Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida used his time at Thursday’s House Oversight Committee to slam Republicans for resurrecting their failed impeachment investigation of former President Joe Biden as a distraction from years of unfulfilled promises.
"So I want to do the ‘don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.’” Moskowitz said. “They said they would lower food costs. They said they would take us into the Golden Age. They said they would end the war in Ukraine and Gaza. They said they wouldn't touch Medicaid. They said they would lower interest rates. They said they would lower our debt. They said they would release the Epstein files. … The biggest one, my favorite, they said they would make [the] government more efficient,” he added. "Name one department, one government service—anything that the government does that they made more efficient? Certainly not the Newark airport. Definitely not FEMA."
Moskowitz’s skillful breakdown of the GOP’s unkept promises highlights the conservative movement’s ongoing failures. Trump’s ill-conceived tariffs have only driven up costs, the exact opposite of his campaign promises to lower grocery prices. Trump’s need to ingratiate himself with Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin has not only embarrassed the U.S. but also jeopardized its relationship with foreign allies, while failing to end a single conflict.
The Republican-led assault on government agencies has left our aviation safety in chaos with delays caused by understaffing and technical issues. At the same time, it has greatly diminished the federal government’s ability to predict and respond to extreme weather events that affect millions of people.
As for the promises of releasing billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s case files? It turned out to be just a publicity stunt. In fact, as of the writing of this story, former co-president Elon Musk has thoughts about the Epstein case files and Trump’s lack of transparency on the matter.
Republicans’ hope to use their committee as a distraction from their party’s catastrophic failures to govern has been dashed, as Democratic lawmakers make it clear that they will no longer play their games.
President Donald Trump on Monday once again came to the aid of murderous Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, cutting off over $1 billion in military aid the United States was set to provide Ukraine to help the country beat back Russia's violent invasion.
Trump's move unequivocally benefits Putin, whose incursion into Ukraine threatens all of Europe.
Ukrainian servicemen collect damaged ammunition on the road at the front line near Chasiv Yar town, in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, on Jan. 10, 2025.
“I feel betrayed, but this feeling is not really deep for some reason. I was expecting something like that from Trump’s side,” a Ukrainian soldier fighting in Russia’s Kursk region told the Associated Press of Trump’s aid pause.
His rage at Ukraine took an ugly turn on Friday, when Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. Trump paused the aid because he wants Zelenskyy to apologize for the Oval Office spat, even though it was Trump and Vice President JD Vance who were the instigators.
But abandoning Ukraine and helping Russia could be politically disastrous for Trump, according to a new poll conducted by Civiqs for Daily Kos.
While Trump has blamed Ukraine for starting the war, the poll found an overwhelming 76% of registered voters say Russia is responsible for starting the conflict. Even a majority of Republicans (62%) say Russia is responsible for starting the war.
What's more, a plurality of voters (49%) say that it’s "very important" for the security of the U.S. that Ukraine wins the war, with another 13% saying it's “better” for Ukraine to win. Only 1% of voters think it's important for U.S. security that Russia wins.
Russia, meanwhile, is cheering Trump’s moves, a sign they feel his decisions are helping them in the conflict. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov even said that Trump’s decisions “largely coincides with our vision.”
Democrats are slamming Trump for ignoring Congress and siding with Putin over an American ally.
"This is *illegal,*" Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania wrote in a post on X of Trump's pause on aid to Ukraine. "Congress appropriated these funds to support our allies in Ukraine who are fighting for their lives[.] Every dollar of aid must be released immediately. Trump’s disrespect for the rule of law is disgraceful and un-American."
Others sought to remind Americans that it's not the first time Trump has paused aid to Ukraine.
In fact, Trump paused military assistance to Ukraine in his first term, after the country refused to follow his orders to launch a politically motivated investigation into then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. That pause is what led to Trump’s first impeachment.
Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California
"Some of us remember the last time Trump paused aid to Ukraine ..." Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, who ran the first impeachment effort against Trump, wrote in a post on X.
However, Republicans are cheering Trump for cutting off aid.
"By cutting military aid to Ukraine, President Trump is driving a knife right through the foreign policy UniParty. We should all be thankful for that," Rep. Brandon Gill, Republican of Texas, wrote in a post on X.
The Republican response is angering Democrats, who are not optimistic that GOP leaders will push Trump to do the right thing and assist Ukraine in its existential battle.
"Let's remember—congressional Republicans held up Ukraine aid for over six months, allowed for Russia to go on the offensive. So even before Donald Trump was president, congressional Republicans were not doing the things necessary to support the most vital fight in defense of democracy in the world today," Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said in an appearance on MSNBC. "So I'm just gonna be honest with you—I don't have a lot of faith that Republicans are gonna do anything except just offer some mild criticism of Vladimir Putin."
Murphy added, “We’re going to need for them at some point to support additional defensive aid for Ukraine—more weapons, more economic aid—and they weren’t willing to do that before Donald Trump was president, I’m not sure why they’d be willing to do it now, when Donald Trump is literally taking Russia’s side in this conflict.”
Another week of Donald Trump's presidency is in the rearview. And like the two weeks before it, it was filled with lawless actions, lies, and ridiculous behavior that Republicans lined up to defend.
Trump threw Ukraine under the bus and appears likely to let murderous Russian dictator Vladimir Putin seize control of the sovereign nation. He also fired more independent watchdogs, let more corrupt politicians off the hook, slashed grants to medical research, and he even said he might ignore court rulings blocking his unlawful actions.
And like the pathetic lapdogs they are, Republicans defended every move.
After multiple federal judges of all ideological stripes blocked some of Trump’s executive actions, Republicans pushed the country further into a constitutional crisis by backing Trump when he suggested he’ll ignore those court orders and do whatever he wants.
“It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that.’ So maybe we have to look at the judges. ‘Cause I think that’s a very serious violation,” Trump said on Tuesday.
Trump likely got this idea from his own vice president, who wrote in an X post on Feb. 9 that judges shouldn’t be allowed to stop the president’s executive power.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he wrote.
And other Republicans agreed with the false statement that the courts are not allowed to check the president’s power—when that’s exactly what the Constitution dictates.
“Of course the branches have to respect our constitutional order but there’s a lot of game yet to be played. This will be appealed, we’ve got to go through the whole process, and we’ll get the final analysis. In the interim, I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with Vice President JD Vance, my friend, because he’s right,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a news conference on Tuesday.
Later that day, he said that the courts should back off of Trump altogether.
“I think that the courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out. What we’re doing is good and right for the American people,” Johnson told reporters, specifically referring to the cuts co-President Elon Musk is trying to make with his fake agency, the Department of Government Efficiency.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah
"I don't believe judges, courts have the authority or power to stick their nose into the constitutional authority of the president,” Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said.
“These judges need to back off and get out of the way of what the executive branch is doing to administer the government,” Roy said on Fox News.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah also expressed agreement that courts don’t have the power to challenge Trump’s executive orders.
“These judges are waging an unprecedented assault on legitimate presidential authority, all the way down to dictating what webpages the government has. This is absurd,” he wrote on X.
Rep. Darrel Issa, Republican of California, claimed that “nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States.”
But, of course, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case that the judiciary has the power to declare laws or actions unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Sen. Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota seemed to acknowledge that ignoring court orders is wrong, but he simply couldn’t bring himself to criticize Trump.
“I think what you're seeing right now is the natural give and take between branches of the government,” he said.
A handful of other Trump sycophants went a step further, saying that they would launch an impeachment effort against the judges who block Trump's actions.
“I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer. Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy. The left has done ‘irreparable harm’ to this country. President Trump and his team at @DOGE are trying to fix it,” Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona wrote on X, referring to the federal judge who blocked Musk from accessing Treasury data.
And Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia wrote on X that he is backing Crane’s efforts.
“The real constitutional crisis is taking place in our judicial branch. Activist judges are weaponizing their power in an attempt to block President Trump’s agenda and obstruct the will of the American people. [Crane] and I are leading the fight to stop this insanity,” he wrote.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called for the impeachment of another federal judge who blocked Trump’s freeze on congressionally appropriated federal funds.
“This judge is a Trump deranged Democrat activist. Below is proof he is not capable of making good decisions from the bench. He should be impeached,” Greene wrote on X.
Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio backed those efforts, saying the judges blocking Trump’s actions “should be mocked and ignored while articles of impeachment are prepared.”
“These clowns are undermining every lower court, leaving the sole burden on SCOTUS. This is not sustainable. Sadly, excesses in judicial and executive authority are a symptom of the real problem: Congress keeps failing to take action. Time for #DeedsNotWords,” he wrote on X.
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, once a fierce defender of watchdogs, was fine with Trump axing the inspector general of the U.S. Agency for International Development who said that Trump's unlawful shuttering of the agency let hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food aid go to waste.
Grassley said that he "should have been fired," and gave Trump a workaround to make the firing legal.
"I'm just trying to make the president's job easier," Grassley said, completely ditching his past watchdog advocacy to bow down to Trump.
Other GOP lawmakers chose Trump over their own constituents, who are being directly harmed by the president’s actions.
Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said that Trump’s decision to drastically cut back National Institutes of Health funding for medical research institutions is a good thing, even though it would decimate institutions in his own state and beyond.
“Well, I think what happens is the president is exactly right. I think if you ask the average American if we were spending a billion dollars to cure childhood cancer, how much of the billion dollars would go towards during childhood cancer? They’d probably say a billion. The idea that 60% goes to indirect cost and overhead is insane. And so I applaud the president,” he told the Bulwark
And Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said that Trump's funding freeze, which is hurting farmers who are not being paid for contracts, is just a "little bit disruptive."
“But that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington,” Smith said on CNN, “is that they would be disruptive.”
Rep. Jason Smith dismisses farmers in his state who are getting stiffed by the US government not fulfilling contracts: "Right now it's a little bit disruptive, but that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington is that they would be disruptive."
Donald Trump is a Russian asset, whether willing or unwilling. His obsequiousness toward Russian strongman Vladimir Putin during his first term wasn’t just embarrassing—it became a grave national security threat.
Trump literally sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies. And why wouldn’t he? Russia was a major factor in his 2016 election victory.
Meanwhile, Trump’s first impeachment was literally centered on his effort to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, drumming up a fake Hunter Biden investigation in exchange for anti-tank weapons to try to stave off a looming Russian invasion.
Last year, Trump repeatedly promised to end Russia’s war in Ukraine within “24 hours” of taking office, which many took to mean pulling U.S. support for Ukraine and freezing the conflict in its current state—something Russia desperately needs.
Yet a funny thing has happened. Trump slobbered over Putin, believing that he and Russia are strong and mighty, serving as an example for his own imperialist and undemocratic designs. But Russia is not strong and mighty. In fact, Russia has run out of tools to prop up its failing economy. And out-of-control inflation, sky-high interest rates, and lower global energy prices have put Putin in a precarious position.
Somehow, Trump noticed this, and his disdain couldn’t be clearer. We just might have somehow lucked into a pro-Ukraine Trump presidency.
Trump shared his thoughts about Russia’s war in Ukraine on Truth Social Wednesday morning.
I’m not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people, and always had a very good relationship with President Putin - and this despite the Radical Left’s Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. We must never forget that Russia helped us win the Second World War, losing almost 60,000,000 lives in the process. All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. If we don’t make a “deal,” and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries. Let’s get this war, which never would have started if I were President, over with! We can do it the easy way, or the hard way - and the easy way is always better. It’s time to “MAKE A DEAL.” NO MORE LIVES SHOULD BE LOST!!!
How does Trump always manage to get so much wrong?
Russia didn’t lose 60 million lives in World War II; it lost 27 million. And, really, seven million of those were Ukrainian, as that total is for the Soviet Union, not Russia. That’s a lot, so why the need to exaggerate it? Probably because the total number of people killed in World War II is around 60 million, and Trump is just too stupid to know the difference—or to fact check.
Furthermore, tariffs don’t mean shit to Russia, since the U.S. doesn’t really trade with them. In 2022, the United States imported just $15 billion in Russian goods and services. Thanks to deep sanctions, what little we exported, like intellectual property (movies and such), was either appropriated by Moscow or just stolen.
But sanctions are something that could be hiked up, which would be a welcome response from the Trump administration.
If Trump really wants the war to end (and to take credit and have statues raised all over Ukraine in his honor), then he needs to do what former President Joe Biden was loath to do: open up the arms spigot and remove all restrictions on their usage.
More specifically, he needs to flood Ukraine with aircrafts—Ukraine now flies F-16s—and long-range missiles.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump
Russia has endless manpower to incrementally take ground in Ukraine. In October 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies estimated Russian casualties for the entire war at more than 600,000, including those killed and wounded. And that pace has increased year over year as Russia runs out of armor but continues to send soldiers on foot, motorcycle, and even civilian vehicles.
Yet manpower continues to be sourced from Russia’s poorest, more remote regions, insulating the oligarch elites in Moscow and St. Petersburg from direct consequences.
That economic instability, on the other hand, hits those oligarchs in the only place it matters, and a continued 10% inflation rate is taking a bite out of everyone’s earning power.
How long can the czar remain in power if his people are starving?
Meanwhile, the country’s banking system is on the verge of collapse as Moscow forces them to lend to the military industrial complex—at levels that far exceed their ability to cover the risk. With their inability to access foreign reserves due to sanctions, they are isolated and exposed. Wary of being caught up with retaliatory sanctions from the United States and the European Union, China is steering clear.
While Russia still has significant financial reserves to cover its massive defense-related budget deficits, they are on pace to be depleted by 2030, according to an analysis by Janes—and that’s assuming energy prices don’t crater.
Saudi Arabia has been threatening to open the spigot, and if Trump’s policy to encourage additional domestic drilling pans out, global prices might further tumble to Russia’s great peril. And additional Western sanctions on oil and on countries that help Russia circumvent sanctions (cough, cough, looking at you, India) will further tighten the noose.
Long-range missiles would help accelerate Russia’s economic woes. Ukraine’s biggest war gains the past year came from systematically targeting Russian economic engines like refineries and factories. On the ground, Ukraine needs to merely hold the line, extracting a steep price on Russian advances. But if they want to win the war, it will be with long-range missiles.
Unfortunately, Trump didn’t threaten that, but once Putin ignores Trump’s demands for “A DEAL,” it would be a logical next step to ratchet up the pressure. Someone might even whisper in his ear—with their fingers crossed behind their back—that if he helps end the war, a Nobel Peace Prize is on the table.
Trump’s 180-degree turn on Putin clearly stems from Russia’s weakness not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria following the country’s humiliating defeat.
One Russian Telegram channel claimed that secret negotiations between Russia and Trump representatives in December failed when the Americans made demands that Putin was unwilling to meet.
All media, public authorities and controlled leaks of [Russian] economic data not only abroad, but also inside the country, the main goal was to convince first the ruling group of Biden, and in the last few months of Trump, about the normal state of the Russian economy, its moderate growth, the absence of critical problems, and the ability of the Russian Federation to continue the confrontation as long as necessary.
For example, our group had all the real indicators of the Russian Federation – a growing decline in GDP by 1-4%, inflation growth of up to 25% over the last year, etc. The main figures for the public space were carefully adjusted, the emerging holes were quietly filled with reserves from the National Wealth Fund. While there was a high probability of reaching an agreement with the US by demonstrating ‘muscles’, it was much more profitable and cheaper to demonstrate them with hidden doping.
There was a categorical ban not only on discussing serious restrictions and deprivations for the population, but also on actually working out such measures – because of possible leaks and confirmation of the ‘weakness’ of the Russian economy for US analysts.
The main scenario assumed that the newly elected U.S. president, who had his hands ‘untied’ at the beginning of his term, would be convinced of Russia's ability to continue the conflict throughout his presidency would want to resolve the crisis quickly, and that this would be the best time for agreements.
There were tense secret negotiations between Russia and Trump's representatives through almost all of December, but the conditions put forward by the Americans were completely unacceptable for the pro-Chinese elite group in Russia, which at this stage has the greatest weight [...]
China will not allow an agreement with the US (probably, China leaked the real data of the Russian economy to the US, hence such tough conditions from their side), it will not only receive resources below the cost price and supply its products with 200-300% markup but it will also solve its geopolitical task – talking about friendship and partnership of the Russian Federation, Russia's forehead will hit the US and the EU, bargaining for agreements for itself and preventing its open conflict with the US.
That is quite the conspiracy theory.
The United States doesn’t need China to know the state of the Russian economy. Heck, I’ve linked to a bunch of Western media sources and analysts who have had their finger on Russia’s true economic situation throughout the entire war.
But the underlying point is quite interesting. Not only is it against China’s interests for the war to end, but Russia is also reliant on it for just about everything right now. Plus, China loves to see EU and U.S. dollars and assets spent on Putin’s theater rather than on Taiwan.
The end result is a weak Russia and a pathetic Putin, groveling before North Korea for weapons and manpower. And if there’s one thing Trump abhors, it’s weakness.
By aligning himself against China, Republicans’ favorite geopolitical boogeyman du jour, Trump is further susceptible to influence from pro-Ukraine voices inside the GOP and his administration.
If he wants to end the war, Trump needs to give Ukraine the means and permission to further target Russia’s failing economic engine. Long-range missiles are the way to do it.
Donald Trump met with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday and used the occasion to tout his poll numbers, complain at length about his first impeachment, and praise Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
“We’re leading in the polls,” Trump told reporters at Trump Tower in New York, as Zelenskyy looked on. This is false. Trump is behind Vice President Kamala Harris in most national polls and averages of those polls, and is also trailing in many swing state polls.
After acknowledging that the war in Ukraine is a “terrible situation,” Trump claimed he has had a “great relationship” with Zelenskyy and brought up his first impeachment.
Donald Trump: When they did the impeachment hoax, it was a hoax, just a Democrat hoax, which we won, one of the reasons we won it so easily is that when the president was asked—it was over a phone call—with the president, and he said, he could have grandstanded and played cute, but he didn’t do that. He said, “President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.” He said it loud and clear. And the impeachment hoax died right there.
Trump was impeached in 2019 on the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The charges stemmed from Trump’s decision to initially withhold military aid to Ukraine while attempting to solicit political dirt on his rivals, like President Joe Biden. A key piece of evidence against Trump was a phone call in which he repeatedly pressured Zelenskyy to instigate an investigation into the Biden family, which Trump has repeatedly falsely categorized as a “perfect” call.
The articles of impeachment ultimately passed in the House and Trump was later acquitted on a party-line vote in the Republican-held Senate. Trump was also later impeached for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, becoming the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice.
In addition to relegating domestic political battles, Trump also used the occasion of his discussion with the Ukrainian leader to reiterate his long-standing habit of saying good things about Putin—who launched an invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“[Putin] wants it to end, and he wants it to end as quickly as possible,” Trump said, adding, “I’m sure President Putin wants it to stop.”
According to the United Nations, over 11,520 civilians in Ukraine have been killed since the war began, with an additional 23,640 who have been wounded. The U.S. government has estimated a death toll of 500,000 for military troops of both nations.
Putin has not ceased his aggression despite global condemnation of his actions, including from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and other NATO allies.
Trump has threatened to cut U.S. aid to Ukraine if he wins the election and attacked Zelenskyy at a June rally as “the greatest salesman of all time” for securing financial support from the U.S.
“It never ends,” Trump complained.
By contrast, during her meeting on Thursday with Zelenskyy, Harris reiterated her support for Ukraine.
“The United States supports Ukraine not out of charity, but because it’s in our strategic interest,” she said.
President Joe Biden and Democrats won big in the House Saturday, when it voted resoundingly in support of Ukraine aid. This could mark a turning point for Republicans, leaving them with a choice: to admit defeat and start governing, or to keep fighting with each other.
For months, both former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and current Speaker Mike Johnson have catered to Donald Trump and the MAGA wing of the House GOP on Ukraine aid, insisting that it could not pass without a harsh immigration and border security bill. Once they got that, they turned it down at Trump’s request. Now there’s Ukraine aid and no border deal—a big loss for far-right Republicans and Trump.
This could signal that the fever has finally broken among the governing bloc of the GOP … or not. What it has done is unleash a torrent of anger against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extremist Freedom Caucus by some non-MAGA members.
Before the vote, Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas slammed his colleagues, saying, “I guess their reasoning is they want Russia to win so badly that they want to oust the speaker over it, I mean that’s a strange position to take … I think they want to be in the minority too, I think that’s an obvious reality.”
Even Biden impeachment zealot Rep. James Comer denounced Greene’s efforts to oust Johnson in an interview on Fox News.
“Now Mike Johnson walked into a bad situation,” Comer said. “It’s gotten a lot worse since he’s been here. But changing speakers is not the right business model.”
Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas completely unleashed his anger toward his MAGA colleagues on Sunday, calling them “scumbags” who “used to walk around in white hoods at night. Now they’re walking around with white hoods in the daytime,” during an interview on CNN.
But Greene and her accomplices are showing no signs of backing down.
“There is more support,” for her efforts, Greene said Monday. “It's growing. I've said from the beginning, I'm going to be responsible with this ... I do not support Mike Johnson. He's already a lame duck. If we have the vote today in our conference he would not be speaker today.”
Greene’s cosponsor Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky said Friday, "We want Mike Johnson to resign. We don't want to go speaker-less. So the goal is to show him, through co-sponsorship, how much support he's lost and hopefully he'll get the message and give us a notice so that we have time ... to replace him.”
That’s a tacit acknowledgement that they’d lose on the House floor if they tried to force Johnson out, since enough Democrats would vote to keep him now that he’s finally done the right thing. So it’s really up to the rest of the Republicans to decide. Will they squash Greene and her team once and for all? Will they accept that anything they accomplish in the remainder of this election year will have to involve Democrats and finally stop with the ridiculous messaging nonsense? (Fat chance.)
Meanwhile, most of Biden’s major priorities have been successful, including the securing of a debt limit deal with McCarthy. Despite the maniacs’ best effort, the government did not shut down and was funded at adequate levels. Now Ukraine will finally get the critical aid it needs to stave off Russia once the Senate passes the bill on Tuesday.
On top of all that, the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas collapsed, and the Biden impeachment is dead in the water.
House Democrats hold Johnson’s fate in their hands, and everyone knows it—including the majority of Republicans. Has the fever broken in the GOP? Not as long as Trump is alive and kicking, though his political days might be numbered.
There are likely still big fights to come over next year’s budget, and it’s going to be up to the House GOP to figure out how to salvage something out of its tiny majority before the election.
A House Oversight Committee hearing into China’s “political warfare” against the United States went off the rails Wednesday when Republican Rep. James Comer interrupted Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin to push attacks on President Joe Biden and his family.
Raskin was using his allotted time to point out that the “smoking gun” whistleblower who Comer and Rep. Jim Jordan were hanging their entire impeachment case on was in fact a Russian mole.
“That's just simply not true,” Comer interrupted. “But go ahead.”
It is true and the two did go ahead, in an argument that escalated and went on for more than five minutes.
Of course, Raskin had the benefit of facts and reality on his side. When Comer, who chairs the Oversight Committee, tried to repeat a thoroughly discredited claim that Biden received money from Chinese interests, Raskin reminded him that it was then-President Donald Trump who actually received millions of dollars from China.
Raskin then called Comer’s bluff and asked him to put up or shut up on impeaching Biden, something fellow Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz has previously attempted. That led to this exchange:
Raskin: Where is your impeachment investigation? If Joe Biden took a $9 million bribe from China, why aren't you impeaching him for that?
Comer: Well, who says we're not?
Raskin: I can invite Mr. Moskowitz to come back in. Do you want to move for impeachment today? Because I thought that that was your main agenda item. You said it was the paramount priority of the committee?
Comer: No, this is a hearing on China. And you all have an obsession with Russia and Trump. It's disturbing.
Raskin: We can talk about China and Trump, or Russia and Trump --
Comer: --You need therapy, Mr. Raskin.
Raskin: No, no, you need therapy. You're the one who's involved with the deranged politician, not me. Okay? I've divorced myself from Donald Trump a long time ago. You're the one who needs to disentangle from that situation.
And I will tell you this: If you believe that it would have been illegal for Joe Biden to take $5 million from Ukraine, it certainly would have been. What do you think about Donald Trump taking more than $5 million from the Chinese government while he was president?
At one point, when Comer claimed that the ongoing GOP investigations into the Biden family didn’t cost many millions of taxpayer dollars, Raskin snarked, "Oh, it's been for free? Okay. All right. Well, you know what, then? We get what we paid for it because you got nothing. You got nothing on Joe Biden."
When Comer tried to continue on with a new speaker and dismiss “Mr. Raskins,” Raskin vociferously demanded his time back—but not before putting Comer’s disrespect on notice:
Let me start with this. My last name is Raskin. Okay? We've sat next to each other for more than a year. You don't have to add the S. Number two, I would like my time restored. Number three, you have not identified a single crime. What is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going? Why? Well, what is the crime? Tell America right now.
You can watch the full exchange in the video below.
Zachary Mueller is the senior research director for America’s Voice and America’s Voice Education Fund. He brings his expertise on immigration politics to talk about how much money the GOP is using to promote its racist immigration campaigns.
It wasn’t pretty—particularly on the House side—but Congress got the government funded, but the bruising battle to do that doesn’t end beleaguered House Speaker Mike Johnson’s headaches. In fact, it could put him in an even tougher position with his fractious caucus when they return from their two-week recess, on April 9. Hanging over him are his party’s very slim majority and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s threat to oust him if he brings a Ukraine aid bill to the floor for a vote.
Colorado GOP Rep. Ken Buck is gone as of Friday, and happy as a clam to be out of it. "No rearview mirror," Buck said in his exit interview on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "Happy to move on." He added that leadership has “serious problems with setting priorities,” including the ongoing ridiculous impeachment efforts of President Joe Biden and a bunch of cabinet secretaries. “We have a very tragic circumstance in Ukraine. We have spiraling debt, all kinds of out-of-control problems, and we focus on messaging bills that get us nowhere,” he said.
Rep. Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican, is hot on Buck’s heels. His surprise announcement Friday that he’s starting his retirement from Congress early, on April 19, will leave Johnson with only one vote to spare—and looking over his shoulder if he puts a Ukraine aid bill on the floor.
Greene has said such a bill would be her trigger to activate her motion to vacate the chair, which would force a vote on removing Johnson from the speakership. A few other Republicans, including Freedom Caucus Reps. Chip Roy of Texas and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, are playing coy. Just to rub Johnson’s nose in it a little more, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie taunted Johnson with this X (formerly Twitter) poll:
Do you approve of the job Mike Johnson is doing as Speaker of the House?
More than ever, Johnson is going to need Democratic votes to hang onto the speaker’s gavel and get anything accomplished. That basically puts Democrats in control of the Ukraine debate. It also puts Johnson in even more of a bind. Having to rely on Democrats for protection and to pass critical bills will create only more turmoil for him with his Republican detractors.
On top of all that, there are vacancies in top seats on committees. In another surprise announcement on Friday, Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger of Texas stepped down. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, currently the chair of the powerful Rules Committee, immediately announced he wanted the Appropriations job, and he’ll likely get it.
Cole, an ally of the current leadership, could do both jobs but that would probably serve to further enrage the Freedom Caucus and their allies. Reps. Roy, Norman, and Massie are all on the Rules Committee—the deciding voting bloc that has proven to be a massive headache for Johnson already. They could raise hell and demand that another one of their own get the chairman’s seat, another brewing flashpoint for Johnson.
All this while Johnson has to worry about Buck’s parting shot. He warned in an interview with Axios, on March 12, “I think it's the next three people that leave that they're going to be worried about.” One of them—Gallagher—is on his way out, and all the turmoil ahead makes Buck’s prediction even more likely.
A former FBI informant accused of lying about multimillion-dollar bribery allegations against President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and purportedly having links to Russian intelligence was again taken into custody Thursday, two days after a judge said he could be freed ahead of trial, his attorneys said in court documents.
The arrest during a meeting Thursday morning with his lawyers comes after prosecutors appealed a ruling allowing 43-year-old Alexander Smirnov, who holds dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, to be released with a GPS monitor ahead of trial on charges alleging he lied to the FBI.
He was taken into custody on a warrant for the same charges issued in California, where the case was originally filed, his lawyers said. Several sealed entries were listed in the court docket, but no additional details about his return to custody were immediately available.
A spokesman for Justice Department special counsel David Weiss confirmed Smirnov had been arrested again.
Smirnov is charged with making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record.
According to attorneys David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld, Smirnov was arrested Thursday morning at their law offices in downtown Las Vegas on the same charges. The lawyers did not immediately respond to phone and text message requests for further comment.
Prosecutors say Smirnov falsely told his handler that executives from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid President Biden and Hunter Biden $5 million each around 2015. The claim became central to the Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress.
We know Texas Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t unintelligent. Nor does he lack sophistication. After all, the guy graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. So he obviously knows the difference between clear proof of corruption and a sketchy accusation unsupported by the evidence—just as he knows the difference between an authentic Cancun marg and a bottle of premixed Chi Chi’s margarita drink he picks up at Citgo on his way home from the airport.
But being a Republican these days means pretending to be ignorant of basic realities, like whether a guy who campaigns as a dictator will govern as a dictator, or whether unsupported and unconfirmed accusations of bribery are real or simply part of a psyop conducted by a hostile foreign power that’s already attacked our elections twice.
Well, guess what? The obvious conclusion that even people who went to Cornell or Trump University could have arrived at on their own is, in fact, the correct one. The big Biden bribery allegation that congressional Republicans have been flogging for the better part of a year—and which was based on an unverified FBI form from 2020 that even the Trump administration declined to act on—was invented by a comrade with clear ties to Russian intelligence.
A former FBI informant charged with making up a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving President Joe Biden, his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy company had contacts with officials affiliated with Russian intelligence, prosecutors said in a court paper Tuesday.
Prosecutors revealed the alleged contact as they urged a judge to keep Alexander Smirnov behind bars while he awaits trial. He’s charged with falsely reporting to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each in 2015 or 2016. The claim has been central to the Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress.
[...]
Prosecutors said that during an interview before his arrest last week, Smirnov admitted that “officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story” about Hunter Biden. They said Smirnov’s contacts with Russian officials were recent and extensive, and said Smirnov had planned to meet with one official during an upcoming overseas trip.
But wait! Ted was so sure these allegations were real, he repeated them ad nauseam. And yet they’re not remotely true. What is true is that Donald Trump—the guy who implied Ted’s wife was heinous—has thousands of financial conflicts of interest that make him, prima facie, unfit to serve as president. These have been sitting out in the open this whole time, and yet Ted seemed more interested in a single, completely made up allegation about the guy who didn’t go out of his way to humiliate Ted and his family.
Weird how the world works sometimes, huh?
Unfortunately for Ted, we’ve collected some receipts, and they make the plucky Harvard Law School grad look pretty dopey.
Here’s a chronological rundown of some of Ted’s most shameless Biden hits from the past year:
1.
The facts are simple—an informant told the FBI they had evidence that Joe Biden was involved in a $5 million bribery scheme involving a foreign country. Today, top House Oversight leaders will see the documents. More on the latest episode of #Verdict! https://t.co/zhqceE5A1R
Well, the facts weren’t that simple after all—though Ted knew his voters were, so that’s why this tweet happened.
2.
As you can see, June 2023 was a big month for bullshit, as Ted just kept piling on:
We have learned of credible evidence that Joe Biden received a $5 million bribe from Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. Now we’re told there is evidence of that on audio tapes. These are allegations of serious misconduct. pic.twitter.com/XXUnSvTsKT
There are tapes! That no one has heard or can find! And no one claims anyone is being peed on in any of them—so they must be real! What more could you possibly need?! Impeach!
3.
But wait! Ted’s interrogation of Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate was a CRUZ MISSILE! YouTube confirms it.
This clip is really rich—especially in retrospect. His fake anger no doubt sent a fake tingle down Lindsey Graham’s fake spine.
Yes, why won’t the FBI talk about totally unsupported, unvetted “intelligence” about Joe Biden that the Trump administration decided not to follow up on during Trump’s pitched 2020 election battle with the former vice president? And why aren’t people lining up at FBI offices to make unsupported allegations that Ted is The Zodiac Killer? Because apparently that would be more than enough to convince Republicans to call a hearing.
4.
Now, in case you didn’t notice from that first tweet above, Ted basically launched an entire true crime podcast about the GOP’s false bribe allegation. It’s as if all 10 episodes of “Making a Murderer” had been based on something a Russian money launderer thought he’d overheard at a Green Bay Applebee’s.
So here’s a bit of Ted’s podcast: He brings up the already debunked accusation that Biden pushed to remove Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, to help the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which had connections to Biden’s son Hunter. In reality, Biden pushed to remove Shokin—as part of a unified U.S. government response—because he wasn’t investigating corruption.
Enjoy!
If Joe Biden took official action that benefited Burisma after depositing $5 million, Joe Biden should be charged & prosecuted for bribery. That is the most grave allegation against a president that we've seen in our lifetimes. #Verdicthttps://t.co/vJGPoxxZChpic.twitter.com/FLfKElvEKM
And here’s Ted demanding that Joe Biden release the bullshit evidence that would make him look corrupt to people who have no clue—i.e., any and all Trump supporters—because that’s just good government.
Democrats don't want a hearing on the allegations against Joe Biden. If the allegations are false, you know who could disprove them? Joe Biden. He could call for evidence to be released publicly, but the FBI is stonewalling instead. #Verdicthttps://t.co/ErPhbZC29d
And here he is plugging that same bullshit podcast episode the very next day. This time he demanded that the fake whistleblower give his fake testimony so the American people could decide for themselves what’s real and what isn’t. The same American people who made the inventor of spray-on hair fabulously wealthy.
What should come next with the allegations against Joe Biden? This alleged whistleblower should testify in front of Congress on national television so the American people can hear his allegations & assess if he's telling the truth. #Verdicthttps://t.co/ErPhbZC29d
And—ugh—another tweet with more unsupported innuendo. And another plug for that same podcast episode. Ted must have been super proud of this one.
Why the hell is the FBI hiding the possible existence of evidence that Joe Biden accepted a bribe? Why did they redact the allegation that there may be 17 tape recordings? #Verdicthttps://t.co/ErPhbZC29d
And yet another plug for the podcast. But wait! This one’s for a different episode. Though the bullshit smells the same.
Don't forget to catch the latest episode of #Verdict, where we follow the money & examine what every prosecutor, reporter, or anyone interested in the truth should be asking—did Joe Biden take a bribe? Tune in wherever you get your podcasts! https://t.co/jKjIN10WTWpic.twitter.com/ZrwX8vSEDf
Of course, Ted was dead certain that a former vice president and household name couldn’t have possibly made millions from book deals and speaking gigs. After all, only Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney can demand such gaudy fees.
'You're looking at a tax return that has $10 million in cash that came from a mystery source,' Cruz said on Friday during his podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Biden's two S corporations, CelticCapri Corp and GiaCoppa Corp, reported income of $9,490,857 and $557,882 respectively in 2017, Biden's first year as a private citizen after decades in federal elected office as a senator and the vice president.
That money, which Biden says is from book deals and speeches, was then remitted to Biden and his wife primarily as 'distributions' rather than salary, according to CNBC.
10.
And here’s Ted plugging his nonsense podcast again, pointing out that there’s something fishy about the relative of a high-ranking government official making $5 million at a law firm and not, say, $2 billion from a bloodthirsty Saudi murderer, as God and the Founding Fathers intended.
Nobody would pay Hunter Biden to represent them in a lawsuit. Nobody would pay him for legal work. If he can make $5 million at a law firm in America, it is purely because he's selling access to the “Big Guy.” #Verdicthttps://t.co/HxCxWbv3S4
And here’s the bullshit FD-1023 form itself! READ this! It’s an allegation! For realz! Why didn’t the Trump DOJ follow up on this when it first came to their attention? We may not know for another several months, when this whole thing blows up in Ted’s beard.
READ this. This is serious, credible evidence that Joe & Hunter Biden solicited & received a $10m bribe from a foreign national. (1) why didn’t FBI fully investigate? (2) why is corporate media ignoring? https://t.co/jGBsj767Cf
Explain yourselves, FBI! Why aren’t you publicizing incendiary claims of corruption with no basis in fact? Well, what if we told you they’re based on dubious sources and support a wild, already debunked theory that plays into the hands of an enemy authoritarian regime? Would that change your mind?
With the grave allegations that Joe Biden took a bribe from a foreign national for official favors, the FBI owes the American people complete candor. If they found these allegations to be false, they need to come forward and explain. #Verdicthttps://t.co/HKrwnB91iT
If it is true that the oligarch who owned Burisma paid Hunter & Joe Biden $10 million for an official act, then both are guilty of bribery. On the latest episode of #Verdict, we break down all the explosive allegations in the FBI’s form FD-1023. Tune in! https://t.co/fwEzuTu81j
Meanwhile, based on this now-debunked claim, Ted thought President Biden should be forced to share a prison cell with his son—which would be particularly cruel, as Hunter prefers to make toilet gin and Joe would naturally insist on making toilet mint chocolate chip ice cream.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said President Joe Biden should "share a cell" with his son Hunter Biden as more findings are released by the House.
Speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Cruz said the "evidence is growing and growing" that Hunter Biden sold "official favors from his father Joe Biden."
[...]
"Bribery is paying someone something of value in exchange for an official favor. Joe Biden has confessed to it in a video interview," Cruz said after Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley released an FD-1023 document containing a confidential FBI informant's unverified claim that the Biden family made a Ukrainian oligarch pay them $10 million. Newsweek has been unable to verify that any such video exists.
In other news, Newsweek has been unable to verify that every pumpkin pie Ted Cruz has served since Thanksgiving 1989 was made from the earwax of his murder victims.
15.
Aaaannnddd … more innuendo ...
What could Hunter Biden possibly do to earn $5 million from a Chinese company? He had no skills, & no one pays a crackhead $5 million for his talent. The only thing he could have sold was favors from his father. We discuss this corruption on Verdict.https://t.co/RcCse5vQ6i
I wouldn’t pay Hunter Biden to sit on a board, but I might pay to watch him fight Ted Cruz in Vegas. Or someone would, anyway. Probably not a Putin-connected Russian national, though. Ted’s far too useful to Russia to come to that sort of end.
