that has ever appeared before the Judiciary Committee. I think I speak for a lot of my colleagues. This is such a frustrating exercise … because our constituents want answers. They’re tired of open borders, they’re tired of people dying from fentanyl overdoses, and it’s your fault.”

The hearing was held as 525 known or suspected terrorists have been apprehended attempting to illegally enter the U.S. so far this fiscal year, including one that was released into the U.S. by DHS last year.

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post House Republicans Tell Mayorkas He’s Lying, Should Resign appeared first on The Political Insider.

MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Was Expelled From the Conservative House Freedom Caucus

Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has aligned herself with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and launched verbal bombs at fellow conservatives on the chamber floor, has reportedly been expelled from the House Freedom Caucus.

The Freedom Caucus is the most conservative bloc within the House Republican Conference.

The news came from a statement by Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) to reporters.

“I mean, the vote was taken to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from the House Freedom Caucus for some of the things she’s done,” Harris said.

Axios points out that Greene did not receive “formal notification of her removal” but confirmed that a vote had been held prior to the July 4th break and would have required “a sizable number of her colleagues supporting her ouster.”

She becomes the first member of the Caucus in their history to be voted out.

RELATED: MAGA Fight Consumes House Floor as Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes After Lauren Boebert, Calls Her a ‘Little B****’

What Led to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Ouster From the House Freedom Caucus?

Congressman Harris noted possible contributing factors to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s ouster from the House Freedom Caucus – including her unabashed support for McCarthy, the duo’s support for the debt limit deal, and an altercation with fellow member, Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO).

“I think all of that mattered,” he said.

Greene hitched her cart to McCarthy after the GOP regained control of the House in a manner that has seen the two team up to scold MAGA reps and celebrate a debt ceiling agreement benefitting President Biden.

The Boebert incident to which Harris alludes was reported by The Political Insider late last month.

Greene and Boebert got into a heated exchange on the House floor, with reports suggesting the Georgia Congresswoman called her colleague a “little bitch.”

The two appeared to be bickering over their dueling efforts to impeach President Biden.

“I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was publicly saying things about another member in terms that no one should,” Harris explained.

RELATED: McCarthy, Senate Republicans Shrinking Away From Biden Impeachment Efforts, House Sidelines Vote

Greene Responds After Vote to Have Her Oustered

Marjorie Taylor Greene did not specifically address the vote to expel her from the House Freedom Caucus but did post to social media a video that appeared to mock the ongoing drama.

“Avoiding distractions is the key to staying focused,” she wrote.

The video showed her practicing on a putting green. No word on whether or not McCarthy was caddying for her.

Greene also released a statement that seemed to strongly reference the vote to remove her without mentioning it directly.

“In Congress, I serve Northwest Georgia first, and serve no group in Washington,” she said, seemingly unaware that she has been doing McCarthy and the centrist GOP’s bidding since January.

“My America First credentials, guided by my Christian faith, are forged in steel, seared into my character, and will never change,” added Greene.

No doubt she has a strong MAGA resume and does find a way to infuriate the left. But teaming up with McCarthy is not ‘America First.’ It’s closer to Ukraine First or Biden First than anything else.

Greene insists her sole focus is on moving the country forward “when President Trump wins the White House in 2024.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Was Expelled From the Conservative House Freedom Caucus appeared first on The Political Insider.

Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to Texas and Louisiana Friday in a lawsuit over a Biden administration policy that’s helped effectively end most deportations of foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally.

Rather than rule on the merits of the case, in United States v. Texas, the court ruled 8-1 that the states didn’t have standing, or a legal right, to challenge the policy.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the sole dissent, arguing the justices ignored “a major precedent.”

He wrote:

“The Court holds Texas lacks standing to challenge a federal policy that inflicts substantial harm on the State and its residents by releasing illegal aliens with criminal convictions for serious crimes.

In order to reach this conclusion, the Court brushes aside a major precedent that directly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our established test for standing, disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare – withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc. I would not blaze this unfortunate trail. I would simply apply settled law, which leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Texas has standing.”

Last June, a federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, ruled in favor of Texas and Louisiana, arguing they would incur costs due to the federal government’s failure to comply with federal immigration law and deportation policies. The judge ruled the states had standing to sue because of these costs. He also vacated the deportation policy, arguing it was unlawful.

The Biden administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which again handed a victory to the states by declining to stay the lower court’s ruling. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert. Last fall, the court heard oral arguments and on Friday ruled the states lacked Article III standing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a different opinion saying the states didn’t have standing for a different reason than the one Kavanaugh gave. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote her own concurring opinion and was joined by Gorsuch.

Related: Feds Catch More Than 460 Known, Suspected Terrorists In Nine Months, Most At Northern Border

At issue is a final memorandum, “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law,” issued by Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, drastically altering deportation policies, including limiting issuing detainer requests for dangerous criminal aliens.

In Mayorkas’ final September 2021 memorandum, he also challenged federal law established by Congress that illegal entry is a crime in itself and a deportable offense. The policy states: “The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”

Many news organizations reported the Supreme Court ruling would allow the administration to prioritize deporting violent criminals. But under the current administration, deportations immediately dropped by two-thirds in the first fiscal year of the administration, according to CBP data. In fiscal 2021, deportations also dropped to the lowest level since fiscal 1996 despite record-high illegal entries.

Mayorkas’ policy also followed President Joe Biden’s directive, who after taking office ordered a “pause” on deportations.

Related: Illegal Border Crossers So Far This Year Outnumber The Population Of 8 States

Last July, 19 attorneys general filed an amicus brief expressing support for Texas’ and Louisiana’s lawsuit, arguing Mayorkas violated federal law and DHS’s actions negatively impacted their states and jeopardized the safety and welfare of Americans.

The AGs argued, and still maintain, “The Amici States and their citizens continue to suffer significant costs from illegal immigration – including billions of dollars in new expenses relating to law enforcement, education, and healthcare programs – as a direct result of Defendants’ failures to enforce immigration law. Those harms are exacerbated by DHS’ increasingly brazen disrespect for the requirements of our nation’s immigration laws and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“The border is in crisis,” they argued. “This DHS Administration is lawless. And the States continue to suffer escalating irreparable harm as the border crisis continually intensifies to successive, ever-more unprecedented levels of illegal crossings.”

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit appeared first on The Political Insider.

MAGA Fight Consumes House Floor as Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes After Lauren Boebert, Calls Her a ‘Little B****’

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert appeared to get into a heated exchange on the House floor, with reports suggesting Greene called Boebert a “little bitch.”

The altercation between the two Trump supporters took place as the House debated a motion to censure Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) for pushing false claims that former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia.

Greene, an acolyte of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and Boebert have reportedly been feuding for months.

A clip surfaced of the two firebrand lawmakers engaging in a conversation that at times looked tense.

The animated exchange was posted to social media.

RELATED: Steve Bannon Wants Marjorie Taylor Greene Primaried After Voting in Favor of Biden-McCarthy Debt Ceiling Deal

Marjorie Taylor Greene Allegedly Calls Lauren Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’

The Daily Beast found multiple witnesses to the conversation between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, confirming that it wasn’t simply a friendly chat.

The sources claim Greene “cursed out” Boebert over who should take the lead on impeaching President Joe Biden. Boebert (R-CO) leveraged a procedural tool earlier this week to force a vote on her own impeachment resolution, undercutting Greene’s repeated efforts.

McCarthy dutifully defended Greene by urging Republicans to oppose Boebert’s resolution, saying, “I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.”

With that as a backdrop, Boebert was clearly not pleased with Greene making statements to the press about her impeachment effort, and Greene was clearly not pleased with Boebert trying to upstage her.

Boebert, according to the report, instigated the confrontation, initially addressing “statements you made about me publicly.”

Three sources claim Greene (R-GA) called Boebert a “bitch” while one of them contended the full phrase was “little bitch.”

“I’ve donated to you, I’ve defended you. But you’ve been nothing but a little bitch to me,” Greene allegedly told Boebert, according to the Daily Beast’s source. “And you copied my articles of impeachment after I asked you to cosponsor them.”

Neither Greene nor Boebert’s impeachment resolutions have any chance of moving forward. It took the House multiple votes just to censure Schiff and his transgressions were as obvious as anybody’s.

RELATED: Marjorie Taylor Greene Sees Herself as Trump’s VP Pick in 2024

A Bathroom Fight to Boot

This isn’t the first time these two women have reportedly engaged in a bitter exchange.

Greene got into a shouting match with Boebert in a bathroom back in January.

Boebert at the time said Greene approached her in a congressional ladies’ bathroom and started “being kind of nasty” about the vote for Speaker.

“No one else had been nasty about it. Everyone had been very professional,” she said. “And so when she started going after me, I looked at her and said, ‘Don’t be ugly.’”

Greene clearly has designs on attaining greater power in her congressional role, hitching her cart to McCarthy in a manner that has seen the two team up to scold MAGA reps and celebrate a debt ceiling agreement benefitting President Biden together.

Steve Bannon, the former campaign manager for Donald Trump, called out Greene for voting in favor of the debt ceiling agreement and even called on Republicans to primary her.

Sources have said Greene is seeking to place herself at the forefront of Trump’s selection for Vice President in 2024.

She has consistently gone along with Trump and McCarthy in an obvious attempt to prove she’s not quite as fringe as lawmakers like Boebert, showing she is willing to go along with the more lucrative political position of the day.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post MAGA Fight Consumes House Floor as Marjorie Taylor Greene Goes After Lauren Boebert, Calls Her a ‘Little B****’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Poll: Voters Nearly Split on Wanting Congress to Impeach President Biden

According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, voters remain statistically tied in their support for or opposition to Congress impeaching President Joe Biden.

The poll of nearly 1,000 likely voters found that 42% surveyed said they favored Congress holding impeachment proceeding against Biden; 45% said the opposite. The poll has a 3% +/- margin of error.

RELATED: Joe Biden ‘Will Be Impeached’ Over Report Allegedly Linking Him to ‘Criminal Scheme,’ Says MTG

A strong majority of Republicans, 70%, said Congress should hold impeachment hearings; 71% of Democrats said Congress shouldn’t. Among independents, 39% said Congress should begin impeachment proceedings; 40% said they shouldn’t.

The poll asked three key questions. It first asked, “How likely is it that, since becoming president, Joe Biden has committed high crimes and misdemeanors that would justify Congress impeaching him?” It next asked, “Should Congress begin impeachment proceedings against President Biden?” Finally, it asked, “Regardless of whether or not you think President Biden should be impeached, how likely is it that Congress actually will pursue impeachment proceedings against President Biden?”

The majority of all polled, 53%, said it was “at least somewhat likely” that since taking office the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors that would justify Congress impeaching him.” Among them, 38% said it was “very likely” that he had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors;” 28% said it was “not at all likely.”

Over one-third of Democrats and 48% of independents said it was “at least somewhat likely.”

More men than women, 58% to 48%, said it was likely that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors; men were also more likely to support Congress holding impeachment proceedings.

RELATED: GOP Leader McCarthy Again Gets Squishy When Asked About Impeaching Biden

Despite this, 66% said it was “at least not very likely;” 29% said it was “not at all likely” that Congress would do anything.

The findings were published as a recent report found that “the FBI had no verifiable evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election when it launched a federal investigation.”

The findings were also published after attorneys for an IRS whistleblower informed members of Congress “that their client, who claims to have information suggesting the Biden administration could be mishandling the investigation into President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, has been removed from the probe into the president’s son,” ABC News reported.

According to a recent Reuters-Ipsos survey conducted May 9-15, if a rematch were held today, Biden would receive 38% of the vote, Trump would receive 36%. According to a recent Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, Trump would defeat Biden by seven percentage points.

RELATED: Biden Administration’s New Mortgage Policy: Unjust and Dangerous

The Rasmussen Reports poll results were released on the same day U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, announced she planned to file articles of impeachment against Biden. Her main reason for doing so, she said, was because the president has “deliberately compromised our national security by refusing to enforce immigration laws and secure our border” by allowing “approximately six million illegals from over 170 countries to invade our country.”

White House spokesman Ian Sams said Greene’s announcement was a “shameless sideshow political stunt.”

The Rasmussen poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, which surveyed 996 likely registered voters nationwide by phone and online on May 11 and 14-15.

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post Poll: Voters Nearly Split on Wanting Congress to Impeach President Biden appeared first on The Political Insider.

What Will Joe Biden Do If Hunter Is Indicted?

By Charles Lipson for RealClearWire

What will President Biden do if his son is indicted by the federal prosecutor in Delaware? That’s one of three questions looming over U.S. Attorney David Weiss’ fateful choice.

The second is whether the indictment will go after a larger, coordinated family scheme of influence peddling or confine itself to smaller, tightly-confined issues like lying to get a gun permit and not registering as a foreign lobbyist.

The third is whether Attorney General Merrick Garland will approve Weiss’ proposed charges. Significant political calculations follow from those decisions.

It’s easy enough to answer what Garland will do. He has little choice but to approve any charges Weiss proposes after the government’s multi-year investigation. Anything else would look shady, a far cry from the neutral, apolitical justice Garland’s department is charged with dispensing. Burying the charges, after Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel, would embroil his department in its nastiest controversy since John Mitchell befouled it under President Nixon.

Assuming the federal attorney proposes felony charges and Garland approves them, Joe Biden faces the toughest choice of his political life.

The president’s dilemma is why it’s so interesting to follow recent speculation by Miranda Devine, a reporter and columnist for the New York Post. She’s the most informed journalist on the Hunter Biden story. Her paper broke the news about the emails on Hunter’s laptop, three weeks before the 2020 election, and Devine has done the best follow-up reporting.

To bury that story before the election took the combined, Herculean efforts of the legacy media, social media giants, and former CIA officials. Their success helped elect Biden. But the “little story that could” just keeps chugging along, mostly because the corruption is so extensive, so rich for investigation. Criminal charges now seem likely, not that the mainstream media has shown much interest.

Now, Devine is speculating that Biden is setting the stage to pardon Hunter, framing it as the actions of a loving father who backs his troubled child. “My son has done nothing wrong,” Biden told MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle in a rare one-on-one interview. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.”

Whether such sentiments presage a pardon, as Devine thinks, is still a guess. We can say something more concrete, though, as Biden weighs such a move. Four consequences stand out:

  • A presidential pardon would set off a political firestorm.
  • The White House will try its best to prevent any public revelation of the family’s business dealings. That means the president and his advisors want to prevent a trial, get Hunter to take a plea, and convince the judge to seal the evidence. Another option is to go trial, knowing it won’t be held until after the election.
  • If Biden pardons his son this year, he’s signaling he won’t run for reelection. He wouldn’t put that albatross around his own neck if he intended to face the voters.
  • If Biden does run and pardons his son after November 2024, the political impact depends on who wins the White House and Capitol Hill. The calculations are more complicated than one might expect.

Let’s consider each in turn.

First, a pardon would set off the biggest political firestorm since Watergate. It would look worse than self-dealing, bad as that is. It would look like the president is covering up his family’s corruption, not only to get Hunter off the hook but to prevent the disclosure of damning evidence in court.

That evidence is likely to touch many more Biden family members than Hunter, and perhaps the president himself. The more Biden family members who are implicated, the more the whole operation looks like a concerted operation to monetize Joe’s political position. It also might threaten to shred Joe’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about any family business interests or influence peddling. The wider the sleaze, the harder it is to sell that story.

The chairman of the House committee investigating these issues has said Hunter’s corruption was merely one part of the family business. And that business was selling influence. Rep. James Comer has publicly said that his House Oversight Committee has already collected evidence that nine Biden family members are involved in sketchy business deals, including substantial payments from foreign firms.

Some of those firms are closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party. Comer added that his committee is investigating the possible involvement of at least three more family members, as well as Joe Biden’s own role. His conclusion: “The entire Biden family” is entrapped in the financial enrichment scheme. So far, however, Comer hasn’t named names or provided the evidence. He says he will provide much more at a major press conference Wednesday.

Comer’s principle suggestion is that the Biden family’s influence-peddling scheme is much broader, and their criminal actions more serious, than isolated schemes perpetrated by the president’s conniving second son. He adds that his evidence points to Joe Biden’s direct involvement, including possible payments for official actions.

That is what he told Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, although he hasn’t yet provided the evidence for that incendiary allegation. Comer is also attacking the FBI for desultory investigation – which ignored much of the malfeasance – and calling out the mainstream media for its concerted silence.

Related: Hunter Biden’s Stripper Baby Mama Drama Isn’t Making Joe Biden’s Life Any Easier

The Internal Revenue Service might be implicated, too, since a lot of payments – and a lot of Hunter’s income – went through what Comer calls the family’s “web of LLCs.” A senior supervisory agent at the IRS is seeking whistleblower protection to tell Congress about “preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be followed” in investigating Hunter’s taxes.

If political pressure really was applied to the IRS over Hunter’s taxes, or if senior agents acted improperly to curry favor, those would obviously be very serious matters, legally and politically. Comer and the House Republicans in the committee’s majority want that testimony under oath and are seeking responses from the IRS and DOJ.

Anticipating an indictment soon, Comer has urged the Justice Department to hold off until his committee presents more evidence to the public this week. “When you have the opportunity to see the evidence that the House Oversight Committee will produce with respect to the web of [Biden family] LLCs, with respect to the number of adversarial countries that this family influence peddled in, and this is not just about the president’s son. This is about the entire Biden family, including the President of the United States.”

However wide-ranging the indictment is, Hunter will do everything he can to strike a plea deal and seal all the evidence to prevent its disclosure at trial. That would clearly be the preference inside the White House. But it’s not in the public interest.

If the DOJ tries to seal the evidence, it would be joining in a cover-up. The Department must require that Hunter attest to all incriminating evidence and that it all be made public as part of any plea deal. The judge himself should demand it. That requirement might kill Hunter’s willingness to take the deal. Rather than reveal the evidence now, the White House would prefer kick it down the road, to a trial date after the November 2024 election.

Whether a trial happens or not, a pardon for Hunter would be politically fatal for the president, and he and his advisers must know it. That leads to a clear conclusion. If Joe pardons Hunter this year, running for reelection becomes unrealistic. Such a self-inflicted wound would be a far more powerful signal of his intentions than a speech declaring his candidacy. There’s no way Joe would eviscerate his political prospects like that if he intended to face the voters again.

Of course, Biden could delay any pardon until after November 2024. That would still invite a high-profile congressional investigation and perhaps impeachment, but the political maneuvering would depend on the election outcome. If Biden loses and the current Republican House moves quickly to impeach, Senate Democrats would be in a bind. It takes overwhelming evidence to convince senators to humiliate a president from their own party. The only thing that would do it is overwhelming fear of their constituents at the ballot box.

Related: Things Get Awkward When Karine Jean-Pierre Gets Asked About Hunter Biden’s Baby With a Stripper

The situation is entirely different if Biden wins and the Republicans take both the House and Senate. The problem, in three words, is President Kamala Harris. Although the new House would have no trouble collecting votes for impeachment, they might hesitate before passing the ultimate decision to their Republican colleagues in the Senate. Do they really want to elevate Harris into the Oval Office?

None of these prospects is a happy one. Each one adds to the misery of a country beset by lawlessness on the streets, chaos at the southern border, stagnant real income, and a looming debt crisis. We need to know whether the Biden family – not just Hunter – was engaged in a series of corrupt schemes to peddle the influence of a high-ranking government official.

We need to know all the family members involved and their business partners. We need to know what they were paid for doing and who paid them. What we don’t need is a weak, narrowly-drawn indictment, an official cover-up of the evidence, and, worst of all, a self-serving presidential pardon.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post What Will Joe Biden Do If Hunter Is Indicted? appeared first on The Political Insider.

Ted Cruz Takes a Sledgehammer to Democrats Calling For Clarence Thomas to Resign: They ‘Hate’ Him Because He’s Black

Senator Ed Markey reiterated calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign in a social media posting on Tuesday.

The short tweet reads, “Clarence Thomas must resign.”

Markey (D-MA) is likely the highest-ranking Democrat to date calling for Thomas’ resignation. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has been very vocal in the past about demanding his ouster, along with a handful of other House members.

The controversy stems from a recent report by the left-leaning outlet Pro Publica alleging billionaire Harlan Crow, a GOP donor, provided trips and gifts to Thomas that were not disclosed.

Following the allegations of impropriety, Thomas explained accurately that the gifts in question were from close personal friends and, as they “did not have business before the Court” it “was not reportable.”

He said he would amend his financial disclosure forms to comply with changes made to disclosure rules that were announced last month.

Markey’s calls for his resignation began last week when he declared the hit job against Thomas was evidence that the Supreme Court Justice’s “reputation is unsalvageable.”

RELATED: Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics

Ted Cruz Reveals Why Democrats REALLY Want Clarence Thomas to Resign

Senator Ted Cruz, speaking during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court Ethics Reform on Tuesday, absolutely tore apart the Democrats’ argument suggesting Clarence Thomas should resign.

“Senate Democrats and their lap dogs in the media are engaged in a two-fold political campaign,” he explained.

“Number one – to delegitimize the Supreme Court of the United States because they are angry that there are a majority of constitutionalists on the court,” added Cruz. “But number two, very directly, this is a political campaign designed to smear Justice Clarence Thomas.”

And the reason behind it is quite simple.

“The Left despises Clarence Thomas, and they do not despise him because he’s a conservative,” Cruz alleges. “The Left despises Clarence Thomas because he is a conservative African American.”

Cruz then made a reference to Thomas’s own remarks at his confirmation hearing over 30 years ago, an effort the Justice described at the time as an attempted “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks” by Democrats.

Cruz ran off a list of other justices who have taken similar trips and accepted gifts in the past, noting there was no outrage or demands for them to resign. There wasn’t even mention of it.

“I would point out Justice Kagan has done the same thing. Justice Sotomayor has done the same thing,” he said. “And yet, none of my Democrat colleagues care, because this is a political attack directed at a justice they hate.”

RELATED: Democrats To Explore Impeachment Options For Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

They Hate Him Because He’s Black

None of this is new, of course. The Political Insider reported just over a year ago that Democrats were holding a hearing to explore the possibility of impeachment for Supreme Court justices.

The controversy at that time was over Thomas’s wife Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, who exchanged text messages with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows about alleged election fraud after the 2020 election.

If it’s not one manufactured scandal, it’s another. And there will certainly be more down the line.

Why? Because Democrats really hate that Clarence Thomas is the most successful, longest-tenured black Supreme Court justice – and he’s a Constitutional conservative. Demographic elements are supposed to be their platform. That is why Ketanji Brown Jackson was appointed to the Court based almost exclusively on her skin color and gender.

During an interview on Fox News over the weekend, Cruz accused Democrats of having a “special degree of hate” for Thomas because he is a black man.

“Democrats hate Justice Thomas and they save a special degree of hate for him because he is a Black man,” he said. “And their view is that an African American is not allowed to be a conservative [and] is not allowed to disagree with left-wing orthodoxy.”

Clarence Thomas is the longest-serving justice, the second black justice, and the most conservative member currently serving on the Supreme Court.

That’s the true reason he is being targeted.

He is a historic figure who should be celebrated as such.

Markey, meanwhile, is essentially a Squad member in pants and has pushed for such groundbreaking and ‘historic’ legislation as those supporting censorship under the guise of … “algorithmic justice.”

We live in a nation now where great men like Clarence Thomas are ridiculed, despised, and smeared, while people who do little more than come up with phrases designed to dupe the uneducated are celebrated.

“Democrats can have disagreements based on law, but this attempt to delegitimize the court this attempt to personally smear Clarence Thomas is dishonest,” Cruz fired back.

“And everyone in the media echoing it is participating in a shameful reprise of 1991’s high-tech lynching.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Ted Cruz Takes a Sledgehammer to Democrats Calling For Clarence Thomas to Resign: They ‘Hate’ Him Because He’s Black appeared first on The Political Insider.