The U.S. Supreme Court will allow enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order that requires passports to accurately reflect biological sex.
The ruling split the court along ideological lines, with six conservatives siding with Trump as the three liberals joined in an emotional dissent.
On the first day of his second White House term, Trump signed an executive order requiring the State Department to identify passport holders using their true, biological sex.
Trump reversed the previous administration's approach, which allowed passport holders to inaccurately identify as members of the opposite sex or even as "X."
Trump's passport order
A federal district court blocked Trump's policy from taking effect, with the judge finding it was based on nothing but pure, irrational prejudice. An appeals court declined to overturn that order, spurring Trump to seek the Supreme Court's intervention.
The Trump administration challenged the lower court's block as an affront to "scientific reality" and Trump's authority over foreign affairs.
"U.S. passports are official government documents, addressed to foreign nations. The Executive Order in this case is an exercise of power conferred on the President both by the Constitution and by statute to determine the contents of U.S. passports. Yet the court’s injunction countermands that Order -- and in so doing, interferes with the President’s foreign-policy prerogatives," Solicitor General John D. Sauer wrote.
Conservatives side with reality
In a brief, unsigned order, the conservative majority found that Trump's policy does not violate equal protection principles.
"Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth -- in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment," the majority wrote.
The justices also said they saw no evidence that Trump's policy was motivated by an arbitrary desire to inflict harm on a particular social group, as the challengers claimed.
On the other hand, the justices found that Trump faces "irreparable injury" from the lower court interfering with "an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document."
Jackson explodes
In an emotional, nearly 12-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted the court's intervention as inappropriate and said it would greenlight "imminent, concrete injury."
"This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent," she wrote.
Justice Jackson infamously declined to define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing.
A handful of Democrats have entered talks on ending the government shutdown, undermining Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as he continues to hold out for concessions from Republicans.
As the costs of the shutdown continue to mount, some Democrats including Senators Maggie Hassan (NH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Gary Peters (D-MI) are working on a deal to end the impasse, the Hill reported.
The shutdown became the longest in U.S. history this week as the impacts continued to spread, with funding lapsed for food stamps and millions of federal workers missing paychecks.
Dems splinter on shutdown
Republicans need at least eight Democrats to cross the aisle in order to break the 60-vote filibuster. For weeks, only three Democrats have voted to end the shutdown consistently, and they are Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), and Angus King (ME), an independent who caucuses with the Dems. If Hassan, Peters, and Shaheen join that group, Republicans would still need two more votes.
“There’s a plan, we’ve all kind of semiagreed to it and we’re now seeing not whether [Senate Democratic Leader Chuck] Schumer will support it but whether he will not blow it up,” one senator said.
A source said that at least eight Democrats expressed interest in opening the government at a tense Tuesday meeting where the party's factions clashed over a path forward, but the situation remains fluid.
“To me, it looked like there were eight votes, but it could change. There’s a lot to think about,” the source cautioned. “Nobody can predict the future.”
Schumer losing control?
According to the Hill, the tentative deal would likely include at least some regular, full-year spending bills and a commitment to vote on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that Democrats have made central to the fight.
But some Democrats think it would be a mistake to back down without more solid concessions, especially a commitment from Republicans to ensure that the subsidies pass. These pro-shutdown Democrats are fearful Schumer is losing control as the caucus starts to split.
“That’s what leadership is all about. Is this just to let us all vent so we can pretend we were hurt? Or are we shaping this into a plan that keeps Democrats united and achieves some objective? That requires a person with the hand on the tiller,” said one Schumer skeptic.
Election emboldens Dems
Another factor motivating the shutdown Democrats is that the party won big in Tuesday night's elections, including in Virginia, which has a large number of furloughed federal workers. But not all Democrats are convinced that the results were all that meaningful.
“Last night was a good night but it was one night of the year,” Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona (D) told CNN.
Schumer has not said which way he is leaning, but he said a Thursday lunch with the caucus was "productive."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is holding another vote on Friday to put Democrats to the test.
"I think the clear path forward here with regard to the [Obamacare] issue, open up the government, and we head down to the White House and sit down with the president and talk about it," Thune said. "But I just, right now there is hostage taking, as you all know. The consequences are getting more pronounced."
Right-wing journalist Laura Loomer has gained press credentials at the Pentagon, bringing possible headaches for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and others on President Trump's national security team whom she has targeted, the Daily Mail reported.
Online, Loomer is known for feuding with other right-wing figures whom she considers to be disloyal to Trump and his "America First" agenda, and she has played a role in driving out some Trump foreign policy staffers over ideological disputes.
Loomer at Pentagon
Recently, Loomer threatened to boycott the 2026 midterms over Secretary Hegseth's move to host a Qatari air force facility at a U.S military base in Idaho.
But she has also expressed support for Hegseth's anti-woke reforms. "He says being a fat soldier is 'unacceptable'. He's correct," shew wrote in September.
Her access at the Pentagon comes even as many legacy media outlets have cleared out of the building in protest of new press restrictions.
The new rules bar reporters from soliciting unauthorized information, in what Hegseth calls a common sense move to protect national security.
Press corps shakeup
With a few exceptions, the rules were rejected by most news organizations, including right-of-center ones like Fox News.
Loomer now joins a group of right-wing journalists who have agreed to the Pentagon's new press restrictions, including LindellTV and The Gateway Pundit.
"I look forward to covering the Pentagon and breaking more stories that impact our country and our national security. I have developed a Rolodex of sources and if you have any tips, feel free to contact the Loomered Tip Line: the most influential Tip Line in all of DC," Loomer wrote in her announcement on X.
Trump loyalist
Loomer is still not credentialed at the White House, although the administration has shaken up the press corps there as well to include more pro-MAGA voices.
While known for her fierce devotion to Trump, Loomer is equally vocal about criticizing those in his orbit whom she sees as out of step with his agenda.
Among the Pentagon figures Loomer has targeted are Col. Earl G. Matthews, the Pentagon's top lawyer, and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who revoked the appointment of a Biden official to West Point's staff after Loomer criticized the pick.
Loomer has also feuded with MAGA politicians like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA.), who has recently taken a perceived turn against Trump on various issues.
“I know she’s known as a ‘radical right,’ but I think Laura Loomer is a very nice person,” Trump told reporters in August. “… I think she’s a patriot, and she gets excited because of the fact she’s a patriot, and she doesn’t like things going on that she thinks are bad for the country. I like her.”
Barack Obama called New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on the phone this weekend to offer support and be a "sounding board" for Mamdani's political ambitions into the future.
The spiritual leader of the Democratic party told Mamdani that his campaign has been "impressive to watch," New York Times reported.
Obama's quiet support comes even as many Democrats have kept their distance from Mamdani, a self-avowed socialist.
Mamdani divides Dems
Mamdani's rise has been a political problem for Democrats, who have split on whether to endorse him. Democrats are aware that Republicans plan to tie Mamdani to Democratic candidates in the 2026 midterms, and attacks have already started in Tuesday's off-year elections.
The top Democrat in the Senate, New York's Chuck Schumer, has declined to back Mamdani, and the top Democrat in the House, New York's Hakeem Jeffries, hesitated before finally endorsing Mamdani in late October.
On the other hand, Long Island Democratic congressman Tom Suozzi has forcefully rejected Mamdani and his socialist politics.
Kindred spirits
While many Democrats have danced around Mamdani's campaign, he is likely to stick around, with polls showing him the clear favorite in a three-way race with ex-governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa.
Obama is not endorsing Mamdani, at least not publicly, but the former president appears to see the 34-year-old as a kindred spirit. The Times reports that Obama and Mamdani made plans to meet in Washington D.C., where Obama has continued to reside since leaving the White House.
"Mr. Obama said that he was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success beyond the election on Tuesday," the New York Times reports.
Masking radicalism
Obama was in Newark, New Jersey this weekend to campaign for Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic candidate in New Jersey's close race for governor.
Despite being a short drive from New York City, Obama didn't make any time for Mamdani.
While Mamdani is widely expected to win the mayoral election, that is likely not the only reason Obama isn't getting involved.
The former president is certainly aware that his socialist protege's politics are too radical for most of the country outside liberal cities like New York, and so, Obama wants to downplay Mamdani's role on the left, at least for now.
This caginess from Obama is not new. His own rise to political stardom in the 2000s masked a radical agenda that ended up dividing the country, despite his promises to bring America together.
Turning Point USA founder and major conservative influencer was assassinated by a whackjob leftist in early September, and his death shook not only the foundation of this country, but it also sent reverberations across the entire globe.
According to the Daily Mail, the outlet reported that conservative activist Candace Owens recently revealed that Kirk had texted her in 2018 reportedly concerned about the possibility of being assassinated.
Owens said Kirk, who was a close friend of hers, would often speak of a recurring dream in which he would be assassinated. The dreams, understandably, haunted him.
She revealed a number of texts regarding what Kirk would call a "prophecy" regarding his ultimate death by assassination.
What's going on?
The text messages Owens revealed were not only disturbing, given what ultimately happened, but also scary and sad.
"If I tell you the true prophecy I know in my gut it's really sad," Kirk allegedly texted Owens at one point. "But I hope its wrong."
"Anyway I am not sure if I will live to see the end of this revolution," he said in a text. "Since the beginning of TPUSA I knew in my gut that I might get wiped out at any time."
Kirk would reportedly later tell Owens that he was "not really afraid" of his eventual murder, but told her he was "just telling you what I know to be true."
The Daily Mail noted:
Kirk also compared himself to Moses, the prophet who led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt and delivered the Ten Commandments.
'I might be Moses tho. I might not see this whole thing through lmao,' he wrote, according to the messages published by Owens.
Owens served as TPUSA's communications director from 2017 to 2019.
The two were tight for some time, but reportedly had a "professional" break up, according to TPUSA advisory board member Eric Bolling.
Too deep into conspiracy
Bolling explained that while Owens and Kirk remained friends, their professional relationship was stretched because Owens went a little too far into conspiracy land for Kirk's liking.
"Charlie, to his credit, kept a cordial friendship with her for years, but it hasn't been a communication pipeline between the two for many years," Bolling said during a podcast interview earlier this year.
Tyler Robinson, 22, a left-wing college dropout, was charged with Kirk's assassination. He's currently awaiting trial.
It'll be interesting to see what else is revealed as the investigation into Kirk's shocking murder unfolds.
“With civil unrest exploding in Ukraine, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and the desperation of those in power, isn’t this perfect for you?” That’s the provocative question Jeffrey Epstein allegedly posed to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in a 2014 email.
This bombshell from hacked correspondence paints a shadowy picture of backdoor diplomacy during the Syrian civil war, raising serious questions about influence and power.
Leaked emails, obtained by the hacker group Handala Hacking Team and disseminated by Distributed Denial of Secrets, allege that Epstein facilitated covert diplomatic efforts between Israel and Russia to shape policy during the Syrian conflict, the Daily Caller reported.
The main players here are Epstein, a disgraced financier with notorious connections, and Barak, a former Israeli leader with deep military and political roots. Their alleged collaboration, spanning 2013 to 2016, aimed to sway U.S. policy, oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and secure Russian cooperation. But that wasn’t the only revelation.
Uncovering a Covert Diplomatic Backchannel
According to the leaks reported by Drop Site News, Epstein arranged a private 2013 meeting between Barak and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Syrian conflict. Their attempt to gain Russian support for Assad’s removal ultimately failed. Still, the discussions may have contributed to later U.S.-Russia cooperation on dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons.
Epstein didn’t stop there, allegedly feeding Barak insider information from Russian elites about Putin’s international contacts and even offering advice on Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency. It’s a startling claim—Epstein as a geopolitical fixer. Could such unofficial channels really shift global events?
By 2015, the duo reportedly revived their efforts, pushing for U.S. military action against Iran and opposing the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement. Barak’s attempts to change Washington’s stance fell flat, but the persistence of this backchannel raises eyebrows about hidden agendas.
Turning Point: Frustration with U.S. Policy
Epstein’s frustration with the Obama administration’s lack of forceful policy toward Iran shines through in the leaks. He reportedly urged Barak to publish narratives linking Syria to Iran, even suggesting Congress could be pushed to authorize military action. “Hopefully someone suggests getting authorization now for Iran,” Epstein allegedly wrote, showing his impatience with diplomatic delays.
For context, it’s worth recapping the broader stakes during this period: the Syrian civil war raged with chemical attacks prompting Obama’s “red line” statement in 2013, while tensions with Iran over nuclear ambitions simmered. Epstein’s alleged advice to Barak wasn’t just strategic—it was a calculated play to exploit unrest, much like his provocative 2014 email hinted.
Barak, leveraging Epstein’s connections, also sought ties with Russian-Israeli oligarch Viktor Vekselberg for wealth and access to Russian officials. Though outcomes of these negotiations remain unclear, the emails suggest a pattern of using unofficial routes to bypass traditional diplomacy.
Conflicting Interests in Global Power Plays
Critics might argue that such backchannels, while unsavory, are a reality of geopolitics—nations often use unconventional means to secure interests. Yet, when figures like Epstein, with questionable motives, are involved, it muddies the waters of accountability. Do you agree with that reasoning? Many readers might not.
Others could counter that Israel’s regional security concerns, especially regarding Syria and Iran, justify exploring all avenues, even controversial ones. Still, aligning with Epstein’s network risks undermining legitimate diplomatic efforts.
Here’s how we got here: from a failed 2013 meeting with Putin to renewed 2015 efforts against the Iran deal, this alleged collaboration spanned years of global unrest. And it’s far from over.
Why This Story Still Resonates Today
For everyday Americans, the message is clear—hidden dealings like these can shape the wars and policies that affect us all, often without oversight. When unelected figures like Epstein allegedly broker international deals, it’s a reminder of how much happens behind closed doors.
That 2014 question, “isn’t this perfect for you,” echoes as a chilling motif of opportunism amid chaos. It’s a stark contrast to the transparency we demand from leaders. What else lurks in the shadows of power?
As Assad now lives under Kremlin restrictions in Russia after fleeing Damascus in 2024, the long-term fallout of these alleged backchannels remains unclear. The next leak or investigation could change everything.
The Facts
- Hacked emails allege Jeffrey Epstein facilitated a diplomatic backchannel between Israel and Russia during the Syrian civil war.
- Communications reportedly involved former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak from 2013 to 2016.
- Epstein allegedly arranged a 2013 meeting between Barak and Vladimir Putin to discuss Syria.
- Efforts focused on removing Bashar al-Assad and influencing U.S. policy toward Iran.
- Barak sought connections with Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg for access and wealth, per the leaks.
Leaked emails allege Jeffrey Epstein helped former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak establish a covert diplomatic backchannel with Russia during the Syrian civil war, aiming to influence U.S. policy and remove Bashar al-Assad.
Maryland State Senator Dalya Attar has been charged in a wild extortion plot in which she threatened to expose her political enemy's affair with a married man.
Attar, 35, is facing eight different charges over the conspiracy, which also involved her brother Joseph Attar and Kalman Finkelstein, a Baltimore policeman, as well as four unnamed accomplices, the Daily Mail reported.
Hidden cameras
Around January 2020, Attar and her co-conspirators planted tracking devices in the consultant's car, as well as hidden cameras inside smoke detectors at an apartment where the lovers met.
The plot was driven by Attar's fear that her rival would "screw" her out of re-election in the House of Delegates by sending out mailers to the Jewish community about her voting record. Attar is an Orthodox Jew and the first woman of the faith to serve in the Maryland State Senate.
Within days of being installed, the cameras had picked up a man visiting the apartment. “Damn, I wish I had [the man’s] stamina,” Finkelstein wrote in one message.
Threatening daughters
In December 2021, on the same day that Attar filed for re-election, her brother approached the consultant's lover and threatened to leak "hours" of compromising footage.
As part of the disturbing plan, the blackmailers invoked the consultant's daughters, warning they would not be able to find husbands in the conservative Orthodox community once the footage got out. "I’ll share this video with everybody you know, everyone she knows, every Rabbi in town, your kids, your wife, her daughters … I already have all her daughters’ phone numbers, right? And every shadchan [matchmaker] in Israel who is trying to set up her daughters, I’ll share these videos with," Joseph Attar said.
The married man told Attar's brother that the consultant had no intention of coming after Attar.
"I did what you asked. There’s nothing else I can do. [The consultant] has already indicated multiple times that she is not involved in any activity that could or would harm Dalia [sic]. She has no intention of harming her in anyway [sic] either.
"You have everything you asked for. Put it to bed. Leave me the hell alone," the man said.
Senator responds
In January of this year, Attar was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Maryland State Senate. She was pictured with Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, in a post on Attar's Instagram account.
"I ran for public office because of my strong belief in serving my community that I love, and I would never do anything to knowingly jeopardize my constituents' trust in me," Attar said in a statement. "The case centers on the allegations of my former disgruntled employee. We have yet to see any tangible evidence to support the claim that I knew of any illegal actions taken on my behalf."
"I look forward to sharing my side of the story, and believe the truth will be the arbiter of justice. In the meantime, I will continue to serve my community with humility and honor, and look forward to being as transparent as possible," the statement added.
The Baltimore Banner reported that Finkelstein's police powers were suspended in 2022, and he has since been placed on administrative duty.
Disgraced FBI director James Comey is facing a bar complaint from a conservative group over his dishonest and unethical conduct, adding new legal pressure on the Trump enemy as he fights criminal charges for obstructing Congress.
The complaint, from the Center to Advance Security in America (CASA), calls for an investigation into Comey and for him to be potentially stripped of his law licenses in New York and Virginia, the Daily Caller reported.
"Misrepresentation, honesty, and trustworthiness are all factors that the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly factor when weighing whether to discipline an attorney,” the complaint filed in New York reads.
“Comey’s actions, at a minimum, call into question all three factors. The Committee, therefore, should waste no time before investigating the allegations against Comey and, if by a preponderance of evidence is substantiated, discipline him accordingly."
Comey's scandalous tenure
As FBI director, Comey acquired a reputation for wading into politics in heavy-handed ways, drawing criticism from both parties. Democrats still fault Comey for reopening an e-mail investigation into Hillary Clinton on the eve of the 2016 election, while President Trump and his allies say Comey went easy on Clinton while simultaneously pushing a political witch hunt into Trump, the infamous "Russian collusion" hoax.
In 2019, Comey was reprimanded by the Justice Department's Inspector General for leaking sensitive memos for his own personal gain, an action that “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands of more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”
Comey admitted to sharing the memos in order to trigger a Special Counsel probe into President Trump, who would spend much of his first White House term under a cloud of suspicion before Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that there was no evidence of Russian collusion.
Lying, leaking
The prosecution into Comey is based on his sworn testimony in September 2020 that he had never “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports," despite his self-avowed leaking.
In addition to sharing his memos through a law professor friend, Comey was also investigated, but never charged, over separate leaks through his chief of staff and an FBI lawyer, according to recently declassified FBI memos.
An ex-FBI lawyer, James Baker, said he leaked classified information to the New York Times "under the belief he was ultimately instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comey," the memos say.
Evidence is clear
Comey, a vocal critic of Trump, has sought to dismiss the "vindictive" criminal charges against him, and some conservatives have also questioned the strength of the case.
But the known facts about Comey's conduct are damning enough to merit a bar investigation, according to the complaint, which notes the standard of evidence in bar proceedings is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a criminal conviction.
“Because Comey has proven willing to say false statements, under oath, during a congressional hearing, he cannot be trusted to be truthful in the practice of law,” the New York complaint reads.
"His duties of honesty and trustworthiness to the courts in which he appears are now in question. His actions, without question, constitute ‘misrepresentation,'” the complaint adds.
Barack Obama lashed out at Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) after she anointed Kamala Harris as the Democrats' nominee in the summer of 2024, according to a new book on last year's tumultuous presidential election.
Obama felt that Pelosi was blowing up his delicate plans to manage Joe Biden's chaotic exit from the race, which was orchestrated by Obama and other party elites who lacked confidence in Biden's ability to beat President Trump.
Obama blindsided
It has long been suspected that Obama lacked confidence in Harris as well, and he was not happy when Pelosi followed Biden's rapid endorsement with her own.
"The Obamas were not happy,” a Pelosi confidant told Jonathan Karl, author of Retribution, according to an excerpt obtained by the Daily Mail.
“This person summed up Obama’s message to Pelosi as, essentially, ‘What the f–k did you just do?’”
An Obama source disputed that characterization and said Obama gave Pelosi a "good-natured ribbing," but a Pelosi source said he sounded “genuinely irritated."
Whatever his tone may have been, there's no question that Obama saw Harris' nomination as a disaster - and, whatever you think of Obama, he was right about that.
Agreement broken
According to the book, Obama assumed that he and Pelosi were in quiet agreement that a competitive process should play out to find a new nominee.
It wasn't just Obama who had that impression. Harris was also told by Pelosi that the Speaker wanted a miniature primary instead of a coronation, according to Harris' memoir 107 Days.
Five days before he reluctantly endorsed Harris, Obama expressed "confidence" that the party's leaders would select an "outstanding nominee."
Too late to stop it
But within 24 hours of Biden dropping out, Pelosi shared her endorsement expressing "full confidence" in the bumbling vice president. When Obama called Pelosi to complain, she explained that the horse had left the barn with Biden's endorsement.
“That train has left the station,” Pelosi told Obama during the call.
Some have speculated that Biden's quick endorsement of Harris was his way of getting back at Obama, who had played a shadowy role in forcing Biden to end his campaign.
Feelings of resentment have continued to fester, with Biden's son Hunter telling Karl that he was angry at Obama for leading Joe off stage at a re-election fundraiser.
“I almost jumped up on the stage and said, ‘Don’t ever f‑‑‑ing do that to the president of the United States again — ever,” Hunter added.
House Republicans have released a new report on Joe Biden's presidency that calls for many of his executive actions to be struck down, citing the former president's cognitive decline and a lack of documentation proving that he was aware of his decisions.
The 100-page House Oversight Committee report, from chairman James Comer (Ky.), declares that many of Biden's moves, including his sweeping pardons in his final days in office, are "null and void" without evidence that he himself authorized them, the New York Post reported.
“The authority to grant pardons is not provided to the president’s inner circle. Nor can it be delegated to particular staff when a president’s competency is in question,” the report notes. “Importantly, even if this authority could be delegated — which it cannot — it would have to be expressly delegated by President Biden himself.”
Biden pardons "void"
The report takes aim at "extremely loyal staff" who helped orchestrate an elaborate cover-up, with the Republicans noting in their report that "not one" of the committee's 14 witnesses admitted to having concerns about Biden's cognitive health.
The report takes special aim at Kevin O'Connor, Biden's White House doctor, who repeatedly vouched for Biden's health during his presidency despite never administering a cognitive test. O'Connor declined to answer the committee's questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. Deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini and Jill Biden's chief of staff Anthony Bernal also refused to answer any questions.
The Republicans' report condemns political interference in medical decision-making concerning Biden, with top advisers admitting that they weighed the political risk of Biden taking a cognitive test as questions swirled about his fitness.
“We did not have any concern about his ability to pass those tests,” said top adviser Anita Dunn. "We did not think it would help politically.”
Democrats, after distancing themselves from Biden since their 2024 defeat, are defending him against the GOP's charges.
"Despite this sham investigation, every White House official testified President Biden fully executed his duties as President of the United States. The testimonies also make it clear the former President authorized every executive order, pardon, and use of the autopen," House Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia said in a statement to ABC News.
Chain of command broken
In some of his final actions as president, Biden issued thousands of acts of clemency, including pardons for members of his own family and commutations for brutal killers on death row. Biden's blanket pardon for his son Hunter was one of the handful that he signed personally.
Biden admitted to the New York Times in July that he did not sign many pardons individually, instead leaving the details to his staff.
When asked by the Oversight Committee who controlled the autopen, Biden's chief of staff Jeff Zients could not say - but he defended the integrity of the process, noting Biden would provide verbal consent "on occasion."
Without reliable documentation proving Biden's involvement, pardons that were signed with the autopen should be declared "null and void," Republicans said.
"This investigation into baseless claims has confirmed what has been clear from the start: President Biden made the decisions of his presidency,” a spokesperson for Biden said in a statement. “There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, and no wrongdoing. Congressional Republicans should stop focusing on political retribution and instead work to end the government shutdown.”
Republicans have called on attorney general Pam Bondi to investigate Biden's executive actions - but since the pardon power is absolute, it is not clear what practical mechanism there is for Republicans to "void" Biden's decisions.
