Amid rising tensions in the political arena, House Oversight Chairman James Comer has called for legal action against the Biden family, specifically targeting James Biden for allegedly providing false information to Congress, Townhall reported.
House Oversight's Comer urges prosecution of James Biden amid claims of corruption and financial misconduct.
Comer has been vocal about his demand for Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute James Biden, accusing him of misleading lawmakers on matters involving former President Joe Biden's role in overseas business transactions. He argues that this perceived deception is part of a broader effort to shield Joe Biden from scrutiny.
The House Oversight Chairman alleges that evidence and witness testimony present a stark contradiction to James Biden's statements regarding his brother's involvement in these business dealings. These claims add to the narrative of an ongoing cover-up, according to Comer.
Comer's assertions are not without specific allegations. He points to accusations of possible financial wrongdoing by the Biden family, citing reports that flagged irregularities including money laundering, bribery, and extortion.
The House Oversight Chairman has openly criticized what he perceives as protective measures surrounding the Bidens, specifically mentioning a controversial pardon as a shield for Hunter Biden against the repercussions of certain actions.
Though Comer acknowledges he lacks the authority to initiate legal proceedings himself, he is keen on collaborating with the Department of Justice to advance his cause. He highlights that both Bondi and the DOJ have the jurisdiction to pursue charges.
Comer aims to illustrate that Bondi could carve a significant historical legacy by energetically pursuing what he labels as an evident public corruption case. Emphasizing its public impact, he suggests that prosecuting the Bidens could solidify a stance against potential misconduct at the highest levels.
In pursuit of greater accountability, Comer stresses the larger implications of the allegations. He conveys the importance of addressing these issues to instill integrity within government operations and ensure all individuals, regardless of status, are subject to the law.
Complicating the narrative are discussions surrounding Joe Biden's announcement of his prostate cancer diagnosis. This revelation has provoked discussions about his capabilities and stability while holding office.
The emerging health concerns combined with accusations of covering up financial crimes have fueled debates about the administration's transparency and control. The intertwining of health issues and allegations creates a complex situation for the Biden administration.
Comer alludes to possibilities where a future administration may act upon the committee's investigative findings, suggesting continuity in scrutiny regardless of current political leadership. He insists that these claims of corruption deserve a thorough investigation.
Speaking on the potential implications of the case, Comer remarked, while addressing Bondi's role in the potential prosecution, that if he had the capability, members of the Biden family "would be in prison." This comment underscores the gravity with which he views the situation.
This fierce stance contrasts with the general position adopted by some members of the political spectrum who resist moving forward with legal proceedings. It also punctuates the intensity of the political climate regarding perceived improprieties.
Comer expressed that Bondi "could go down in history" for proceeding with the case, labeling it a significant public concern involving a sitting president of the United States. His assertion reflects a strong belief in the necessity of addressing these claims publicly.
The Supreme Court issued a decision pausing a lower-court ruling that sought to obtain records from the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as DOGE.
A ruling issued on Friday put a pause on an order from a federal judge ordering that DOGE comply with freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued the decision to pause the order as the Supreme Court considers the future of the litigation against the agency created by entrepreneur Elon Musk in order to cut government waste and inefficiency.
This means the Trump administration will no longer be required to respond to FOIA requests from leftist activist groups seeking to stop DOGE from dismantling corrupt government agencies that have been wasting billions.
DOGE administrator Amy Gleason, who has taken over the agency as Musk has returned to the private sector, will also no longer have to stand for a deposition.
The Trump administration has been battling frivolous lawsuits for the past few months as leftist activists and the bureaucratic deep state seek to stop President Donald Trump's radical reforms addressing decades of corruption.
Activist groups claim that DOGE is a federal agency since it has the power to fire government workers, cut federal grants, and reduce government spending.
If DOGE is a federal agency, it would be subject to federal transparency rules and required to respond to FOIA requests for internal documents and records.
The Trump administration has refuted claims that DOGE is a federal agency, pointing to the fact that DOGE is merely advising the Trump administration on making cuts. The true decision-making power still resides with federal agencies and the White House.
U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper ordered DOGE to respond to FOIA requests in March in a decision saying that, "the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records CREW seeks.”
However, this discovery process is now on hold due to the Supreme Court's order, and it is highly likely that DOGE will be operating without intervention for some time as the Supreme Court tackles more important issues.
In the five months since Trump assumed power in the White House, DOGE has cut billions in government waste using a relatively small team of trusted individuals.
DOGE's cuts to wasteful federal agencies immediately ignited outrage among Democrats who zealously defended wasteful and corrupt agencies, igniting speculation that powerful politicians were using corrupt agencies to direct taxpayer dollars to themselves.
Unfortunately, DOGE's cuts have done little to keep up with the growing debt, thanks to years of out-of-control spending by the Biden administration.
However, the Trump administration had to start somewhere with cutting waste, and DOGE has been doing amazing work saving taxpayer dollars.
A federal judge has ordered two Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board who were fired to be reinstated, Fox News reported. President Donald Trump terminated all three of the Democrats on the board, leaving one lone Republican.
Two of the fired board members filed a lawsuit in February. The third Democratic member who was fired was just days from her term ending anyway and did not join the legal action.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton found in favor of the terminated board members on the basis that Trump's firing without cause hindered their mission. Congress had established the board after 9/11 to make sure that any counterterrorism matters would not interfere with privacy and civil liberties.
With Walton's ruling, he claimed that allowing the president to summarily fire them effectively made the oversight body "beholden to the very authority it is supposed to oversee on behalf of Congress and the American people." The Trump administration disagrees.
The firings came in January, not long after Trump took office, Newsmax reported. The PCLOB spokesman, Alan Silverleib, announced on Jan. 27 that members Travis LeBlanc and Ed Felton, along with Chairwoman Sharon Bradford Franklin, had been let go the week before.
"The agency, however, has significant ability to continue functioning with its full staff and remaining Member Beth Williams to continue the Board's important mission, including its advice and oversight functions, and its current projects," Silverleib's statement said. The board typically consists of five members, but there was already one vacancy when the three members were ousted.
Franklin was already on her way out, but still expressed her dismay at the decision. "This isn't about me — my term was set to end later this week anyway," Franklin claimed in a statement at the time.
"But I am devastated by the attack on the board's independence and the fact that our agency will have too few members to issue official reports." LeBLanc's statement at the time revealed the basis for the eventual lawsuit.
"I regret that the board's partisan shift will ultimately undermine not only the mission of the agency, but public trust and confidence in the ability of the government to honor privacy rights, respect civil liberties, honestly inform the public, and follow the law," he said. Indeed, the judge's decision reflected LeBlanc's assertion.
Walton believes that at-will appointment negates the committee's power. "To hold otherwise would be to bless the President’s obvious attempt to exercise power beyond that granted to him by the Constitution and shield the Executive Branch’s counterterrorism actions from independent oversight, public scrutiny, and bipartisan congressional insight regarding those actions," Walton wrote in his decision.
However, Trump believes it's within the president's power to make such personnel decisions. "The Constitution gives President Trump the power to remove personnel who exercise his executive authority," Harrison Fields, White House spokesman, said.
"The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue," Fields added. Trump will have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, though it's unclear whether they will find in his favor.
The judiciary seems particularly stacked against Trump this term as they thwart him at every opportunity. This is the latest in a string of decisions to block the president's moves.
Still, the committee's oversight is not for the president but rather the intelligence and counterterrorism agencies. As the highest executive, Trump should be able to make these personnel decisions regardless of how the court feels about it.
U.S. District Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana struck down a Biden-era rule that required employers to give workers time off for abortions on Wednesday, saying that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overreached its authority when it included abortion with pregnancy-related conditions that receive job protections.
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) was passed in 2022 with bipartisan support.
The text of the act requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions."
During the review process, the EEOC got 54,000 comments urging it not to include abortion in the rule, while 40,000 commented in favor of adding it.
The suit was brought by attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill celebrated the decision: “Victory! A federal court has granted Louisiana’s request to strike down an EEOC rule requiring employers to accommodate employees’ purely elective abortions. This is a win for Louisiana and for life!”
A Better Balance, a legal advocacy group that supported the PWFA, conversely described the ruling as a part of a “broader attack on women’s rights and reproductive freedom.”
While the Trump administration is not likely to appeal the ruling, it has defended the PWFA under other circumstances.
The DOJ has not been super-friendly to life so far, which is odd because Trump had a big part in overturning Roe V. Wade.
Earlier in May, the agency tried to get legal challenges brought by Missouri, Kansas and Idaho to restrict access to the abortion pill dismissed.
Abortion pills account for the vast majority of abortions in the U.S.
Trump has resisted GOP pressure to outlaw abortion on a national level.
He most recently expressed some support for a 15-week abortion ban, which would not prevent most of these early-term, pill abortions.
This dichotomy is difficult to understand, but it seems to be a more nuanced view of abortion than many Republicans want to see.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly released video shows now-indicted judge Hannah Dugan, of Wisconsin, sending two federal agents waiting to take an illegal alien into custody packing.
She told them they had to see the chief judge for another warrant, and the video shows, moments later, the wanted suspect leaving the courthouse with his lawyer.
Dugan allegedly sneaked the suspect out of her courtroom to avoid the officers.
A report at the Gateway Pundit described how the video shows Dugan "angrily confronting ICE agents in the courthouse."
Dugan later was arrested by the FBI for obstructing federal law enforcement.
She has claimed that everything she did was part of her judicial duty, so she is totally immune to any prosecution.
The report noted, "According to the FBI, Judge Hannah Dugan obstructed an immigration arrest operation last month. Dugan became angry when she found out that ICE agents were waiting outside of her courtroom last week to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien involved in a domestic abuse case she was overseeing. She allegedly directed Flores-Ruiz to exit the courthouse through a private jury door to evade arrest."
Dugan by now has been indicted by a federal grand jury, relieved of her duties and is facing trial.
FBI Director Kash Patel accused Dugan of intentionally misdirecting agents away from the subject.
Evidence shows Dugan ended the hearing for Flores-Ruiz "so she could discreetly escort him through a 'jury door' to avoid his arrest."
WND previously has reported Dugan could face sentencing of up to six years in jail and $350,000 in fines if convicted.
Her lawyers claimed that she is "entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts."
They said that means the prosecution against her for her actions to help a suspected criminal evade arrest is "barred."
In an interview on "American Reports," Attorney General Pam Bondi explained how the Trump administration will handle judges who obstruct and block federal efforts to secure the border and remove illegal aliens.
"We are going to prosecute you, and we are prosecuting you. I found out about this the day it happened," she said.
"We could not believe, actually, that a judge really did that. We looked into the facts in great depth… You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court this week ordered the Democrat majority in the Maine legislature to dissolve its "censure" of a Republican member whose was being punished for expressing her opinions about a boy being allowed on a girls athletic team in the state.
Justice Ketanji Jackson, who infamously could not, or would not, tell a Senate committee the definition of a "woman" during her confirmation hearing, opposed that move.
She claimed Laurel Libby, the state representative, has "not asserted that there are any significant votes scheduled in the coming weeks [or] that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby's participation would impact the outcome."
Now a commentary at the Daily Signal is pointing out her hypocrisy, as that expression didn't even align with Jackson's own earlier arguments.
"In other words, Libby's exclusion from voting in the Maine House of Representatives deserves emergency relief only if she can show that relief would change the result of a vote. As Justin Evan Smith writes at 'Ordered Liberty,' Jackson's reasoning implies that 'political participation is only meaningful if its outcome determinative,'" wrote GianCarlo Canaparo, a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese II Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
He pointed out, "Jackson may have a problem being consistent across cases when her politics align with one case but not another."
But Jackson's perspective is "deeply corrosive" "to our republican form of government because it would protect the outcomes of the representative process but not our right to participate in that process," he explained. "The Constitution very clearly protects our rights to participate in governance, even—especially—if we don't win."
Jackson's reasoning suggests her belief is that "minority voices don't count."
That, the commentary said, is wrong "according to Jackson herself."
In another case, where the politics aligned with Jackson's ideologies, Allen v. Milligan, a racial gerrymandering case, she took the other side.
In that fight, "black Alabamians argued that the Voting Rights Act required the state to create an additional majority-black congressional district."
Jackson at the time blasted the state of Alabama "for arguing that the Constitution requires the state to be colorblind when it creates congressional districts."
She said the 14th Amendment allows states to rely on race, and the Voting Rights Act actually "requires them to rely on race when they create districts because that's the only way to identify minorities 'who have less opportunity and less ability to participate' and to 'ensure that that's remedied.'"
The commentary pointed out Jackson's goal, "to protect" a minority group's" right to participate.
"What Jackson saw so clearly in Milligan, she lost sight of in Libby," the commentary said.
"When a minority in Maine—conservatives who oppose boys in girls' sports—asked Jackson to defend their right to participate in the political process, she said it wasn't important enough for the court's emergency docket. It would only be important enough if their representative would control the outcome of a particular vote."
Rep. James Comer (R-KY) believes Attorney General Pam Bondi should work to put members of the Biden family behind bars, Breitbart reported. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman said that he lacks prosecutorial powers that the Department of Justice could use.
Comer made these remarks on the "Alex Marlow Show" podcast on Wednesday. He told the Breitbart editor-in-chief of his wish to bring former President Joe Biden and his allegedly corrupt family members to justice.
"I can’t prosecute. If I could prosecute, there would be Biden family members in prison now. There would be deep state actors in prison now. I can’t prosecute. I can only investigate. But Pam Bondi can prosecute, the Department of Justice can prosecute. So, we want to work with them," Comer said.
Comer has been beating the drum against the Biden family and urged President Donald Trump's Justice Department to dig into the outgoing president's family members. In particular, he wants James Biden, Joe Biden's brother, to answer for allegedly lying to Congress.
In a letter to Bondi on Jan. 17, 2025, Comer urged her to prosecute James Biden, according to the committee's news release. "On December 1, 2024, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued a written statement announcing ‘A Full and Unconditional Pardon’ for his son, Robert Hunter Biden," Comer wrote.
He claimed James Biden was "Hunter Biden’s main accomplice in his influence peddling schemes (aside from Joe Biden himself)" and that he was alleged to have "misled Congress regarding Joe Biden’s participation in his family’s influence peddling and deserving of prosecution under federal law." The matter was referred for prosecution by three Congressional committees.
However, Joe Biden's administration refused to act. "Though President Biden’s saccharine (and wholly ironic) rantings of political persecution and weaponized prosecution of Hunter Biden are specious, they are inapplicable to the non-prosecution of his brother, James Biden, who has lied to the United States Congress and has faced no accountability to date," Comer continued.
"I write to encourage the Department under your leadership to hold James Biden accountable for lying to Congress to protect his brother, the soon-to-be-former President Biden. No one should be above the law, regardless of his last name," Comer wrote.
The Associated Press reported that in the final moments of Joe Biden's presidency, he preemptively pardoned his siblings and their spouses as Trump was giving his speech. This unprecedented move included James Biden, and Trump pointed out its absurdity.
"Did you know that Biden, while I was making my speech, pardoned his whole family? The brother — the whole deal was pardoned. Can you imagine that?" Trump said.
However, Reuters noted, this presidential pardon is not absolute and may work against Hunter Biden in the end. The Justice Department and the House of Representatives may still investigate the shady business dealings of the Biden family.
Moreover, Hunter Biden could be forced to testify. If the pardon grants him immunity, he wouldn't be able to plead the Fifth Amendment since nothing he said would be considered incriminating under the pardon.
There is enough evidence that the Biden family's dealings were amiss, to say the least, to continue with this investigation. Comer is right that this should proceed, and Bondi is more than capable of getting the job done.
The Supreme Court has ordered Maine's Democratic legislature to restore the voting rights of a Republican member who was punished for defending girls' sports.
Republican state legislator Laurel Libby was barred from speaking or voting on the House floor over a viral Facebook post.
"This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has affirmed what should never have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter," Libby said in a statement.
"This decision restores the voice of 9,000 Mainers who were wrongly silenced. I am grateful for the Court’s action, and I am ready to get back to work representing the people of House District 90."
The Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling came with no explanation, which is typical when the court rules on emergencies. Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the application for relief, and Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a brief dissent.
Jackson argued that the case does not qualify as a true emergency, but she acknowledged that it "raises many difficult questions" that could be resolved in Libby's favor eventually.
Two lower courts had ruled against Libby before she went to the Supreme Court and asked the justices to let her participate in the current legislative session, which ends in June. The Supreme Court's ruling allows her to vote again while a legal battle continues in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The controversy arose in February after Libby, a mom of five kids including three girls, shared a Facebook message criticizing the inclusion of males in girls' sports. The post included the name and photo of a male student who won a girls' high school pole vault competition.
Democrats accused Libby of endangering the student to advance an agenda, and she was censured for conduct "reprehensible and in direct violation of our code of ethics." Libby was blocked from voting until she apologized.
Libby then sued Democratic House Speaker Ryan Fecteau to restore her voting rights, saying the legislature had disenfranchised her 9,000 constituents by preventing her from speaking on a matter of public concern. She said the male student's name and face had already been widely publicized, and Democrats were retaliating against her for advocating on behalf of girls in the state.
Maine's stubborn transgender advocacy has led to clashes between Governor Janet Mills (D) and President Trump, who confronted Mills during a meeting of governors at the White House earlier this year. Trump's administration has sued Maine for violating Title IX, a civil rights law that bars sex-based discrimination.
The transgender issue has been cited as an example of cultural overreach by Democrats, who have struggled to find their footing since Trump's stunning re-election last year.
Indeed, some Democrats have begun to distance themselves from a cause that is now widely seen as detrimental to the party.
Rather than have an open debate, Democrats in Maine are clinging to their dogmas and silencing dissent - or at least trying to, anyway.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge appointed by Joe Biden has threatened to order the federal government to return to the United States a list of criminal illegal aliens that were removed from society for their crimes.
And the White House has responded, by releasing to the public the long list of convictions that the eight illegals accumulated.
They include homicide, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, battery, trafficking, "lascivious acts" with children, sexual assault, aggravated assault, and more
The threat came from Brian Murphy, a district court judge in Massachusetts who previously has made decisions on how the executive branch of American government can deal with border security and issues involving criminal illegal aliens.
His threat came as he said plans to deport people to Libya without notice would violate what he wants.
The Trump administration released a statement on the judge's behavior: "It's another attempt by a far-left activist judge to dictate the foreign policy of the United States – and protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants President Donald J. Trump and his administration have removed from our streets."
Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin added, "We conducted a deportation flight from Texas to remove some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States. No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric … Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the president's national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens."
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said, "As a career law enforcement officer and a career officer with ICE, I've been dealing with these recalcitrant countries for years — having to see repeated murders, sex offenders, violent criminals re-released back into the United States because their home countries would not take them back. Under President Trump and under the leadership of Secretary Noem, we are now able to remove these public safety threats so they won't prey on the community anymore."
Those deported:
McLaughlin said, "A local judge in Massachusetts is trying to force the United States to bring back these uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety of the American people and American victims. While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try and dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America."
Federal officials confirmed that the home countries for each of the illegal alien criminals have refused to take them back.
Another judge previously ordered Trump to turn around two jets loaded with illegal aliens that apparently already had left U.S. airspace and were over international territory.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge whose ruling temporarily suspended access to an abortion drug got a message soon afterward through his court system's web page.
It said: "Watch your back."
And now a woman has pleaded guilty and is facing up to five years in prison for sending it.
It is Lifesite News that explains the target of the threat was Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk and his family.
It was Kacsmaryk's ruling that briefly put on hold access to the deadly drug mifepristone because of anomalies in the way the Food and Drug Administration approved it.
Pleading guilty to issuing the threat was Dolly Kay Patterson, a former employee of Stanford University.
The threat came April 2023 and actually warned the judge and his children to "watch [their] backs."
"Tell this antiabortion judge he needs to watch his back—and that of his kids—the rest of his life!" Patterson threatened, according to court documents in the case.
It came through the website for the Northern District of Texas court just days after Kacsmaryk's ruling.
Patterson pleaded guilty under a deal in which one charge was dropped.
Sentencing is scheduled for September 30.
The report explained, "She had previously denied responsibility, but prosecutors said she confessed during a home visit by U.S. Marshals."
The judge actually, in court filings, documented getting a "barrage" of death threats, harassment, and abusive messages after his decision.
"A second woman, Alice Marie Pence of Florida, was sentenced in November to 10 months in prison after threatening Kacsmaryk with sniper violence if he failed to rule in favor of abortion," the report said.
The Supreme Court later reopened access to the death-dealing drug, although the dispute remains far from resolved because that ruling said the plaintiffs lacked standing, an issue that can be addressed in legal disputes by bringing in new plaintiffs.
Patterson entered her plea in Dallas federal court.
Reuters reported, "The case against Patterson was filed amid a surge in threats to judges nationally, prompting the federal judiciary to push Congress for increased security funding to help it ensure the safety of judges and their families. A Reuters investigation this month identified at least 11 federal judges whose families have recently faced threats of violence or harassment after they ruled against the Trump administration. Pizzas have also been sent anonymously to the homes of several judges and their relatives."