Democrats and their partisan media allies have spent much of the year attempting to stir up ethics controversies and scandals involving the conservative justices of the Supreme Court to discredit them in the public eye.
That game goes both ways, though, and a conservative watchdog group just filed an ethics complaint against liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, according to the Washington Examiner.
The complaint alleges "willful" violations of federal law and ethics disclosure requirements on the part of Jackson by way of her repeated failure to disclose certain income received by her husband as well as a failure to report certain "gifts" she has received, and called for a formal criminal investigation of the matter.
Fox News reported that the ethics complaint against Justice Jackson was filed by the Center for Renewing America, an America First-aligned conservative think tank headed up by Russ Vought, who previously served as head of the Office of Management and Budget in former President Donald Trump's White House, and included at least two apparent violations of disclosure requirements in federal statutes codified as part of 1978's Ethics in Government Act.
One of those statutes is 5 U.S.C. § 13104(e)(1)(A), which requires the disclosure of "The source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceed $1,000 ... except that ... if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession need be reported."
The other statute is 5 U.S.C. § 13104(a)(2)(A), which requires disclosure of "The identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts aggregating more than the minimal value" of $415 that were received from "any source other than a relative" and with exceptions for "any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality" or items valued at less than $100 that don't need to be included in the annual aggregate.
Given the alleged violations of those two statutes by Justice Jackson, the ethics complaint pointed to 5 U.S.C. § 13106(b), which calls for a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney general if there is "reasonable cause to believe" the referred individual "has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported."
On Monday, CRA's Vought sent a letter to the Judicial Conference and stated that "Justice Jackson appears to have willfully failed to disclose required information regarding her husband’s medical malpractice consulting income for over a decade," as well as that "there is reason to believe that Justice Jackson may have failed to report the private funding sources of her massive investiture celebration at the Library of Congress in her most recent financial disclosure."
"The Conference should open an investigation to determine if Justice Jackson needs to remedy this potential omission," Vought wrote. "Given the need to ensure the equal application of the law and the tendency of these violations to create serious recusal issues and conflicts of interest, the Conference’s prompt attention is of paramount public importance."
The letter went on to lay out how Jackson had initially complied with the disclosure requirements when she became a federal judge in 2012 and reported her husband's medical malpractice consulting fees income from 2011 but has since failed to similarly disclose any such income in subsequent annual filings -- which Jackson herself acknowledged during her Senate confirmation hearings in 2022 when she was nominated to the Supreme Court.
The letter also raised concerns about Jackson's failure to disclose who paid for the privately-funded celebration of her confirmation that was hosted by the Library of Congress and featured a lineup of "several musical performances" plus "food, entertainment, venue fees, and staff" that all constituted a "gift" valued at more than $415 under the law, and therefore must be publicly disclosed.
"Justice Jackson has demonstrated a disturbing trend of not reporting material sources of income and gifts," Vought wrote in conclusion. "As described above, she has failed to report the years in which her husband has received income for his medical malpractice consulting, a blatant violation of EIGA. And she continues to fail to report the sources of her husband’s legal consultation income."
"Moreover, she has potentially failed to disclose private funders of her unprecedented investiture celebration," he continued. "By doing so, Justice Jackson has shielded potential conflicts of interest from public scrutiny and undermined the ability of the public, outside watchdog groups, and parties to scrutinize her recusal decisions."
"Given the risk for these potentially willful omissions to create conflicts of interest and recusal issues, and the need to ensure equal application of the law, the Conference should refer Justice Jackson to the Attorney General for her failure to disclose her husband’s consulting income and open an investigation into the potential private funding of her investiture celebration," Vought added.
A car crashed into an SUV that was part of President Joe Biden's motorcade on Sunday night in Wilmington, Delaware, and though the president was startled by the collision he was not harmed.
The driver of the other vehicle that was involved in the accident has since been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and "inattentive driving," according to the Daily Beast.
The White House has not yet issued a formal response to the incident but a spokesperson for the U.S. Secret Service -- as well as the Wilmington Police Department -- did release statements about what occurred.
According to CNN, President Biden, accompanied by the first lady, had just finished addressing staffers at his campaign headquarters in the president's hometown of Wilmington on Sunday and was leaving the building when the accident that multiple members of the media witnessed transpired.
The loud sound of a collision was heard that reportedly startled the president and others and resulted in some Secret Service agents hustling Biden into another SUV in which the first lady was already loaded while other agents and police officers rushed toward the other vehicle with weapons drawn.
Notably, the streets were slick and glaringly reflective of the flashing lights following a day of heavy rain in the area.
A car collided with part of Biden’s parked motorcade tonight in Wilmington — it just rammed into an SUV that had closed down a street while Biden attended a campaign event.
The circumstances weren’t clear; Biden and the First Lady loaded into their vehicle and left. pic.twitter.com/M3kvbNGfCl
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) December 18, 2023
On Monday, CNN reported that the Wilmington Police announced that the driver of the other vehicle, an unnamed 46-year-old resident of the city, was charged for causing the accident involving an SUV that was part of the presidential motorcade.
David Karas, communications director for the Wilmington PD, said in a statement, "Following our investigation, Wilmington Police have determined that this was an accidental collision, and have charged the driver of the striking vehicle -- a 46-year-old Wilmington man -- with Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol and Inattentive Driving."
Steve Kopek, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, also released a statement Sunday night about the incident and made it clear that the president was not harmed nor had been in any danger.
Kopek said, "Today, at approximately 8:09 p.m., a Secret Service vehicle securing the President’s motorcade route was struck by another vehicle in Wilmington, DE. There was no protective interest associated with this event and the President’s motorcade departed without incident."
While the Wilmington Police declined to identify the suspect charged for his involvement in the accident with the Secret Service SUV, The New York Times named the man as James Cooper, 46, of Wilmington.
The license plates on his vehicle were clearly visible to all as members of the media watched police officers and Secret Service agents briefly hold the man at gunpoint until he surrendered.
The president and first lady had just finished having a special dinner meeting with Biden's 2024 campaign staffers in which his weak poll numbers were discussed when the accident occurred.
Jen Psaki - the Biden administration's former White House press secretary - says that the White House wants Hunter Biden to "stop talking in public."
Psaki said as much during Sunday's broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press. Psaki joined MSNBC after leaving the Biden administration.
One of the topics of discussion on Sunday's program was Hunter Biden, particularly in light of recent events - including his latest criminal indictment and his decision to disregard a congressional subpoena to provide testimony about the Biden family business.
Host Kristen Welker asked Psaki: "Jen Psaki, you had this surprise press conference by Hunter Biden. Did it help, or did it hurt?"
Welker is referring to the press conference that Hunter Biden gave after he decided to disregard the congressional subpoena.
At the press conference, Biden attempted to blame House Republicans - the ones who are investigating the Biden family business - for his current situation. He also tried to dictate the terms of his congressional testimony, saying that while he will not provide private testimony he will provide public testimony.
This has led to even more troubles for President Joe Biden and his administration, which was left answering questions such as whether the president knew or instructed his son to disregard the congressional subpoena. This is a particularly relevant question in light of the fact that Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) will decide whether or not to prosecute Hunter Biden for violating the subpoena.
The president and his administration have refused to respond to this question head-on.
In the background of all of this is Hunter Biden's latest criminal indictment, in California, for various tax charges. This is in addition to Hunter Biden's other criminal indictment in Delaware.
To get back to Welker's question, Psaki clearly seems to think that Hunter Biden's press conference did more bad than good.
"Look, I think if you're sitting in the White House right now, you're like, 'Please, Hunter Biden. We know your dad loves you. Please stop talking in public.' This is not helpful to any of them for him to be out there," Psaki said.
Here, Psaki brought up recent reports indicating that the president is worried about his son, which many have argued is the White House's attempt to spin the situation to make it look as though Hunter Biden is the victim.
Psaki said, "But, at the same time, the president loves his son. That takes precedent over anything else. That is appealing. I'm thinking of the woman in your focus group who talked about family. He loves his son. He loves his family. He's worried about his mental health."
"But," Psaki concluded, "yes, the White House would like him to probably go away right now."
Maren Morris, the soon-to-be ex-wife of country singer Ryan Hurd, recently opened up about her divorce.
According to USA Today, during a recent interview with radio host Howard Stern, Morris revealed the reasoning behind some of her recent decisions.
Stern asked Morris about the current status of her love life and also questioned Morris about her recent hairstyle change.
Morris, who has been legally separated from Hurd since early October, said the divorce process is still "ongoing."
Morris opened up about what feels like a sharp uptick in separations and divorces, including her own. Stern asked her about her hairstyle change, which is now a short "bob" cut.
"I cut all the trauma out of my hair," Morris said. "I think this year has — for a lot of people, not just me — just a lot of people that are close to me have gone through it. I’ve known so many people that have gone through breakups or divorces."
Maren Morris is opening up about her divorce from Ryan Hurd.
"I think this year has ... for a lot of people, not just me ... a lot of people that are close to me have gone through it."https://t.co/N66JB05nUq
— Good Morning America (@GMA) December 14, 2023
USA Today noted:
After five years of marriage, Morris filed for divorce on Oct. 2, according to documents obtained by The (Nashville) Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. The filing states the couple, who live in Nashville, has been separated since the early October date.
According to divorce filings, Morris said one of the reasons for filing the divorce, in addition to "irreconcilable differences," was that they were "unable to live together successfully as husband and wife."
"I would like this to sort of wrap up," Morris said of her divorce and the prospect of finding someone new. "I don't have the headspace for that yet. But I'm writing so much right now. That's kind of been my way of dating is just through song."
Maren Morris is trying keep the mood light amid her divorce from Ryan Hurd. https://t.co/erxvayLiMC
— Us Weekly (@usweekly) December 16, 2023
The couple's announcement of a child was big news in 2020, and thankfully, it doesn't appear as if there's any custody battle brewing.
USA Today noted:
Morris took an online parenting seminar for divorcing parents, a court-approved parent education and family stabilization course, according to additional documents obtained by The Tennessean. The couple cannot move their child from their Tennessee home until the divorce is finalized – a standard protocol for divorce in Tennessee.
Many on social media noted that there seems to be a sharp rise in celebrity divorces.
President Joe Biden announced Friday that only three offshore drilling leases would be authorized over the next five years, the lowest number in U.S. history, and that green energy sources would be aggressively pursued instead.
The three offshore drilling leases will all be offered in the Gulf of Mexico--one each in 2025, 2027, and 2029.
No leases will be offered on the Alaskan coast or the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, another radical departure from previous five-year plans.
If not for the Inflation Reduction Act, which ties green energy development to the leases, no leases would have been offered, some sources said.
Biden plans to develop 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, and further restricting drilling leases could put that goal in jeopardy.
Joe Manchin issued a statement after the decision Friday critical of Biden.
"It’s now clear without a shadow of a doubt that without the IRA, this Administration would have ended federal oil and gas development completely," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin, (D-WV) said.
"But instead of embracing the all-of-the-above energy bill that was signed into law, this Administration has once again decided to put their radical political agenda over American energy security, and the American people will pay the price," Manchin continued. "Granting the bare minimum of oil and gas leases will result in a minimum of renewables leases as well because the IRA tied the two together. You can’t have one without the other."
The five-year plan required by the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was due in June 2022, so Biden has already been dragging his feet for 18 months on the process.
The previous two plans, both drafted during the Obama administration, allowed more than 10 offshore oil and gas leases each.
Trump wanted a total of 47 leases in a five-year period, between 2022 and 2027.
President of the National Ocean Industries Association Erik Milito blasted Biden's decision. The association represents both fossil fuel and renewable energy sources.
"President Biden’s approach to severely limit leasing significantly curtails access to a critical national asset," Milito said. "The White House simply ignores energy realities by once again limiting U.S. energy production opportunities."
Milito noted that the restrictions will force the U.S. to get its resources from foreign sources that have more lax emissions standards and worse environmental ones.
An anonymously-sourced report on Thursday asserted there is some measure of disagreement between Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden on how the administration should publicly address the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, with her allegedly urging him to be "tougher" on the Israelis and more "sympathetic" toward the Palestinians in Gaza.
That report was dismissed later the same day by White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who insistently pushed back against the idea there was "some sort of daylight between" Harris and Biden on the issue, according to Fox News.
The reference to a purported lack of "daylight" between the president and VP was unmistakeably the decided-upon talking point of the White House, as some variation of that particular phrase was uttered by multiple senior officials in response to the leak-based report.
During Thursday's White House press briefing, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked the NSC spokesman, "John, why would somebody around here leak that the Vice President is upset with the President about Gaza?"
Kirby initially attempted to laugh off the blunt question but then said, "You’ve seen us, officially and on the record -- not in a leak -- refute the basic premise of the story that there’s some sort of daylight between the Vice President and the President."
"I found the headline of the story interesting, that -- that the Vice President is pushing the White House to -- you fill in the blank: X, Y, Z. Last I looked, the Vice President is part of the White House. She’s part of the team," he continued. "And if she wasn’t offering her advice and counsel to the President on innumerable issues, that would be a story. Her job is to provide advice and counsel to the President."
The Fox News reporter pressed the matter and asked about VP Harris, "So, she does want President Biden to show more concern publicly for humanitarian damage, then, in Gaza?"
Kirby reiterated the "no daylight" talking point once more and said, "I would say that the entire leadership team here in the administration, Peter, wants to see no civilian casualties; wants to see the Israelis be more surgical, more precise; wants to see that humanitarian aid is increased into Gaza."
The NSC spokesman would go on to praise Harris for being viewed by Biden as a "real teammate" and "significant leader" in the realm of "foreign policy" who is valued for being "candid, forthright, educated, smart, and willing to tell him exactly what she thinks."
The referenced report came Thursday from Politico, which cited three unnamed sources as saying that VP Harris had been urging President Biden to publicly display more "concern" and "sensitivity" for the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, as well as to be "tougher" on Israeli leaders, to make "day after" plans for whenever the fighting ends, and to be "more forceful at seeking a long-term peace and two-state solution."
The report suggested there was some distance between Harris, who has seemingly aligned herself with the more anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian progressive wing of the Democratic Party's voter base in comparison to Biden, who up until fairly recently had been relatively strong in his rhetorical support for Israel as it battles the murderous Hamas terror group in Gaza in response to that group's Oct. 7 atrocities in southern Israel.
Yet, the press secretary for Harris, Kirsten Allen, told the outlet that "there is no daylight between the president and the vice president, nor has there been," and insisted that both Harris and Biden were aligned on the top issues. She also warned, "I would caution the media about citing anonymous sources in the 'orbit' about sensitive national security conversations between the president and vice president that take place in the Oval Office."
The same "no daylight" talking point was also uttered by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan in response to questions about recent remarks from Harris that were exceptionally tough on Israel in comparison to Biden's more accommodating rhetoric about the Jewish nation's self-defense, and according to Politico, insisted that "There’s no daylight on that."
Finally, albeit without using the particular keyword, an unnamed senior administration official told the outlet, "From day 1, the President, the Vice President, and their advisers have been aligned and adamant that humanitarian aid must be provided, civilians must be protected, and we must remain committed to a Palestinian state," and was adamant that "the President and Vice President have been consistent in public and private about these policy priorities."
The Supreme Court just picked up a new case this week that features the genuine prospect of pulling the rug out from under Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election-related prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
The high court on Wednesday announced that it would take up a challenge to a particular "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge that federal prosecutors have applied to Trump along with hundreds of Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants, according to the Associated Press.
If a majority of the justices agree that the particular charge has been too broadly interpreted or misapplied, that ruling could "upend hundreds of charges" pressed against Capitol protesters and the former president.
At issue here is a federal statute typically used to prosecute financial crimes and involves the destruction of documentary evidence of such crimes to "obstruct" prosecutors and courts.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(c) states "Whoever corruptly -- (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
That alleged crime and a related "conspiracy" to commit such obstruction are two of the four federal charges pressed against former President Trump by Special Counsel Smith and have also reportedly been applied to more than 300 Jan. 6 defendants.
Three of those Jan. 6 defendants, led by former police officer Joseph Fischer, argued that the statute was inapplicable to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, and a district court judge agreed and dismissed the charge, only for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to override the lower court and reinstate the questionable criminal charge.
Per the AP, at least 152 Jan. 6 defendants have already either been convicted or pleaded guilty to that particular obstruction charge, with 108 of those already receiving hefty prison sentences -- all of which could be undone if the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of the statute's challengers.
In fact, Jan. 6 defense attorney Kira Anne West told the outlet that, in such an outcome, the lower courts would be compelled to "undo a whole bunch of cases" and, at the very least, adjust sentences downward for those who may still have to serve time on other charges they were convicted of.
She said, "This is a watershed day. In our world -- defense lawyer world -- this is huge."
Meanwhile, as two of the charges pressed by Special Counsel Smith against former President Trump are under threat by the Supreme Court, so too is the rapid timeline and March 4, 2024 trial start date that Smith has desperately tried to adhere to, according to ABC News.
That is because presiding District Judge Tanya Chutkan granted a motion from Trump to place the entire proceedings on hold while he and Smith battle it out in the appellate process to determine whether or not Trump still enjoys the protection from prosecution that stems from his presidential immunity.
Oddly enough, while Trump's attorneys followed normal procedures and appealed the matter to the D.C. Circuit Court after Chutkan rejected his immunity argument, Smith made the unorthodox move of bypassing the appeals court with a petition to the Supreme Court to intervene and swiftly settle the dispute in the interest of speed and keeping with the previously scheduled trial start date that will almost certainly now be delayed.
In a statement in response to Judge Chutkan's ruling, a Trump campaign spokesman said, "This is a big win for President Trump and our rule of law, as it derails Deranged Jack Smith’s rush to judgment strategy of interfering in the 2024 Presidential Election in support of Joe Biden’s campaign. They waited almost three years to bring this hoax 'case' and are now desperately trying, and failing, to rush it because they know President Trump is dominating the election."
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case involving a disputed charge against a Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant that is also central to Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election-related prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
There had been mystery and rampant speculation among the media earlier in the week as the particular case had been relisted by the Supreme Court in a Monday orders list but had not decided at that time whether or not the Jan. 6 defendant's petition would be accepted, Newsweek reported.
The case involves a dispute over the government's broad interpretation of a federal obstruction statute that has been applied to hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants as well as the former president.
After the case known as Fischer v. United States was relisted on Monday with no clarification of whether or not it would be accepted, Newsweek reported on the media speculation that the case was both likely to be taken up at some point and just as likely spelled bad news for the Justice Department's interpretation of the statute in question and the hundreds of cases that included the disputed charge.
It didn't take long for the mystery to be solved, as SCOTUSblog reported that another orders list was released on Wednesday which made it clear that the Fischer case had been picked up and would be decided in the current term.
At issue in the case is 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(c), a witness tampering statute, which states: "Whoever corruptly -- (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
Fischer and others similarly situated have argued that prosecutors have grossly expanded their interpretation of the statute that was originally intended to deal with the destruction of evidence in financial crimes to be more broadly applied to Jan. 6 defendants -- and former President Trump.
A district judge had agreed with Fischer and dismissed the charge only to be overruled by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated the charge and set the stage for Fischer's petition to the Supreme Court in September, which was twice considered by the justices in conferences but was delayed in being picked up until now.
Newsweek reported that following the initial relisting of the case on Monday, conservative legal analyst Julie Kelly that it was "a good sign" that the case would be picked up and receive a favorable ruling.
"But how SCOTUS' timing works against a running clock in Trump's case -- this is one of 4 charges in Jack Smith's indictment -- is unknown," she said. "One takeaway is this is not encouraging news for either DOJ or Smith."
A similar assessment came from former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, who told Newsweek, "If the Supreme Court reverses the rioters' convictions, the logic would also apply to Trump, so he would be chipping away at some of Smith's charges."
Roger Parlof, the senior editor of the left-leaning Lawfare outlet, said in a social media post that the relisting was "Unwelcome but not catastrophic news for DOJ" in terms of the hundreds of Jan. 6 cases that the disputed statute had been included in.
One particularly notable thing in this development was alluded to by Julie Kelly, in that the Supreme Court's timing here seemingly serves to throw a wrench into Special Counsel Smith's overt efforts to keep a fast pace in his prosecution of former President Trump and bring him to trial early next year ahead of the 2024 election.
Given that the Supreme Court typically takes months to render a decision after receiving briefs and hearing oral arguments, it is unlikely that a ruling will be issued until early summer, well after the scheduled March 2024 trial start for Trump that Smith has adamantly attempted to adhere to.
Though it had largely faded from the headlines in recent months, House Republicans have continued to press forward with their impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden.
House Democrats are pushing back, though, including by way of top member Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD) quietly urging some of his more moderate GOP colleagues to abandon the effort at holding Biden accountable for prior alleged misdeeds, according to Fox News.
The effort also reportedly includes House Democrats issuing memos that purportedly debunk or refute the alleged evidence of Biden's wrongdoing while the Republican-led House Rules Committee is set to formalize the impeachment inquiry with a full vote by all members on the House floor.
Fox News reported that, according to multiple unnamed sources on Capitol Hill, Rep. Raskin, who is the ranking Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee, has been quietly attempting to dissuade some of his Republican colleagues from supporting the impeachment inquiry against President Biden.
He is reportedly getting together with "right-wing to more moderate members," particularly those with whom he's developed "close relationships," to provide counterarguments to the evidence and facts that have been collected thus far by the House GOP investigation.
While it is unclear what, if any, success Raskin has had in that effort, the sources also told Fox News that some House Republicans have increasingly become "especially receptive to seeing the Administration’s record of cooperation with investigators."
At the same time that Rep. Raskin is reportedly holding these quiet meetings with his Republican colleagues, House Oversight Democrats have more overtly pushed back against the impeachment inquiry with the release of a series of memos that purportedly refute the "distorted and cherry-picked facts and long-debunked conspiracy theories" pushed by GOP investigators.
Separate Democratic memos address topics like GOP claims of White House obstruction, Hunter Biden's seat on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, the supposed personal loans and repayments between President Biden and his brother James, and other matters about Biden family business deals that Republicans have questioned.
"These fact sheets are a hat in hand, fact-based appeal to House Republicans," an unnamed senior House Democratic aide told Fox News of the memos. "Republicans may not be getting all of the facts from [Republican Oversight Committee Chairman James] Comer, so we are making sure that they have the full picture as they decide whether to endorse this impeachment effort."
However, Chairman Comer, who has been leading the ongoing inquiry, has pushed back against the Democratic memos and insinuations against him and told the outlet how it was "ironic Democrats continue to say there is no evidence and then at every turn seek to prevent the Oversight Committee from gathering evidence."
"Despite Democrats' best efforts, the House Oversight Committee has produced evidence revealing Joe Biden knew about, participated in, and benefited from his family cashing in on the Biden last name," he added. "We will continue to follow the facts and hold this president accountable for his corruption."
Meanwhile, amid that ongoing counter-effort from Democrats, NewsNation reported that House Republicans are on the verge of making the impeachment inquiry official after it was initially launched months ago by ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
That entails a meeting and vote scheduled for Tuesday in the House Rules Committee to formalize the impeachment inquiry with a vote on the House floor that could be held as soon as next week.
Chairman Comer told the outlet, "Abbe Lowell, Joe Biden’s attorney, implied in a letter this wasn’t a legitimate impeachment inquiry because it hadn’t been voted on. Well, we’re going to check that box."
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) says that he would be willing to join former President Donald Trump's cabinet should Trump win the U.S. presidency again in 2024 and should Trump offer him such a position.
Based on the polls, it is looking more and more likely that Trump will win a second term. But, as for Trump offering McCarthy a position in his cabinet, it is unclear whether this is a real possibility.
To be fair to McCarthy, his statement - that he would accept a position in Trump's cabinet - came in response to a question that he was asked during a recent interview with CBS News.
The interview aired over the weekend on CBS's Sunday Morning.
At one point during the interview, the interviewer, Robert Costa, asked McCarthy a series of questions about Trump, including whether McCarthy believes that Trump will be the Republicans' presidential nominee in 2024 and, if so, whether Trump will be able to beat Biden.
McCarthy answered both questions in the affirmative, and he went on to say that he will be supporting Trump's reelection.
"I will support the president. I will support President Trump," McCarthy said.
It was here that Costa asked McCarthy whether he would "be willing to serve in a Trump cabinet."
McCarthy replied, "In the right position. Look, if I’m the best person for the job. Yes. Look, I worked with President Trump on a lot of policies. We worked together to win the majority. But we also have a relationship where we’re very honest with one another."
McCarthy's interview with Costa came after he recently announced that he will be retiring from Congress. McCarthy did so in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, writing:
No matter the odds, or personal cost, we did the right thing. That may seem out of fashion in Washington these days, but delivering results for the American people is still celebrated across the country. It is in this spirit that I have decided to depart the House at the end of this year to serve America in new ways.
McCarthy has yet to reveal the plans that he has for his future. But, he did make it clear that he still plans on playing a big role in Republican politics, particularly by recruiting new Republican politicians and by advising new and existing Republican politicians.
What exactly McCarthy will be doing, however, remains unclear.
There is no doubt that Costa was asking McCarthy about Trump because McCarthy and Trump have not always seen eye-to-eye about everything.
McCarthy, however, is standing behind Trump - and, for that, he deserves some credit.