Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been recently subjected to a coordinated effort by media activists and Democrats to smear him with allegations of blatant and repeated violations of judicial ethics guidelines and standards in failing to properly disclose "gifts" received from a wealthy friend.

Thomas has denied any wrongdoing, and now one of his personal friends has provided documentary evidence that the justice had already been cleared of virtually the same allegations more than a decade ago, the Conservative Brief reported.

That friend is Washington D.C. attorney Mark Paoletta, who previously served in the Trump and Bush administrations, and who posted a thread of tweets in which he shared copies of public letters from the Judicial Conference that proved that the same allegations had been reviewed and dismissed more than 10 years ago.

The coordinated smear of Justice Thomas

In early April, left-leaning ProPublica published a lengthy article that purported to expose numerous incidents over the years in which Justice Thomas had accepted rides on the private jet and yacht of a personal friend, Texas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow, and had been a complimentary guest at several different properties owned by Crow -- none of which was reported in financial disclosure forms.

What followed was a series of similar articles and claims of ethics violations from other media outlets, partisan activists, and elected Democrats, who all leveled accusations of unethical behavior against Thomas and demanded his resignation or threatened potential impeachment and removal from the court.

Except, according to Fox News, none of the supposed ethics violations or disclosure failures are true, and Paoletta had the documented evidence to prove that no wrongdoing had occurred.

Judicial Conference already dealt with this issue and dismissed it

In a multi-tweet thread last week, Paoletta wrote, "Justice Thomas complied with ethics law when he didn’t disclose trips under personal hospitality exception. In 2011/12, Judicial Conference specifically reviewed complaints Thomas hadn’t properly disclosed trips and concluded Thomas acted properly in not disclosing."

"After complaints filed in Jan 2011 on Thomas not disclosing wife’s salary, which was inadvertent, there were complaints submitted based on June 2011 NYT story on Thomas traveling on Harlan Crow plane & boat & staying at Crow's summer home, Topridge," he continued. "In September 29, 2011 letter signed by Rep. Slaughter and 20 Members to Judicial Conference, Members cited @nytimes story that Justice Thomas had violated law by not disclosing his trips on Crow’s plane and boat on his forms."

"Judicial Conference wrote back to Congress on October 14, 2011, and said this letter was referred to Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure for review," the attorney wrote. "On 4/30/12, Jud Conf replied to congress that they reviewed allegations in 9/29 letter & 'concluded that nothing has been presented to support a determination that Justice Thomas ... willfully or improperly failed to disclose information concerning travel reimbursements.'"

"Thus, Judicial Conference specifically reviewed allegations in 2011/12 that Justice Thomas had violated law by not disclosing his trips on Crow’s plane and boat pursuant to personal hospitality exception and Judicial Conference AGREED Thomas was correct in not disclosing," Paoletta added.

The D.C. attorney wasn't done yet, though, as he kept going in his thread with even more recent documentary evidence from this month, as he tweeted, "This is set forth in Judicial Conference 5/15/2023 letter to [Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)], which summarized findings that 'nothing had been presented to support a determination that … Justice Thomas willfully or improperly failed to disclose information concerning travel reimbursements.'"

Paoletta noted in two separate tweets in the thread that "Under Ethics in Government Act, the Judicial Conference is designated as the body to issue interpretive guidance, review reports, and determine compliance for the judiciary," as well as that the "Judicial Conference is the authoritative body for Judiciary under the law and the Judicial Conference ruling in 2012 concludes Justice Thomas acted properly in not disclosing trips."

Journalists obviously failed to do basic due diligence on claims

The attorney also specifically called out the editor and reporters for the ProPublica story and wrote, "2011 letters to Judicial Conference alleging Thomas violated law by not disclosing trips were public. Did you check with Judicial Conference to ask if they ruled on allegations & concluded Thomas acted properly in not disclosing trips?"

"You cite left wing 'ethics experts,' whose views are just partisan opinions, but I don’t see anything in your original article that you checked with Judicial Conference," Paoletta damningly concluded.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) just attacked the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court following a recent decision with which he disagrees. 

Schumer did so in a message that he posted to Twitter on Thursday, May 25.

He wrote:

This MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country’s environmental laws. Make no mistake—this ruling will mean more polluted water, and more destruction of wetlands. We’ll keep fighting to protect our waters.

There is something, however, that Schumer conveniently omits from his message.

The "MAGA Supreme Court"?

The case at issue regards the expansive definition that President Joe Biden's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put forth for the 1972 Clean Water Act's (CLW) "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS).

Biden's EPA has changed the definition of WOTUS  such that it includes wetlands, lakes, ponds, streams, and  "relatively permanent" waterways. In other words, the EPA has broadened the scope of WOTUS so that it can regulate more waterways than it would have been able to under the old definition.

The EPA's new definition of WOTUS was challenged. And, Fox News reports that the U.S. Supreme Court just struck the new definition down in a 9 to 0 decision.

Twitter felt the need to supply this missing piece of information from Schumer's post. Citing the New York Times, the added context reads:

All 9 judges agreed that the EPA overstepped its authority and that the plaintiffs' property should not be subject to EPA regulation. However, 4 judges disagreed with the majority's opinion on the limits of EPA authority with respect to wetlands.

This is what Schumer conveniently left out of his message: The decision was unanimous. It was not the decision of a "MAGA Supreme Court" - unless liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson have suddenly changed their ways.

The absurdity of Schumer's tweet

Schumer's tweet, though, is even more ridiculous than it might first appear.

Twitter's added context points out that four of the "judges actually disagreed with the majority's opinion on the limits of EPA authority with respect to wetlands."

Those four justices were the court's three liberal members and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

So, not only did the liberals join with the conservatives with regard to the case's 9 to 0 decision. But, Kavanaugh - a conservative - also joined with the liberals in disagreeing with part of the majority's decision.

In other words, what happened, in this case, is about the furthest thing possible from a "MAGA Supreme Court."

Last week wasn't great for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as her most recent town hall event was riddled with angry constituents. 

Some of those in attendance seemed especially unhappy with her position on several hot-button issues, including immigration and the debt ceiling. A few in the crowd entered into a lively debate with the radical progressive Democrat, eventually getting angry with her.

"American citizens should come first before migrants!" one man, wearing a shirt with the Cuban flag while holding an American flag, shouted.

"America first!" he said.

It got bad

That same man eventually challenged AOC further on the illegal immigration crisis at the southern U.S. border.

After pressing AOC on where she was at on the issue, he shouted, "You’re a piece of s**t!"

AOC was getting LIT up by her constituents, who are sick of her putting America LAST!

AOC town hall was a mess.

— Graham Allen (@GrahamAllen_1) May 27, 2023

According to Conservative Brief, many in attendance held signs that read, "America First. Vetted legal migrants only,” “Stop funding Ukraine,” “AOC: An Obvious Criminal,” and “AOC: Stop pushing drag queen story hour."

"It’s nice to see that some sanity still lives on in New York’s 14th District. In case you’ve yet to see Sandy get absolutely destroyed by her own constituents, just take a look," Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) tweeted.

It’s nice to see that some sanity still lives on in New York’s 14th District.

In case you’ve yet to see Sandy get absolutely destroyed by her own constituents, just take a look.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) May 28, 2023

Calls for elimination

AOC went on to call for the end of the debt ceiling entirely, citing "constitutional reasons," according to Fox Business. Her view on the matter came after someone asked if she thinks the 14th Amendment should be utilized to tackle the pending debt ceiling crisis.

"I still believe, first of all, that we should start to implement [the 14th Amendment] anyway because we should eliminate the debt limit in the United States because of the Constitutional reasons," Ocasio-Cortez said.

Others in the crowd slammed AOC for her support of sending billions of American tax dollars to Ukraine to fight Russia.

Overall, AOC had a very bad night, and it wasn't the warm reception she's used to on social media, where her adoring fans cherish every word she says as the gospel. As Americans suffer increasingly under a Democratic administration, it's no wonder so many Democrat-leaning voters are finally becoming fed up with what's happening and who's responsible for it all.

During remarks about women's sports on Friday while hosting the champion LSU women's basketball team at the White House, President Joe Biden falsely said he had "four granddaughters" when he actually has five with son Hunter's illegitimate daughter Navy Joan Roberts, who lives in Arkansas.

“The way in which women’s sports has come along is just incredible. And it’s not just in sports, it’s across the board in every single thing,” Biden said. “It’s really neat to see since I’ve got four granddaughters.”

Forbes pointed out the discrepancy in a tweet.

JUST IN: While hosting the LSU Tigers Women's Basketball Team, President Biden says "I've got four granddaughters," when in reality he has five.

— Forbes (@Forbes) May 26, 2023

Erasing her existence

It's not the first time Biden has left Navy Joan out when talking about his grandchildren. He also said regarding take your child to work day, that he had six grandchildren, naming them and again leaving out Navy Joan.

“The best part of it all, I have six grandchildren, and I’m crazy about them. I speak to them every single day,” Biden said, and named them. “Not a joke."

It's like the Bidens have just erased her existence from their public personas, despite a paternity test in 2019 that proved she was Hunter's child and an ongoing child support trial. They didn't include her in the tradition of hanging Christmas stockings for each grandchild at the White House, and have never spoken of her publicly.

When a reporter asked Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about why they weren't acknowledging Navy Joan, she refused to answer the question as she does with so many questions about the Biden family.

The cruelty of the Bidens

It comes off rather cruel for the Bidens to shun and ignore a member of their family, especially a little girl who has no fault in how she was born, as a result of Hunter's affair with her then-stripper mother.

Not only are they ignoring her, but Hunter is trying to get his $ 20,000-a-month child support reduced. It is a lot of child support to pay, but as lawyers for Lunden Roberts point out, Hunter Biden is living high on the hog in Malibu, California, flying on private jets and taking vacations in Europe--even if most of it is as a tagalong with daddy, the President.

Roberts would like to give Navy Joan the Biden family name because of the prestige it carried, but of course, it would get a lot harder to ignore her if that happened.

One can only wonder what kind of therapy she's going to need when she grows up and realizes how she has been treated by one of the most recognizable families in the country.

Better off?`

Then again, by the time she's old enough to realize what has happened, the Biden family name might be a disgrace.

Maybe she's better off not being connected to them, as details of deep corruption continue to come out of the House Oversight Committee's investigation.

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency had overstepped its authority in regulating the "waters of the United States" and "wetlands" in going after an Idaho couple who sought to build a home on property next to a lake.

In response to the decision, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) ripped the "MAGA Supreme Court" for purportedly eroding the nation's environmental laws, Fox News reported.

Given the 9-0 unanimity of the Supreme Court's ruling, Schumer's logic would appear to suggest that liberal Justices Elena Kagen, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson are far-right-wing "MAGA" extremists, which quite obviously isn't the case.

Schumer labels entire Supreme Court as "MAGA" extremists

In reporting on the Supreme Court's decision, The Washington Post tweeted, "Breaking news: The Supreme Court on Thursday cut back the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation’s wetlands and waterways, another setback for the agency’s authority to combat pollution."

Sen. Schumer retweeted that post and added, "This MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country’s environmental laws. Make no mistake -- this ruling will mean more polluted water, and more destruction of wetlands. We’ll keep fighting to protect our waters."

Ironically enough, both of those tweets were appended with the same "Community Note" that provided additional context, namely, "All 9 judges agreed that the EPA overstepped its authority and that the plaintiffs' property should not be subject to EPA regulation. However, 4 judges disagreed with the majority's opinion on the limits of EPA authority with respect to wetlands."

Unanimous decision ... with differing concurring opinions

Indeed, SCOTUSblog reported that all nine justices were in full agreement that, in the case of Sackett v. EPA, the EPA lacked the authority to prohibit Idaho property owners Michael and Chantell Sackett from improving a piece of lakeside property with a home as their property didn't constitute wetlands that were "adjacent" to "navigable interstate waters" that the EPA is authorized by Congress to regulate.

That said, the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which sought to more narrowly distinguish what specific statutory terms mean, was only joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, wrote a concurring opinion that would have limited the EPA's power even further to what the federal government's initial jurisdiction had been when the Constitution was first adopted, primarily just waters used for commerce and transportation, with the individual states retaining the right to regulate all other non-navigable waters.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Kagen, Sotomayor, and Jackson, that agreed with Alito with respect to the Sackett property but argued that his "narrowing" of the particular statutory terms would only cause more uncertainty and result in the court having to deal with the issue again in the future.

Finally, Justice Kagen wrote a concurring opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, that similarly agreed that the EPA had gone too far with the Sacketts but nonetheless attacked the majority for its apparent "appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy" in reference to other recent decisions that have rolled back the EPA's expansive claims of regulatory authority.

That may have been what Sen. Schumer was attempting to remark upon with his tweet, but his utter lack of any context or nuance resulted in an absurdly broad brush assault upon the court that swept up Kagen, Sotomayor, and Jackson as "MAGA" extremists.

Biden also lashes out

For what it is worth, Sen. Schumer was not alone in that regard, as President Joe Biden also issued a context-free and unnuanced statement slamming the "disappointing decision" from the unanimous Supreme Court that "will take our country backwards" and "puts our Nation’s wetlands -- and the rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds connected to them -- at risk of pollution and destruction, jeopardizing the sources of clean water that millions of American families, farmers, and businesses rely on."

And, in what could be interpreted as a subtle threat to ignore or sidestep the Supreme Court's authority, Biden added, "My team will work with the Department of Justice and relevant agencies to carefully review this decision and use every legal authority we have to protect our Nation’s waters for the people and communities that depend on them."

Two top Texas Republicans, one conservative and the other moderate, have tossed accusations of drunkenness and corruption back and forth between each other over the past couple of days in a feud that threatens to split the state's Republican Party, the Daily Wire reported.

On one side is conservative Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has accused moderate Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan (R) of being obviously intoxicated on the job, while Phelan has countered that Paxton is corrupt and expressed his support for a legislative investigation of the state's top lawyer.

Phelan accused of being drunk

In a statement issued Tuesday, AG Paxton called upon Speaker Phelan to resign at the end of the current legislative session due to him previously being observed presiding over the House in a "state of apparent debilitating intoxication."

He further accused Phelan of failing at his duties to the public and refusing to "pass critical conservative priorities" that has created a "credibility crisis" for all Republicans across the state. Paxton urged Phelan to seek help but added that "he has proven himself unworthy of Texans' trust and incapable of leading the Texas House."

The attorney general was referencing an incident caught on camera on May 19 when Phelan appeared to many to be drunk and slurring his words while unsteady on his feet as he presided over the conclusion of a session.

Paxton under investigation for alleged corruption and misconduct

According to the Texas Tribune, that swipe against Speaker Phelan from AG Paxton on Tuesday came just hours before it was revealed that the Texas House General Investigating Committee had been secretly probing allegations of corruption against the attorney general.

On Wednesday, the committee had heard several hours of testimony outlining the allegations against Paxton -- primarily that he had used the power and resources of his office to aid a personal friend and donor, as well as that he had fired four employees from his office in retaliation after they raised concerns, along with other years-old allegations of other acts of misconduct.

The committee held another meeting on Thursday that was briefly interrupted by one of Paxton's top aides, Chris Hilton, who demanded an opportunity to deliver testimony in defense of the attorney general but was denied.

"The people deserve to hear from this office in the context of this investigation," Hilton said, per the Tribune. "The voters want Ken Paxton, and this committee -- by investigating him, by not allowing us to be heard here today, by never reaching out to us at any time during this investigative process -- is trying to thwart the will of the voters. We deserve to be heard here today."

Texas House may move forward on recommended impeachment of Paxton

The Tribune noted that just a short time after refusing to hear the offered testimony from Hilton on AG Paxton's behalf, the five-member committee took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of voting unanimously to recommend that Paxton be impeached and removed from office.

If the Republican-controlled House -- where Paxton actually has few friends -- votes to impeach him, Texas law requires that Paxton be suspended from office pending the conclusion of a Senate trial.

That said, another provision of Texas law known as the "forgiveness doctrine" has been interpreted by some as prohibiting the removal of officials for alleged misconduct that occurred prior to the most recent election. Given that Paxton was just re-elected in November and all of the allegations predate that election, he could be legally spared from facing impeachment and removal.

The Texas House could hold a vote as soon as Friday on whether or not to move forward with the recommended articles of impeachment against Paxton, who, needless to say, was outraged at what occurred and slammed it as an "illegitimate attempt to overthrow the will of the people" by "corrupted politicians" led by "liberal" Speaker Phelan.

The advanced age of President Joe Biden, who is currently 80 and would be 86 upon leaving office if re-elected to a second term, has increasingly become an issue of concern for many American voters.

While some Democrats have dismissed questions about Biden's age, failed 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged that voters "have every right to consider" the president's age as a factor in whether or not to re-elect him in 2024, the Western Journal reported.

The remarks were viewed by some as a sort of subtle dig at the elderly incumbent by a purported ally with her own unfulfilled presidential ambitions and a history of throwing fellow Democrats under the bus, according to the outlet.

"His age is an issue"

Clinton sat for a lengthy discussion at the Financial Times Weekend Festival in Washington D.C. with the moderator, FT Editor Edward Luce, who asked her about President Biden near the end of the conversation in relation to a recent incident in which Biden nearly tumbled down some stairs at the G7 summit in Japan.

"Now, there was that heart-stopping moment where he almost fell over coming down the stairs a day or two ago. He didn't use the railings. Jill wasn't there with him," Luce said. "Every time that happens, your heart is in your mouth, because these things could be consequential. Is that a concern?"

"Well, I mean, it's a concern for anyone. And we've had presidents who've fallen before who are a lot younger, and people didn't go into heart palpitations," Clinton replied.

"But his age is an issue. And people have every right to consider it," she conceded.

The former first lady/senator/secretary of State/presidential nominee went on to then praise Biden for his alleged accomplishments over the past two years and added, "So I obviously hope he stays very focused and able to compete in the election because I think he -- I think he can be re-elected, and that's what we should all hope for."

Polls show majority of Americans agree that Biden is too old to be president

Clinton's admission that President Biden's age is a legitimate "issue" for people to "consider" as a factor in determining whether or not he should be re-elected places her in a solid majority of Americans, according to several polls over the past few months.

On Wednesday, Quinnipiac University released the results of a poll of 1,616 registered voters conducted between May 18-22, with a margin of error of 2.4 percent, and among a variety of things asked if President Biden's was "too old to effectively serve" another four-year term in office.

Among registered voters, 65 percent said "Yes," including 90 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of independents, and even 41 percent of Democrats.

On May 6, an ABC News/Washington Post survey of 1,006 adults between April 28-May 3, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent, found that 68 percent of all Americans thought Biden was too old to continue serving, including 79 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents, and even 48 percent of Democrats.

That poll also revealed that only around one-third of all Americans believed that Biden had the necessary "mental sharpness" and "physical health" to continue effectively serving as the president.

Then there was an NBC News poll of 1,000 adults between April 14-18, with a margin of error between 3.1 and 4.1 percent, which revealed that 70 percent of adults said Biden should not run for a second term, and of those, around 48 percent said his advanced age was a "major" reason why.

When President Joe Biden launched his 2024 re-election campaign in April, he made it abundantly clear that he would retain Vice President Kamala Harris as his running mate, which, given his age and health, heightens the possibility that she could eventually assume the presidency.

Former Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard recently revealed that the prospect of a Harris presidency is one of the main reasons why she will not vote for Biden in 2024 "under any circumstances," the Washington Examiner reported.

Gabbard explained that Harris was "completely unqualified" to serve as the nation's commander-in-chief and, if elevated to that position, would prove particularly "dangerous" in terms of getting the U.S. involved in additional conflicts and wars.

A Harris presidency would be "scary beyond belief"

Those remarks from Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who also continues to serve in the National Guard, came during a two-hour interview on the PBD Podcast with host Patrick David-Bet and co-host Adam Sosnick that covered a wide range of topics.

At one point in the conversation, while discussing some of the various presidential candidates on both sides of the political divide, Gabbard explained her shift from supporting President Biden in 2020 to now being completely opposed to his bid for re-election.

"Before long, we would have a President Kamala Harris as commander-in-chief, which I and others who wear the uniform find to be scary beyond belief," Gabbard said of her chief concerns with a re-elected Biden administration.

Harris "clearly unqualified," would be "dangerous" as president

Asked to further clarify that concern, she replied that the "most important responsibility" for any president is to serve as the commander-in-chief and that she believed that "Kamala Harris is completely unqualified and lacks not only the knowledge and experience but the temperament to serve in that position."

"And what's dangerous about that is, number one, she will be manipulated by the military-industrial complex, by people who have a lot of stars on their shoulders from the Pentagon, who would like to see us continue to be in a state of war, for a number of reasons rather than to pursue peace and diplomacy," Gabbard continued.

"And she would, as we've seen with others in the past, she would feel as though she needs to project strength," she added. "It's the most dangerous thing to have a weak person feel like they need to project strength and have the U.S. military at their fingertips to do that."

The show's co-hosts went on to briefly discuss just how unpopular and unpresidential VP Harris was perceived in her current role, much less the actual presidency, and noted how disturbing and potentially dangerous it would be for the nation to have to rely upon Harris to represent the country's interests during negotiations with enemies and rivals like Russia' Vladimir Putin or China's Xi Jinping.

Poll numbers are not good for Harris

The anti-Harris sentiment expressed on that show by Gabbard and the co-hosts is one that is seemingly shared by a majority of Americans with regard to the VP and her clearly unqualified nature in terms of being the nation's leader.

Indeed, FiveThirtyEight's conglomeration of job approval polls shows that only around 38.7 percent of Americans actually approve of the job Harris has done thus far as vice president while just shy of 50 percent have registered their disapproval of her.

In terms of simply her personal favorability, the numbers are even worse for Harris, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, which shows that Harris is perceived favorably by just 40 percent compared to 53.5 percent who view her unfavorably.

According to President Joe Biden, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has assured him that Ukraine would not use the F-16 fighter jets that it is likely to receive from the West to attack Russia in Russian territory. 

Biden, Reuters reports, disclosed this assurance that he received from Zelenskyy to reporters at the conclusion of the recently held G-7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan.

There, Biden said that he received a "flat assurance" from Zelenskyy that the planes will not be used to attack Russia itself. Rather, he said that they will be used "wherever Russian troops are within Ukraine and the area."

Biden, according to Reuters, also said that it is "highly unlikely" that the F-16s will be used in a Ukrainian offensive in the coming weeks. But, Biden did say that Ukrainian troops may need the fighter jets to defend themselves against Russian forces who are beyond Ukraine's current reach.


At the G7 summit, Zelenskyy, once again, lobbied Western allies for more assistance. And, he, at the very least, won Biden over as Biden, at the summit, announced another $375 million in military aid to Ukraine to assist the country in its ongoing war with Russia.

But, there's more. For some time now, Zelenskyy has been pleading with the West to provide American-made F-16 fighter jets. The West has mostly refused, although Poland and Slovakia have given Ukraine Soviet-era MiG-29s.

Apparently, the MiG-29s, however, are a bit outdated. Accordingly, Zelenskyy has continued to lobby the West for the F-16s. And, it now appears that he may have finally been successful.

During the G7 summit, Biden said that Washington supports a program to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s fighter jets. Zelenskyy, additionally, told reporters that he is confident that Ukraine will receive F-16s from the West.

We'll see if this turns out to be true.

The latest in the Russia-Ukraine war

It appears that, over the weekend, Russia may have captured the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. There, have been some conflicting reports on the subject. Fighting may still be ongoing.

But, Zelenskyy, at the G7 summit, certainly acted as though Bakhmut was lost.

He told reporters:

They destroyed everything. There are no buildings. It’s a pity. It’s tragedy but today Bakhmut is only in our hearts. There is nothing in this place. Just drones and a lot of dead Russians. But they came to us. So our defenders in Bakhmut, they did strong work. And of course, we appreciate them for their great job.

Bakhmut has been one of the most heavily contested cities in the Russia-Ukraine war. Fighting, there, has been ongoing for eight months.

Even if it is true that Russia has captured Bakhmut, experts do not believe that this will significantly change the overall direction of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Some top Republicans are using their newfound power of the subpoena to get to the bottom of several President Joe Biden-related scandals, including what many believe was a widespread, long-duration influence-peddling scheme spearheaded by Hunter Biden. 

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is one of the Republicans fighting to obtain records, specifically regarding an FBI-generated form that allegedly details a criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden.

The revelation of the form's existence came via one of several FBI whistleblowers who've come forward with potentially damaging information about the Biden family's overseas dealings.

The FBI originally denied a subpoena for the form. On Friday, Comer sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding the form once again.


Comer held nothing back in the letter penned to Wray, calling the agency's actions regarding the form "unacceptable."

“The FBI’s delay in producing a single, unclassified record is unacceptable,” Comer said in a statement.

“The information provided by a whistleblower raises concerns that then-Vice President Biden allegedly engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national. The FBI must provide this record to Congress without further delay. The American people demand the truth and accountability for any wrongdoing. That starts with getting this record."

He added: "The FBI’s well-documented failures in politically sensitive investigations have eroded public confidence over the past few years."

The document allegedly details a bribery scheme between then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national who may have influenced American policy.

Should that be the case, it could mark a death blow to Biden's 2024 presidential campaign, which is just now getting off the ground.

McCarthy's confident

Late-breaking news emerged suggesting House Speaker Kevin McCarthy believes Director Wray will, in fact, comply with the request for the form. The two reportedly had a recent phone call regarding the brewing situation.

Kevin McCarthy recently had a phone call with FBI Director Chris Wray and now believes that the FBI will turn over the FD-1023 form that they have failed to turn over to Congress.

This is the doc that Comer says outlines a bribery scheme with Biden and a foreign national.

— TheStormHasArrived (@TheStormRedux) May 21, 2023

"I explained to the director that we will do everything in our power, and [that] we have jurisdiction over the FBI - that we have the right to see this document," the House speaker said. "I believe, after this call, we will get this document."

Only time will tell if McCarthy's right, but if he is, and if the document contains what the whistleblower says it does, this could mark a whole new chapter in modern presidential scandals.

© 2023 - Patriot News Alerts