A new House GOP Foreign Affairs Committee report blamed President Joe Biden for the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, including the deaths of 13 service members that occurred during the operation.
Panel Chair Michael McCaul (R-TX) said on Face the Nation about the withdrawal, "It could have been prevented if the State Department did its job by law and executed the plan of evacuation. They left these 13 service men and women hanging out to dry."
It has been a frequent criticism of the pullout by Republicans, and now it has been codified less than 60 days before the election.
Democrats, of course, disagreed with the finding.
Former President Donald Trump has directly blamed Democrat presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris for being involved in the disastrous pullout.
"Caused by Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, the humiliation in Afghanistan set off the collapse of American credibility and respect all around the world," he said.
Harris has said she was the last person in the room when decisions about Afghanistan were being made, but Democrats are trying to ignore this statement and claim she wasn't involved.
Some military officials have blamed Trump for the disaster, saying he "set up" the takeover of the country by the Taliban by giving too much ground during negotiations with them while he was in office.
Blaming Trump, however, doesn't exactly ring true.
After all, Biden had every ability to delay the pullout until they could get the Taliban out of power or at least get Americans out of the country instead of leaving thousands of them there to deal with the fallout alone.
Instead, Biden decided to force the pullout to meet an artificial deadline, the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Chaos ensued, and Biden's poll numbers began to fall when 13 service members were killed in a suicide bombing at the tiny Kabul airport where U.S. and Afghan civilians and military personnel were being evacuated.
House Republicans are wielding what little power they have to influence voters with the report--a David against the Goliath mainstream media operation that has tried valiantly to transform an unpopular Harris into a viable presidential candidate.
The latest New York Times/Siena College poll shows that Harris's short-lived bump is all but gone, with Trump a point ahead in the general election and several swing states.
Vice President Kamala Harris has expressed support for a groundbreaking bill that targets the restructuring of the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislation, introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, proposes significant changes to the court’s composition which include both adding and disabling justices based on ideological lines. This move has ignited a firestorm of debate about the implications for judicial independence.
This legislation, known as S. 3096, envisages a Supreme Court that would predominantly include the most recently appointed nine justices in decision-making processes, sidelining senior conservative justices.
The bill mandates that the President appoint new justices during the first and third years of each term, aiming to increase the total number of justices to eighteen. Critics argue that this is a transparent attempt to skew the court’s ideological balance in favor of current liberal policies and against conservative leanings.
Historical comparisons are being drawn with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt in the 1930s to add justices to the Supreme Court to secure favorable New Deal legislation. However, unlike FDR's plan which considered adding justices over the age of 70, the current proposal actively involves excluding long-serving justices from pivotal cases, with Justice Clarence Thomas being the first target in 2025.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's bill looks to systematically remove conservative influence from the court by progressively sidelining justices such as Chief Justice John Roberts in 2027 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2029. This strategy of phased exclusion is unprecedented and seeks to redefine the court’s long-standing tradition of life tenure under the U.S. Constitution.
Observers note that this plan does not merely adjust the number of justices but rather reshapes how the Supreme Court would function, concentrating power among newly appointed justices and drastically reducing the impact of those with more tenure.
Critics argue that direct intervention in the Supreme Court’s composition by political figures could undermine its independence and could lead to over-politicization of the judiciary. They cite previous instances where both liberal and conservative justices faced ethical accusations, but were not subjected to similar proposals of removal or limitation.
Statements from unidentified critics in the legislative sphere suggest that the motive behind this bill is deeply political, aimed at securing outcomes favorable to certain political agendas on contentious issues such as abortion, gun control, and presidential powers. This has led to claims that the proposed changes could severely impact the court's ability to function as an unbiased judicial body.
Further accusations reveal a perceived double standard in judicial ethics, questioning why previous ethical concerns regarding liberal justices did not provoke similar legislative responses.
Legal analysts caution that if enacted, such a radical restructuring of the Supreme Court could precipitate constitutional crises. They argue that the bill might not only be unconstitutional in itself but could also provoke conflicts that challenge the very structure of American governance.
This sentiment is echoed by voices within the legal community, asserting that the enactment of such legislation could herald a significant shift in how the judicial system operates, potentially tampering with the separation of powers that stabilizes the American political system.
Concerns extend beyond the legal framework, suggesting that such changes might erode public trust in an institution that relies heavily on its perception as an impartial arbiter of justice. This could have lasting impacts on the Supreme Court’s role in American society.
As debates continue, the broader implications of Vice President Harris’ support for this bill remain a focal point for both supporters and opponents. The potential for shifting the ideological balance of the Supreme Court so fundamentally has roused intense discussions about the future of the nation's legal and political landscape.
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Friday ordering the removal of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from Michigan's ballot after he dropped out of the race and endorsed former President Donald Trump.
After RFK Jr. dropped out of the race, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, attempted to keep him on November's ballot. The motive was clear as Democrats hoped that leaving him on the ballot would divert votes from Trump.
Benson's attempt to keep Kennedy on the ballot was an obvious ploy to manipulate voters and she nearly got away with it thanks to a lower court judge who endorsed the decision to keep Kennedy on the ballot.
The Michigan Court of Appeals thankfully wasted little time in smacking down this obviously political move that was indefensibly partisan.
However, the controversy isn't over yet as Benson and Michigan Democrats have sent an emergency appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Democrats in multiple states fought for months to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot and then as soon as he endorsed Trump, swing-state Democrats are now fighting to keep him on the ballot in the hopes of helping Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Michigan Court of Appeals wrote in their decision that Benson "had no basis to deny [Kennedy's] request to withdraw his name from the ballot."
Benson had cited a Michigan state law on withdrawal requests but the appeals court found that those rules only applied to candidates running for state office, not presidential candidates.
Its worth noting that the judge that upheld Benson's claims was appointed by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. That judge, Christopher Yates, wrote "Elections are not just games, and the Secretary of State is not obligated to honor the whims of candidates for public office."
Bizarrely, it is Benson who is playing games by denying a candidate the right to withdraw from a presidential race. There is no reason to keep a candidate on a ballot who has no intention of accepting the office.
To add to evidence of Benson playing politics, Kennedy asked for his name to be withdrawn on August 23rd after dropping out. That request was left in limbo until he filed a lawsuit against Benson on August 30th.
Benson and Michigan Democrats understand the stakes in Michigan and are manipulating the rules in every way possible to achieve victory for Kamala Harris in November.
Trump and Harris are neck-and-neck in Michigan and the sluggish economy affecting the auto industry gives Trump an apparent advantage over Harris. However, Michigan is as purple as it gets and Benson's actions demonstrate that Democrats are using whatever dirty trick they can to win.
The Trump campaign and the GOP need to be watching Michigan closely as Governor Whitmer's administration cannot be trusted to be nonpartisan in administering the election there.
Judge Juan Merchan ruled on Friday to delay the sentencing of former President Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records until November 26, three weeks after the election in which Trump could become president.
Trump's legal team had asked for the sentencing to be delayed until after the election so that it wouldn't prejudice voters. The sentencing was originally scheduled for September 18.
"The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion," Merchan said in a letter Friday.
"Unfortunately, we are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute. Thus, in accordance with certain of the grounds submitted by Defendant and the reasons for adjournment provided by the People coupled with the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in, the decision on the [motion] and the imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance - however unwarranted - that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate," Merchan said.
The ruling prompted a swift response from Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, who told Fox Digital: "There should be no sentencing in the Manhattan DA’s Election Interference Witch Hunt. As mandated by the United States Supreme Court, this case, along with all of the other Harris-Biden Hoaxes, should be dismissed."
A motion to set aside the verdict is still under consideration, with a decision expected November 12. Trump is also appealing the verdict.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche pointed out that the trial included testimony about official acts by Trump, which the immunity ruling by the Supreme Court outlawed.
Former Trump Communications Director Hope Hicks and others were forced against their will to testify against Trump, and his immunity should at least force a do-over, if anything is left to prosecute.
But prosecutors are trying to force the case forward despite the clear grounds for mistrial.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office said, "A jury of 12 New Yorkers swiftly and unanimously convicted Donald Trump of 34 felony counts. The Manhattan D.A.’s Office stands ready for sentencing on the new date set by the court."
The location of the court is one of the most hostile to Trump in the whole country, so it may not even matter what evidence is presented if they retry the case there.
It may be a clear case where the jury is willing to indict a ham sandwich if its name is Donald J. Trump.
A different judge who denied Trump's request to move the trial to federal court said the alleged hush money payments were not official acts, and neither were Trump's so-called reimbursements to then-lawyer Michael Cohen.
Trump could get up to 4 years in jail for the conviction, but he could also get probation or community service instead of jail time.
On Wednesday, Republicans in the United States House of moved to subpoena Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz of Minnesota.
The shocking move came in an effort to gather details regarding his state's reaction to a huge fraud scam perpetrated by a nonprofit running a pandemic relief program, HuffPost said in their report.
A group based in Minnesota known as Feeding Our Future has been hit with hundreds of charges by federal prosecutors for the alleged theft of $250 million in food aid meant for children.
“You are well aware of the multi-million-dollar fraud that has occurred under your tenure as Governor,” House Education and Workforce Committee chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said in a Wednesday letter accompanying the subpoena to Walz.
"The extent of your responsibilities and actions addressing the massive fraud that resulted in the abuse of taxpayer dollars intended for hungry children" is what Foxx said would be found in the subpoena, which wants any emails between Walz and the Minnesota agencies distributing the aid.
In November 2023 and again in June of the same year, Foxx asked the Minnesota Department of Education for details regarding the fraud plot. Walz became an even more juicy target for Republicans in August when she became Kamala Harris' running mate.
“This was an appalling abuse of a federal COVID-era program,” a spokeswoman for Walz said in an email on Wednesday.
“The state department of education worked diligently to stop the fraud and we’re grateful to the FBI for working with the department of education to arrest and charge the individuals involved.”
This comes on the heels of Vice President Kamala Harris facing the possibility that she still might be called to account for her actions, or rather inaction, as "Border Czar."
Though she is currently the candidate for one of the major political parties, Harris is facing increased scrutiny for how she addressed the flood of illegal immigrants coming over the southern border.
A subpoena was sent by the House Judiciary Committee to gather information regarding the actions taken Harris as "border czar" in response to concerns regarding migrant children crossing the border alone.
In response to claims that the Biden administration has lost track of thousands of children who crossed the border without their parents or legal guardians, Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, subpoenaed Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra on Wednesday.
"According to new Committee estimates, ‘Border Czar’ Kamala Harris and HHS have LOST contact with 145,000+ unaccompanied alien children after placing them with sponsors, including ILLEGAL ALIENS," the committee posted on X.
"We’re subpoenaing more information from ‘Border Czar’ Harris and HHS about these UACs."
#SUBPOENAED: According to new Committee estimates, “Border Czar” Kamala Harris and HHS have LOST contact with 145,000+ unaccompanied alien children after placing them with sponsors, including ILLEGAL ALIENS.
We’re subpoenaing more information from “Border Czar” Harris and HHS… pic.twitter.com/ivaoEVjfm0
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 4, 2024
This comes after years of inaction by Harris, who claims to have the border in hand, despite millions of illegal aliens flooding over the border, and even being lost by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The plight of Eastern Europe only gets more troubling as the governmental shakeup continues for the nations embroiled in a generations-old clash over land.
One of Ukraine's most prominent figures abroad, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, resigned on Wednesday in anticipation of a leadership shakeup in the country, as The Associated Press reported.
Seven people were murdered in a western city as a result of Russian strikes, which occurred just one day after one of the most devastating missile attacks since the war started.
No reason was given by Kuleba, 43, for his resignation. With the resignations of four additional ministers submitted late Tuesday, this reorganization is likely to be the largest since the Russian invasion in February 2022.
The war is about to hit a critical stage and commemorate its 1,000th day in November. Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hinted that a reorganization was on the horizon.
On Wednesday, he stated that "new energy, and that includes in diplomacy" is necessary for Ukraine. Neither he nor the visiting Irish prime minister Simon Harris knew whether the candidates would accept his invitation to join the cabinet, therefore he could not name any replacements at this time, he said during a news conference in Kyiv.
Keeping the Ukrainian people's spirits up and strengthening their resolve for another harsh winter are two of Zelenskyy's top priorities as the country continues its grinding battle of attrition with its larger neighbor.
The electrical grid in Ukraine has been under attack from Russia, which has disrupted heat and water supply and disabled almost 70% of the country's generation capacity.
The tragic assault on Wednesday in Lviv, a city far from the front lines but close to the NATO member Poland, demonstrated how vulnerable all of Ukraine is to Moscow's long-range capabilities.
After months of depressing news from the eastern front line, the Ukrainian army's daring foray into Russia's Kursk border region over a month ago lifted Ukrainian morale.
The long-term objectives of the incursion remain unknown, however, according to Zelenskyy, Ukraine aims to establish a buffer zone in that area to deter Russian attacks that cross the border.
Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, is determined to further entrench his army in eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin's onslaught in Donetsk, where Ukraine is deficient in air defenses and troops, and the long-range missile strikes that have repeatedly struck civilian areas of Ukraine, indicate that Putin will continue to be uncompromising and unyielding in his pursuit of suppressing Ukrainian resistance.
Late Tuesday, the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, stated that Putin is of the opinion that Russia can "slowly and indefinitely subsume Ukraine through grinding advances" and "by outlasting Western support" for Kyiv.
Zelenskyy is also considering the possibility of a change in the level of important U.S. military support for his country in the wake of the November presidential election.
Republicans have racked up several victories in cases to determine voting rules in several swing states in recent weeks, giving them a better chance of electoral success in November.
The Republican National Committee has filed 100 lawsuits in 25 states along with 150,000 lawyers and volunteer poll watchers to ensure fair elections across the country.
The Supreme Court allowed Arizona to require proof of citizenship to vote, changing the dual ballot system it has used since 2013 that allowed potential non-citizens to vote in presidential and congressional elections.
The RNC is also working to get Michigan and Wisconsin to enforce their rules requiring the hiring of an equal number of Democrat and Republican poll workers.
Currently, Detroit has been accused of hiring seven times more Democrats than Republicans.
In May, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Pennsylvania had to enforce its own law that disqualified absentee ballots that weren't dated.
This law prevented people from mailing in their ballots after Election Day and still having them counted, which could invite voter fraud.
In the 2020 election cycle, these undated absentee ballots were counted in violation of the existing law, and it was justified as a way to make sure every vote was counted.
The ACLU argued vehemently that the date on the ballot was "irrelevant," but in reality it's the only way to make sure ballots are legitimate and are submitted when they are supposed to be.
There are many other cases pending before various courts that may or may not get decided before the election on November 5, 2024.
The bottom line is that Democrats benefit when illegitimate votes are counted, which gives them the motivation to prevent safeguards that will lead to fair voting and prevent fraud.
It should be telling that Democrats want non-citizens to vote, and they want people to be able to vote multiple times if they can get away with it.
When Democrats say they want more people to vote, they are being disingenuous.
They want to win, they want power, and they don't care how they get it.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during a "CBS Sunday Morning" interview that she supports a binding code of ethics for the nation's highest court.
“From my perspective, I don’t have any problem with an enforceable code,” Jackson said while plugging her new memoir.
“A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges. And so I guess the question is, ‘Is the Supreme Court any different?’” Jackson said. “And I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the court is different than the other courts.”
She did qualify her support as being "general," rather than supporting any specific legislation at this point.
The court has come under criticism in recent months for not having its own binding code of ethics after stories broke of several justices not disclosing gifts they received from wealthy friends, mainly rides on private jets and luxury vacations.
It was first reported that Justice Clarence Thomas did so, but it was later revealed that he was told he didn't have to disclose the gifts from Harlan Crow, a wealthy businessman and longtime personal friend.
There were no cases that ever came before the court involving Crow, but the left screamed about it for months anyway.
The court adopted its own code of ethics last year, but it was non-binding.
Jackson refused to discuss Thomas during the interview.
According to reports, most of the current justices accepted some kind of gifts, and many former justices also did.
Jackson is the newest member of the court, appointed by President Joe Biden.
She may have avoided accepting gifts because of the controversy surrounding them or just may not have disclosed any gifts yet if she did receive any.
Gabe Roth of Fix the Courts said about justices accepting gifts:
Supreme Court justices should not be accepting gifts, let alone the hundreds of freebies worth millions of dollars they’ve received over the years. Public servants who make four times the median local salary, and who can make millions writing books on any topic they like, can afford to pay for their own vacations, vehicles, hunting excursions and club memberships — to say nothing of the influence the gift-givers are buying with their ‘generosity.’ The ethics crisis at the Court won’t begin to abate until justices adopt stricter gift acceptance rules.
“It really boils down to impartality,” Jackson told CBS. “That’s what the rules are about. People are entitled to know if you’re accepting gifts as a judge, so that they can evaluate whether or not your opinions are impartial.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are blasting Hamas after the bodies of six hostages held by Hamas, including that of 23-year-old American Hersh Goldberg-Polin, were recovered overnight Saturday.
"I am devastated and outraged. Hersh was among the innocents brutally attacked while attending a music festival for peace in Israel on October 7," Biden said.
"He lost his arm helping friends and strangers during Hamas' savage massacre. He had just turned 23. He planned to travel the world. I have gotten to know his parents, Jon and Rachel. They have been courageous, wise, and steadfast, even as they have endured the unimaginable. They have been relentless and irrepressible champions of their son and of all the hostages held in unconscionable conditions.
"I admire them and grieve with them more deeply than words can express. I know all Americans tonight will have them in their prayers, just as Jill and I will. I have worked tirelessly to bring their beloved Hersh safely to them and am heartbroken by the news of his death. It is as tragic as it is reprehensible.
"Make no mistake, Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes. And we will keep working around the clock for a deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages."
Harris, the 2024 Democratic nominee for president, said: "Hamas is an evil terrorist organization. With these murders, Hamas has even more American blood on its hands.
"I strongly condemn Hamas' continued brutality, and so must the entire world. From its massacre of 1,200 people to sexual violence, taking of hostages, and these murders, Hamas' depravity is evident and horrifying. The threat Hamas poses to the people of Israel – and American citizens in Israel – must be eliminated and Hamas cannot control Gaza. The Palestinian people too have suffered under Hamas' rule for nearly two decades.
"As vice president, I have no higher priority than the safety of American citizens, wherever they are in the world. President Biden and I will never waver in our commitment to free the Americans and all those held hostage in Gaza."
The other hostages have been identified as Eden Yerushalmi, 24, Almog Sarusi, 25, Alexander Lobanov, 32, Carmel Gat, 40, and Master Sgt. Ori Danino, 25.
"Together with the entire nation, my wife and I share in the heavy grief of the families. We all mourn with them," said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday.
"I wish to express my deep appreciation to our forces, the brave IDF soldiers and Shin Bet fighters, who risked their lives to return of our sons and daughters.
"I say to the Hamas terrorists who murdered our abductees, and I say to their leaders: Your blood is on your heads," he continued.
"We will not rest or be silent. We will pursue you, reach you and hold you to account."
Israel President Isaac Herzog said "the heart of an entire nation is shattered to pieces with the news. … On behalf of the State of Israel, I embrace their families with all my heart, and apologize for failing to bring them home safely.
"The blood of our brothers cries out to us. Our sisters and brothers are still there enduring hell. The supreme covenant between the state and its citizens is to ensure their safety. We have the sacred and urgent mission to bring them home," added Herzog.
If you aren't concerned about freedom of speech yet, perhaps what is happening in Brazil will wake you up to the fact that the elite do NOT like it when normal citizens have a chance to make their voices heard:
According to TheHill.com, "A Brazilian Supreme Court justice ordered the immediate suspension of social media platform X throughout the country Friday, after the platform refused to name a new legal representative amid an ongoing feud."
Justice Alexandre de Moraes has officially instructed internet service providers and app stores in Brazil to completely shut down servicing X in Brazil within FIVE DAYS of his ruling.
To prove he's serious on this issue, it would appear as though he's also introducing a fine of up to $9,000 per day to anyone caught using the site formerly known as Twitter on a VPN. The judge's order will remain in place until Elon Musk's company complies with all court orders and pays all fines, according to Brazil's Supreme Court's website.
Elon Musk had been ordered on August 28 to "appoint a legal representative within 24 hours or face a ban in Brazil." Musk did not comply.
The platform formerly known as Twitter seemed to know what was coming:
X's Global Government Affairs team said on August 29 that "it expected the justice to 'soon' order the platform to be shut down in the country 'simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.' The site formerly known as Twitter started having problems in Brazil a short while ago, when Judge de Moraes ordered X to suspend certain accounts from the site.
Brazil was so serious about censorship on Twitter that if the social media giant failed to comply with de Moraes' orders to censor certain accounts, "the judge said he would levy a daily fine of $3,650 against the company and order the arrest of its representative, Rachel Nova Conceicao."
Elon Musk said in a statement that this was NOT acceptable:
"Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purpose."
He then added another post on social media:
"The oppressive regime in Brazil is so afraid of the people learning the truth that they will bankrupt anyone who tries."
It is unclear how this battle between X and Brazil will ultimately shake out. Elon Musk has indicated that free speech is very important to him, but there have also been reports that X may eventually comply with Brazil's government's requests in order to keep operating in the country.
What do you think Elon Musk should do in this situation?