Harris Campaign Platform Includes Jailing Her Political Opposition

Vice President Kamala Harris’ newly announced campaign platform platform includes a thinly-veiled pledge to jail her presidential opponent. Seven weeks after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee via a coup against President Joe Biden, her campaign released an “issues” page that touches on a host of topics, including one to “ensure no one is above […]

House drops its Biden impeachment report — and it's damning



The House Oversight, Ways and Means, and Judiciary Committees brought their nearly yearlong impeachment probe of President Joe Biden to an end Monday, concluding that the Democrat who unwittingly made Kamala Harris' second presidential bid possible has engaged in "egregious" and impeachable offenses.

According to the investigators' nearly 300-page report, "overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Biden participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family."

"Among other aspects of this conspiracy, the Biden family and their business associates received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests by leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence with President Biden," said the report.

Bank records reportedly show that when accounting also for the Biden family's business associates and their companies, the international "influence peddling schemes totaled over $27 million from foreign sources" just from 2014 to 2023.

Contrary to the repeated suggestion by Biden and boosters that he had no hand in his son's shady dealings with foreign nationals from Ukraine, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere, the report maintains that Biden "knowingly participated in this conspiracy" — that it is "inconceivable that President Biden did not understand that he was taking part in an effort to enrich his family by abusing his office of public trust."

In August 2019, Biden said, "I have never discussed with my son, or my brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses."

The following month, Biden said, "I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings."

Days after indicating that he stood by his previous protestations, Biden noted on Oct. 15, "I never discussed a single thing with my son about anything having do with Ukraine. No one has indicated I have. We've always kept everything separate."

Biden made similar denials on at least a dozen more occasions, well into his presidency.

Despite his protests, the report indicates that no such distance existed and that some of the proceeds from the influence-peddling scheme indeed went to Joe Biden. Among the funds from the scheme that ended up in Joe Biden's bank account, hundreds of thousands of dollars were allegedly "directly traceable to China."

'Joe Biden has exhibited conduct and taken actions that the Founders sought to guard against in drafting the impeachment provisions in the Constitution.'

The report indicated that Biden's active participation was sometimes expressed in American policy changes, as evidenced by the leveraging of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine to secure a result favorable to a company affiliated with his son, convicted felon Hunter Biden.

Not only does the report accuse Biden and his ilk of engaging in this conspiracy, it claims they also did their best to cover it up:

Foreign money was transmitted to the Biden family through complicated financial transactions. The Biden family laundered funds through intermediate entities and broke up large transactions into numerous smaller transactions. Substantial efforts were also made to hide President Biden’s involvement in his family’s business activities.

House Democrats may be prickled to learn that precedents they set in 2019 in their impeachment of President Donald Trump have been turned on Biden.

The House Democrats of yesteryear argued that "'abuse of office,' defined as the exercise of 'official power to obtain an improper personal benefit, while ignoring or injuring the national interest,' is an impeachable offense."

House Republicans were evidently willing to accept this legal interpretation as instructive in their investigation of Biden.

The House Democrats of yesteryear also apparently argued that "'the House may properly conclude that a President's obstruction of Congress is relevant to assessing the evidentiary record in an impeachment inquiry' and 'where the President illegally seeks to obstruct such an inquiry, the House is free to infer that evidence blocked from its view is harmful to the President's position.'"

House Republicans, met with obstruction and refusals to cooperate from the White House, the Biden-Harris administration, and the DOJ, were again willing to embrace the supposed wisdom of their peers and similarly infer guilt.

Extra to hammering Biden over his alleged sale of American political destiny for self-enrichment, the report separately accuses Biden of using "his official position to conceal his mishandling of classified information as a private citizen."

Robert Hur, who led the investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents, apparently figured the president too decrepit to face legal culpability, though he ultimately chose ultimately not to exonerate him outright.

The report underscored that "Joe Biden has exhibited conduct and taken actions that the Founders sought to guard against in drafting the impeachment provisions in the Constitution: abuse of power, foreign entanglements, corruption, and obstruction of investigations into these matters."

It recommended that under the Constitution, the remedy is clear: The House must impeach Biden and the Senate should remove him from office.

Although the report could prove a black eye for the Democratic president whose political career is now all but over, it may similarly dog the Department of Justice, since it reiterates and buttresses past claims about the DOJ's apparent efforts to give Hunter Biden "special treatment" and spare him from the kind of accountability those outside the top echelons of the Democratic Party might otherwise face.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, stated on X, "The evidence produced by our impeachment inquiry is the strongest case for impeachment of a sitting president the House of Representatives has ever investigated. We have exposed the truth."

"The facts speak for themselves, and Democrats can no longer stretch the truth to cover for President Biden," wrote House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). "As Democrats celebrate Joe Biden and crown Kamala Harris as his heir apparent this week, Americans should remember the reality of the Biden-Harris Administration: crime, chaos, and corruption."

Politico noted that it would be historically anomalous now for an impeachment vote not to follow the inquiry, not to mention politically risky for House Republicans facing re-election.

While an impeachment vote might succeed in the House, where Republicans enjoy a sliver majority, it is all but guaranteed to fail in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Slated To Sue DOJ Over Unprecedented Mar-a-Lago Raid

Trump plans to sue the Department of Justice (DOJ) for $100 million over its alleged 'malicious prosecution' and 'abuse of process.'

Whether Harris Knew Of Biden’s Decline Or Didn’t, She’s Unfit To Be President

Democrats and their media allies want you to believe that with their seven-figure salaries, endless resources, and connections, they somehow only discovered Biden is mentally incapacitated at the debate.

FACT CHECK: Did The Marines Arrest Jack Smith?

A post shared on social media purports that the Marines have arrested special council Jack Smith. Marines Arrest Jack Smith 15 July 2024 #RRN  Special counsel Jack Smith was arrested by U.S. Marines Monday morning minutes after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal criminal case against Donald Trump charging him with hoarding national security secrets at […]

Judge In Docs Case Throws Out DOJ’s Lawfare Against Trump, Rules Jack Smith’s Appointment Unconstitutional

Cannon ruled Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause and granted the motion to dismiss the indictment against Trump.

Trump documents case dismissed by district judge



A district judge in Florida has dismissed the documents case against former President Donald Trump, ruling that the "appointment and funding" of special counsel Jack Smith was "unlawful" because it sidestepped Congress.

The case relates to allegations that Trump took classified records stemming from his time in the White House and stored them at his Mar-a-Lago residence, which was later raided by federal agents. He also allegedly refused to hand the documents over to investigators who demanded them.

'The Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution ... breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme — the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law.'

A year ago, Trump was indicted on federal charges related to allegedly mishandled classified documents and requests that surveillance footage of the raid on his home be deleted.

On Monday, about 36 hours after Trump was wounded during an assassination attempt at a rally in Pennsylvania, Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida granted Trump's motion to dismiss the classified documents case.

Cannon ruled that "Special Counsel Smith’s appointment" and his "use of a permanent indefinite appropriation" both violate the Constitution. "The Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution ... breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme — the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law," she wrote.

Cannon additionally addressed special counsels more generally, claiming that the Executive Branch has lately appointed such prosecutors with "growing comfort." She also claimed these prosecutors are rarely subjected to "judicial scrutiny."

According to ABC News, prosecutors can appeal Cannon's ruling. In fact, Smith can still file a motion to remove Cannon from presiding over the case since she has, in the outlet's view, a "pattern of unusually favorable rulings that have benefited Trump and raised the eyebrows of legal experts across the political spectrum."

A spokesperson for the special counsel did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

This is a developing story. Tune into Blaze News for further updates.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Federal Judge Tosses Trump Classified Docs Case

A federal judge granted a motion to dismiss the classified documents case against former president Donald Trump. "Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of […]

The post Federal Judge Tosses Trump Classified Docs Case appeared first on .