Blaze News original: Biden praised on CNN, MSNBC months ago for promise not to pardon Hunter. Now there's egg on a few faces.



It's indeed a salve for the conservative soul to watch numerous prominent voices against Donald Trump speak so glowingly months ago about President Joe Biden's promise that he wouldn't pardon his son Hunter — only to have that very thing come to pass Sunday.

Tom Elliott of news and video outlet Grabien posted a nine-minute supercut of anti-Trump pundits and cable news talking heads singing Biden's praises for his no-pardon pledge and using it to rip Trump to shreds, pointing out the "contrast" with Trump's complaints that the Justice Department was weaponized against him.

'It was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction.'

Blaze News took a deeper look at the clips, and one of the first things to stand out is how often the prominent elitists in them use the same words and phrases (such as "stark" and "contrast" — and, for variety — "stark contrast") in their efforts to boost Biden and tear down Trump.

To wit: A guest of MSNBC's Joy Reid — Democrat U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida — told her in one clip that "the Democrats stand for the rule of law. Remember law and order. ... It is amazing to see the stark contrast between how Democrats handled today and how Republicans handled this whole thing over the last couple of weeks."

Another clip shows former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara telling MSNBC's Chris Hayes that Biden "could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son. ... Pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is. In a million years, if the shoe were on the other foot."

Oh, how the worm has turned. Check out the carnage:

'One side: Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other, Republicans and Trump protecting Trump.'


CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp spoke during a segment titled "Biden says he won't pardon son Hunter if he's convicted" and attempted to draw a distinction between Biden and Trump: "The contrast is profound. To sit there and say, 'I'm not going to intervene in the legal process, and I wouldn't pardon my son.' ... One side: Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other, Republicans and Trump protecting Trump." You can view the clip here at the 40-second mark.

Cupp on Monday morning posted the following on X: "It doesn’t get said enough, but Trump’s enduring legacy will be convincing BOTH parties to lower the bar, and that possessing moral authority on anything is no longer a currency that matters."

Her statement was in response to the following post by never-Trump author Charlie Sykes: "Smart person texts me: 'Joe Biden has just removed the issue of pardons from the political arena for the next four years, and Trump probably once again can’t believe his own dumb f***ing luck at this point.' Sadly, I think he’s right."

'A current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son ... again, it's all about the contrast.'


In another clip (1:06 mark), Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" stated that "a current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son ... again, it's all about the contrast."

The clip cuts to Willie Geist of "Morning Joe" with this take: "President Biden saying, 'I will respect whatever this jury decides' versus Donald Trump after he was convicted on 34 counts saying the entire system is rigged against him."

Brzezinski pushed out an audible snicker after Geist's pronouncement.

'How can the Justice Department be weaponized against Trump when all of that is happening?'


Over a screen title that reads, "The right accuses the DOJ of weaponizing the justice system despite Hunter Biden's prosecution & guilty verdict," MSNBC's Joy Reid states that "the president said he won't touch it; he said he's not going to pardon his son, and it seems that [U.S. Attorney General] Merrick Garland let it go through. How can the Justice Department be weaponized against Trump when all of that is happening?"

Democrat U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida replied, "The Democrats stand for the rule of law. Remember law and order. ... It is amazing to see the stark contrast between how Democrats handled today and how Republicans handled this whole thing over the last couple of weeks."

You can view the clip here at the 3:47 mark. You can view the full June 11 segment here.

'Those words so completely contrast with his opponent.'


Katy Tur said in another MSNBC clip (7:36 mark) — with a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty of 3 felony gun charges" — that the president insisted he would respect the outcome of his son's case and that "those words so completely contrast with what his opponent, now a convicted felon himself, continues to say about the U.S courts."

'The contrast to how Trump has behaved, how Trump has treated the rule of law ... this was a good day for the system.'


Chuck Todd — over an MSNBC screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty of 3 felony gun charges" — had the following to say: "The contrast to how Trump has behaved, how Trump has treated the rule of law ... this was a good day for the system, a good day for sort of America as an example of how the rule of law should work." You can view the clip here at the 7:58 mark.

'Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son, he would not commute his sentence. How stark is this difference?'


Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC's "The Nightcap" — over a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden convicted on gun charges" — said the following to her panel: "The latest attack is that Joe Biden has politicized and weaponized the DOJ, right? That was the whole argument around Donald Trump's conviction, and this week, of course, Hunter Biden was found guilty, and Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son, he would not commute his sentence. How stark is this difference? I mean, how can Republicans keep making this argument now that Joe Biden has really put it out there?" You can view the clip here at the 1:28 mark.

'He is not pardoning his son ... he is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country.'


Speaking to MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace over a screen title that reads, "Trump, GOP call on SCOTUS to respond to guilty verdict," former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann says the following: “He is not pardoning his son, which he could do. These are federal charges. He is not doing that. He is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country.” After a cut in the clip, Weissmann adds, "If you want to know if he believes it, you can see what is actually happening with his own son." You can view the clip here at the 2:01 mark.

'There's an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, "The jury found [Hunter] guilty. This is how it’s supposed to work. Period. Paragraph. End of story."'


Another MSNBC clip (3:09 mark) features political commentator Molly Jong-Fast — over a screen title that reads "Press [secretary] doesn't rule out potential that Biden could commute Hunter's sentence" — offering the following take: “I think Joe Biden has a chance here to stand up for the rule of law, to say ... the law is the law, no matter who it is, no matter if it’s Trump or Biden. And remember, part of Trump-ism’s dangerousness is that it tears down institutions, important institutions of our democracy. So there's an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, 'The jury found [Hunter] guilty. This is how it’s supposed to work. Period. Paragraph. End of story.'”

Fox News reported that Jong-Fast — after learning Biden pardoned his son — told MSNBC, "I, so, I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry."

'You heard the president say he would accept the outcome of the case; I know no other word for that but "presidential."'


An MSNBC clip (4:17 mark) — with a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty in federal gun trial" — shows former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal saying the following to host Jonathan Capehart: "For years, these conservatives have been crowing about a politicized Justice Department, Biden politicizing it, and so on. What happened today? The Justice Department convicted the president’s own son — his only living son. You heard the president say he would accept the outcome of the case; I know no other word for that but 'presidential.'”

Capehart replied, "[Biden] even went so far as to say he wouldn’t pardon his son. That’s how much respect he has for the system.”

Interestingly, Katyal on Sunday night posted a link to an October Politico story titled, "Trump says he’s open to pardoning Hunter Biden." Katyal wrote above the link, "Just putting this out there ..."

'It was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction.'


CNN's Jim Acosta — over a screen title that reads, "Pres. Biden says he will not pardon his son" — asked author Chris Whipple for his take on Biden's declaration.

Whipple — author of "The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden's White House" — replied by saying, "I thought it was extraordinary. I mean, it was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction."

You can view the clip here at the 4:45 mark.

'He could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son ... pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is.'


In an MSNBC clip (5:05 mark) with a screen title that reads, "Biden: 'I accept the outcome' of Hunter Biden trial," former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara told host Chris Hayes the following: "He could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son ... pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is. In a million years, if the shoe were on the other foot" — Hayes apparently uttered a dismissive huff off camera in this moment — "and Donald Trump was facing the prospect of his son being prosecuted by ... a Biden holdover or Obama holdover prosecutor, not in a million, million years would that have happened. So ... some of the people on the right, the people who support Donald Trump, are trying to cast this as some sort of clever ops program."

A longer clip of Bharara's statement was posted on the "All In with Chris Hayes" X account on June 11.

'It's a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law, and the other doesn't.'


In an MSNBC clip (5:43 mark), Democrat U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts stated the following on June 11: "Hunter Biden was found guilty by a jury of his peers, just like Donald Trump. Because this is our justice system at work. The divide here is stunning. It's a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law, and the other doesn't."

According to The Hill, McGovern also said, "The contrast today is just staggering. Apparently, when a Republican is convicted, it’s weaponization. But when a Democrat is convicted — the president’s son, no less — that’s justice. I mean, give me a break."

'One of the things that anybody who spends time around Joe Biden comes to know is that he's had this long-running focus on how much he is bothered by abuses of power.'


Over a CNN screen title that reads, "Biden, for first time, says he won't commute son's sentence," New Yorker writer Evan Osnos — who also authored "Joe Biden: The Life, the Run, and What Matters Now" — said that Biden is "really" saying that "I don't plan to use the powers of the office, the powers of the presidency, to provide private relief for my family." Osnos added that, "In a sense, he's staking out a pretty bright line between being, as he says, a president and a dad, and that's not just an emotional expression; he's in effect saying, 'I don't think that I should, I don't have a right, even though it's legal' — and God knows it must be tempting — 'to use this power in a way that is not available to so many other Americans facing similar kinds of struggles.'"

Osnos said in another cut, "There's a kind of old-school, sort of flinty core to [Biden's] conception of how you are to be in the system, how you are to be as a person — a moral person — and ultimately how to contend with questions of power. One of the things that anybody who spends time around Joe Biden comes to know is that he's had this long-running focus on how much he is bothered by abuses of power."

You can view the clip here at the 6:06 mark.

BONUS: 'They're not even his sons; they're just sons of b***hes.'


Another clip (2:30 mark) features Ana Navarro of "The View" and sports a CNN logo on the bottom right of the screen — however, the clip appears to be from the June 14 episode of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," which began airing Saturdays on CNN earlier this year.

Still, the clip is worth including in this rundown. In it Navarro stated: "Joe Biden has gotten asked if he would pardon his son; he has said no. ... On the other side, you've got Donald Trump who has said that he will pardon the January 6 insurrectionists. They're not even his sons; they're just sons of bitches."

You might be surprised (or maybe not) that Navarro posted a few X entries this week after hearing that Biden did, in fact, pardon his son — and she's backing him all the way.

"Good for @JoeBiden," Navarro noted Monday. "America elected a convicted felon. That convicted felon pardoned his son-in-law’s father and appointed him Ambassador to France. If you support that, I don’t want to hear jack-s**t about Biden pardoning his son."

She also posted Monday that "Woodrow Wilson pardoned his brother-in-law, Hunter deButts. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger. Donald Trump pardoned his daughter’s father-in-law, Charlie Kushner. And just appointed him Ambassador to France. But tell me again how Joe Biden 'is setting precedent'?"

Not to put too fine a point on it, Navarro posted the following on Tuesday: "Reading all these Trumpers offended Biden LIED! Trump lied about bone spurs, lied about his taxes, lied on his bank loan applications, lied to his wives, lied about hush-money payments, lied about the 2020 election results, lied about Haitians eating cats & dogs ... shall I go on??"

Could it be that she doth protest too much? Nah.

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

Feminist influencer to white women: 'You can't CORRECT BIPOC individuals'



If you thought the “White Dudes for Kamala” Zoom call was bad, then you’re in for a real treat with its extra-cringeworthy counterpart: “White Women Answer the Call.”

Former public education teacher and feminist influencer Arielle Fodor led the charge, telling the other white women on the call that “BIPOC women have tapped us in as white women to listen and get involved in this election season.”

“You are all influencers in some way,” she continued in an extremely condescending baby voice that she’s built her entire brand on. “If you find yourself talking over, or speaking for BIPOC individuals, or — God forbid — correcting them, just take a beat and instead, we can put our listening ears on.”

Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” is horrified.

“I choose to believe that is exactly what hell is like,” she tells Stu Burguiere and Matthew Marsden, who can’t help but agree.

“Sin enough, we are in that Zoom call for all eternity,” Stu says, adding, “Is that really the rule though? You’re not allowed to correct a person because of the color of their skin now too?”

If there were a “White Dudes for Trump” or a “White Women for Trump” Zoom call, it would likely not be received as well by the left — which would be understandable.

“I tend to frown upon any organization that delineates itself by skin color. I feel like that’s bad in every circumstance,” Stu says. “We have really basic rules, like it’s an easy one to follow. Don’t make decisions based on skin color in any circumstance.”

Marsden believes one former president helped us get to this point. And that president was Barack Obama.

“I don’t think we’ve really completely understood all the damage that he’s done,” Marsden says. “The slippery slope was not just gay marriage, it was also his attitude towards race.”


Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

SCOTUS denies Missouri AG's effort to delay Trump's sentencing and relieve him of gag order in New York case



The Supreme Court of the United States declined a request by the attorney general of Missouri to delay sentencing and lift the gag order imposed on former President Donald Trump in connection with the so-called hush-money trial in New York.

In early July, Missouri AG Andrew Bailey, a Republican appointee currently running for a full term, effectively sued the state of New York for allegedly attempting to prevent Missourians from hearing from the Republican candidate for president in 2024 on account of the gag order that remains in place even after a New York jury convicted Trump on all 34 counts related to payments meant to keep the story of his alleged affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels out of the tabloids in 2016.

'I will continue to prosecute our lawsuit against @KamalaHarris @JoeBiden’s DOJ for coordinating the illicit prosecutions against President Trump.'

"New York is working to hijack our national election and jail President Trump," Bailey tweeted on Monday. "Missourians absolutely have an interest in ensuring that does not happen."

Acting Judge Juan Merchan eased the gag order some after Trump was convicted, permitting Trump to criticize jurors and witnesses in the case. However, Trump is still forbidden from speaking about prosecutors and their family members.

Last week, a New York appeals court denied a motion from Trump — who was recently shot and nearly killed in an assassination attempt — to lift all remaining remnants of the gag order, citing ongoing alleged "threats received by District Attorney staff after the jury verdict continued." There have been no reports of court staff members enduring physical harm on account of the trial.

Though Republican attorneys general from Alaska, Florida, Iowa, and Montana all joined Bailey and Missouri in the SCOTUS filing, NBC News still described it as a "longshot" and Politico a "legal Hail Mary."

Thus, it came as no surprise that on Monday, SCOTUS issued a one-page statement declining Bailey's motion.

"Missouri’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied, and its motion for preliminary relief or a stay is dismissed as moot," the statement said.

The statement added that Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would have granted Bailey the opportunity to file the complaint but would not have granted any "other relief" he sought.

Following the statement from SCOTUS, Bailey expressed disappointment as well as resolve to hold the Biden-Harris administration accountable for apparent election interference via "lawfare."

"It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court refused to exercise its constitutional responsibility to resolve state v. state disputes," Bailey wrote. "I will continue to prosecute our lawsuit against @KamalaHarris@JoeBiden’s DOJ for coordinating the illicit prosecutions against President Trump."

"The fight is not over."

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on the promise of targeting Trump, declined NBC News' request for comment on the SCOTUS statement.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has ties to billionaire financier George Soros and also made going after Trump a central focus of his campaign, declined Politico's request for comment.

Following his conviction, Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced in July, but the sentencing hearing has since been pushed back until September.

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

Everything Wrong With Cringe 'White Women For Kamala' Fundraiser
play icon

Everything Wrong With Cringe 'White Women For Kamala' Fundraiser

Was Trump shooter GROOMED? Suspended FBI agent Kyle Seraphin weighs in



FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin joins Sara Gonzales on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” to shed light on the possibility of Thomas Matthew Crooks, Trump’s would-be assassin, being groomed.

It’s a hypothetical people can’t help but ponder, considering we’re being repeatedly told that Crooks had “no criminal history.”

And when you add in the Heritage Foundation’s research that found that “someone who regularly visits or visited Crooks’ home and work also visited a building in Washington, D.C., located in the Gallery Place, which is in the same vicinity of an FBI office,” suspicion really starts to mount.

Investigative journalist and Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker isn’t totally convinced that this information points to any motive.

“That's a huge facility,” he says of the Gallery Place. “It's right next to an arena, it’s got a movie theater, shopping, restaurants, all of these other things.”

But Steve also isn’t willing to rule out the possibility of Crooks visiting an FBI office either.

“We are using our resources to do a much more accurate pinpointing of it. With the resources we're using, we can get it down to about three meters and see which floor they're on,” he says.

Seraphin, like Steve, also looks at these kinds of situations through a lens of skepticism.

Suspended FBI Agent Kyle Seraphin Breaks Down Trump Shooter Possibly Being GROOMED?youtu.be

“I am a skeptic,” he says. “Even the things that I want to believe, the things that I think are probably true, I always try to disprove them. That's how you become a good investigator.”

“Who regularly visits your house?” he asks Sara.

“My parents, babysitter, the mailman, Amazon,” she lists.

“UPS, your neighbors’ gardeners … the people that check your water meter,” Seraphin adds, noting that “the problem is that you could have people that are regular visitors to your home on the ad ID of their phone that have nothing to do with you, that you've never even met.”

“They visited home and work [of Crooks],” Sara reminds.

Even still, Seraphin maintains his skepticism, stating that “it's very possible if you live in a small town that the same Amazon driver or UPS or postal service” might visit your home and place of employment.

Further, he looks at what many are calling a phony excuse – “it was too hot on the roof” – as a normal occurrence.

As someone who worked in the FBI and attended many presidential events, he says it’s “very reasonable” for an agent to seek comfort if given the option.

“If you get the choice, though – do you want to stand outside with this crowd and be cold and it's starting to rain on you, or would you like to go sit inside that car that's 50 yards away and you can keep an eye on them? I'm in the car every time,” he says.

As for the “blue-on-blue” situation – the justification that it took so long for someone to shoot Crooks because the snipers were afraid of killing an ally – Seraphim says this is likely true.

“No law enforcement officer, no federal agent, no cop wants to take a shot when there's the possibility that you're shooting another cop.”

“The blue-on-blue reality of somebody who's inside of an area where someone is supposed to have a gun but it's not the guy that you thought –that would be the worst-case scenario,” he tells Sara and Steve.

But there’s one more element of Crooks’ case that has Seraphim the most skeptical. To hear it, watch the clip above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Kamala Harris endorses Biden's radical Supreme Court 'reform' proposal



Vice President Kamala Harris has now endorsed a radical proposal from her boss, Joe Biden, that would overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court, signaling that she has not abandoned her far-left record even as she attempts to win over voters in swing states during the 2024 presidential campaign.

On Monday, Biden proposed three major changes to the makeup and inner workings of SCOTUS, as Blaze News previously reported. Biden wants 18-year term limits as well as a "binding code of conduct" for all justices. Taking aim at the lawfare campaigns he has allegedly unleashed on former President Donald Trump as well as a recent SCOTUS decision regarding presidential immunity, Biden also wants a constitutional amendment proclaiming that "no one is above the law."

Harris continues to champion leftist pipe dreams — such as radically altering one of the three branches of government — that likely appeal to idealogues in California but not to blue-collar workers in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

"I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators," Biden apparently wrote.

On Monday evening, Harris announced her support for Biden's SCOTUS "reform" proposal, calling it critical for shoring up public "confidence" in our nation's highest court.

"There is a clear crisis of confidence facing the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why President @JoeBiden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms — from imposing term limits to requiring compliance with binding ethics rules," Harris wrote on X.

"And in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House."

— (@)

As several outlets, including left-wing sources like Vox and the Daily Beast, have noted, the proposal has almost no chance of becoming the law of the land, especially since at least some of the ideas contained within it would require changing the Constitution.

Plus, Biden and Harris have made no effort to advance it along. According to the New York Post, Senate Democrats who would normally be tasked with drawing up legislation about such a proposal were not even briefed on its contents.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) likewise stated that the Biden-Harris proposal has no chance of passing the House:

This proposal is the logical conclusion to the Biden-Harris Administration and Congressional Democrats’ ongoing efforts to delegitimize the Supreme Court. Their calls to expand and pack the Court will soon resume. It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court’s recent decisions. This dangerous gambit of the Biden-Harris Administration is dead on arrival in the House.

But perhaps more importantly, Harris' support for the proposal reveals that she is not attempting to moderate some of her left-wing positions even amidst a tough presidential race. Though some in the media have attempted to obscure her record as the Biden administration border czar and her support for a group that bailed out violent rioters in 2020, Harris continues to champion leftist pipe dreams — such as radically altering one of the three branches of government — that likely appeal to idealogues in California but not to blue-collar workers in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

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

Trump campaign and RNC sue Gov. Whitmer over her part in Biden's 'election interference' scheme



President Joe Biden's effort to compel federal agencies to mobilize favorable voting blocs has encountered another serious setback, this time in Michigan.

Background

The Heritage Foundation's government watchdog Oversight Project revealed via a Blaze News exclusive in May how the dutiful enactment of Biden's Executive Order 14019 could play out as "election interference."

The EO takes for granted that minorities, particularly black people, are disproportionately met today with "significant obstacles" to voting, especially by "voter identification laws and limited opportunities to vote by mail."

To rectify this supposed problem affecting groups that disproportionately vote Democrat, Biden suggested it is critical that his administration enmesh itself more fully in the election process and compelled federal agencies to "consider ways to expand citizens' opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process."

Mike Howell, executive director of the Oversight Project, previously pointed out to Blaze News how Demos, a leftist think tank whose 2020 recommendations to the Biden administration ostensibly inspired EO 14019, boasted that the so-called "BidenBucks" scheme could bring in as many as 3 million new voter registrations per year.

Even though Biden's decrepitude has hurt him in the polls in the aftermath of his disastrous debate with President Donald Trump, millions of votes in critical swing states could nevertheless tip the election in his favor.

'The Biden administration’s desperation to unfairly and illegally win the election knows no bounds.'

Besides exposing various agencies' strategic plans, the Oversight Project highlighted three ways states could derail the scheme: Pass laws attacking the application of the order with regard to presidential elections; frustrate the scheme with complaints about possible Hatch Act violations; and remove or attack designations of federal agencies to act under the National Voter Registration Act that were not provided by the state or were provided without appropriate authority.

Some Republicans were apparently paying attention.

Fighting back

Earlier this month, Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales (R) revealed he had taken action accordingly, informing federal agencies and departments active in his state that they were prohibited from engaging in voter registration and other election activities without state authorization.

Morales noted in a letter to the various EO-guided agencies in Indiana, "If your agency has been distributing voter registration forms or assisting the public with voter registration or absentee voting forms, you are requested to discontinue such action immediately, as the unauthorized conduct of such activity is likely violative of Indiana and federal law."

"States know best when it comes to our elections," Morales wrote on X. "We don't need federal government overreach to run safe, secure elections!"

Last week, the America First Policy Institute, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R), Republican Texas Reps. Ronny Jackson and Beth Van Duyne, and others filed a lawsuit against Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and several other big names in the Democratic administration over the EO, claiming Biden and his cabinet officials "have usurped States' role in registering voters and redirected federal resources to partisan voter mobilization efforts, in violation of federal law."

Echoing many of the concerns raised by the Oversight Project, the complaint noted that Biden's "EO and its implementing agency actions violate federal law, including multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act."

It also emphasized that the EO unconstitutionally expands the federal government's role in elections.

"The Biden administration’s desperation to unfairly and illegally win the election knows no bounds," Rep. Jackson said in a statement. "Instead of instilling policies that Americans want and need, they turn to the well-oiled D.C. swamp filled to the brim with deep state loyalists to illegally register voters in an attempt to help them win."

LaRose noted, "This is a cynical attempt to turn government agencies into a Democratic turnout machine, and it's wrong. That's why I'm joining this lawsuit and working to hold the administration accountable."

Taking Whitmer to court

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) and her administration appear especially keen to help see through Biden's initiative.

The Oversight Project indicated that the U.S. Small Business Administration announced an agreement with the Michigan Department of State to aid in the realization of Biden's EO.

That's particularly troubling given that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's poor track record when it comes to elections. A court determined in 2021 that she violated state law by unilaterally altering absentee voting rules ahead of the 2020 election. She also worked closely with Mark Zuckerberg-funded groups to influence state elections in 2019.

— (@)

The Trump campaign, the Michigan Republican Party, and the Republican National Convention sued the Biden administration, Whitmer, and Benson on Monday over the "BidenBucks" scheme.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan accused Whitmer of issuing an executive directive in December to designate several state and federal agencies as voter registration agencies — including the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs — despite lacking the legislative authorization to do so.

'This is an illegal attempt by Biden, Whitmer, Benson, and the party in power to manipulate our country's most important election.'

The lawsuit indicated further that Benson, who similarly lacks such authorization, did likewise, designating various Small Business Administration offices throughout the state VRAs.

"Because these unauthorized actions do not represent lawful designations by the State of Michigan for purposes of Section 7 of the NVRA, the designated VA and SBA offices are not lawfully operating as VRAs under federal law," said the complaint.

The Oversight Project previously indicated that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 provides that federal and nongovernmental offices can only "engage in the type of activities directed by the Executive Order if a state 'designate[s]' that office to act as a voter registration agency."

The plaintiffs are seeking a "permanent injunction barring the State Defendants from designating any VRAs without express authorization from the Michigan Legislature."

RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement, "The federal government should not be using American taxpayers' dollars to conduct unauthorized voter registration activities."

"This is an illegal attempt by Biden, Whitmer, Benson, and the party in power to manipulate our country's most important election," continued Whatley. "We are committed to stopping this election integrity violation and securing our elections."

The Oversight Project said of the lawsuit, "The exposure of the 'BidenBucks' scheme to turn the entire Federal government into President @JoeBiden campaign's get-out-the-vote is in legal jeopardy."

A spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of State told Blaze News in a statement, "It is unfortunate that this divisive, partisan lawsuit was filed yesterday. Making it easier for veterans and small business owners in Michigan to register to vote should not be controversial."

The spokeswoman added, "We will review this and any other litigation that comes our way but remain committed to ensuring that every Michigan voter has the tools and resources they need to participate in every election."

Blaze News also reached out to the governor's office but did not immediately receive a response.

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

Blaze News original: Both sides besiege Biden as political firestorm roils his re-election bid



President Joe Biden's re-election bid is being roiled by a political firestorm following his widely panned debate performance, with some on the political right calling for his removal per the 25th Amendment and some on the political left calling for him to bow out of the presidential race — but the presumptive 2024 Democratic presidential nominee has adamantly declared that he will remain in the contest.

The day after the debate, Republican Reps. Chip Roy of Texas and Clay Higgins of Louisiana put forward a resolution that urges Vice President Kamala Harris to seek to have Biden declared incapable of executing the duties of the presidency, per the 25th Amendment.

'I happen to think that the right thing here is actually the right political thing.'

The text of the resolution declares that the House calls on Harris "to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments in the Cabinet to declare that President Joseph R. Biden is unable to discharge the duties and powers of the office," as well as "to transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives notice that she will be immediately assuming the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

Biden, the oldest president in U.S. history, is already 81 years old and would be 86 by the end of a second term in office.

While speaking to Blaze News, Roy suggested that the vice president, first lady, others, and likely many members of the Cabinet "are all complicit in ... a conspiracy to" conceal from Americans the president's "mental state."

The conservative congressman told Blaze News that he thinks "the right thing here is actually the right political thing." He noted that he believes in doing what is right and letting "politics follow" but said "they align" in this case.

GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah tweeted, "What the Constitution requires doesn't always align both with what is politically expedient and with what national security demands. It does here. @ChipRoyTX is right. We should call on Vice President Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment."

— (@)

Roy has even floated the idea of impeaching Biden, declaring in a post on X, "We should / would be on solid ground to impeach Joe Biden for lying to the American people about his supposed competence (perhaps we should consider that too)."

In another post, the lawmaker suggested that the vice president "could be impeached for lying to America & covering up" and said, "The @HouseGOP should subpoena @KamalaHarris, Jill Biden, & key White House staff to determine when they knew that @JoeBiden is senile."

Blaze Media's Daniel Horowitz told Blaze News that Republicans should refuse to fund the government until Biden is no longer in power.

"This needs to be about the entire Democrat Party lying to the American people for four years, and the Chip resolution drives home that point. I would also add that Republicans would be wise to engage in a budget battle over this point and make it clear throughout the summer that they will not fund the budget until Biden steps down," Horowitz said, adding that "we cannot fund a government run by a man who can't walk, think, or talk, holding the nuclear football codes."

Keith Malinak of BlazeTV's "Pat Gray Unleashed" also agrees that the 25th Amendment should be invoked.

"Joe Biden is a case study on when the Cabinet should pursue removal of a president under the 25th Amendment. To think there is any question is what I find baffling," Malinak told Blaze News in a statement.

"I appreciate Congressman Chip Roy for talking about this, but I'm doubtful the vice president will pursue this course until she has the assurances that party leadership and those actually calling the shots in this presidency will have her back in such an eventuality," he added.

'I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw.'

Some on the political left have suggested that the president should abandon his re-election bid.

"I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so," Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said in a statement.

"If he's the candidate, I'm going to support him, but I think that this is an opportunity to look elsewhere," Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona said, according to the New York Times. "What he needs to do is shoulder the responsibility for keeping that seat — and part of that responsibility is to get out of this race."

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts has said that Biden should "step aside to let new leaders rise up and run against Donald Trump," according to WBUR.org.

Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois suggested that to "prevent utter catastophe" Biden should "step down and let someone else do this."

Democratic Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota said in a statement, "Given what I saw and heard from the president during last week's debate in Atlanta, coupled with the lack of a forceful response from the president himself following that debate, I do not believe that the president can effectively campaign and win against Donald Trump."

"I respectfully call on President Biden to step aside as the Democratic nominee for a second term as president and allow for a new generation of leaders to step forward," Craig declared.

But not all Democratic lawmakers have soured on Biden's candidacy.

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania has remained a stalwart supporter of the president's re-election bid.

"I'm unwilling to discard a great president, a decent man and a loving father after 50 years in public service, over a 90 minute debate. Responding with disorder, panic and disloyalty is not meeting this moment," the senator said in a tweet.

Some Democratic donors have also called for Biden to drop out.

The New York Times reported that Abigail Disney said the president's campaign and committees backing it, including the Democratic National Committee, super PACs, and nonprofit organizations, "will not receive another dime from me until they bite the bullet and replace Biden at the top of the ticket."

"Biden is unfortunately in denial about his mental state. He needs to step aside to let a vigorous Democratic leader beat Trump," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings declared, according to ABC News.

Even the outlet's editorial board wrote a piece titled "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race."

But Biden has said he will remain in the race.

'Let them live with the consequences of their own actions.'

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales has expressed the view that conservatives will benefit politically if Biden keeps running.

"The greatest way to ensure a conservative victory in November is for Joe Biden to continue running. On top of that, every single Democrat now raising faux concerns about Biden's cognitive abilities knew exactly how bad he had gotten when they called us 'conspiracy theorists' and accused us of putting out deepfakes and 'cheapfakes' showing Biden's decline just weeks ago. Let them live with the consequences of their own actions. They insisted Joe is their guy. Who are we to prevent that from happening?" she wrote in a statement to Blaze News.

But BlazeTV host Steve Deace believes Biden should be removed from office immediately.

"We simply cannot have someone who couldn't pass a corporate management competency hearing, be certified to become a foster parent, or even obtain a driver's license be the one who is in possession of the nuclear codes. Full stop," Deace wrote in an opinion piece. "Yes, it is a hard pill to swallow, but it is an act of patriotic duty to remove Joe Biden from office right now. Because this is fundamentally about far more than one incapacitated man. It is about who we are called to be as a free people, and it may even be about our very survival."

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

Luke Cryharder? The cringe is strong with Biden fan Hamill



The cringe is strong with Mark Hamill.

The “Star Wars” icon watched enough of the Biden-Trump debate to know all the Dark Brandon memes on X can’t camouflage the truth. The commander in chief’s mental decline isn’t a “cheap fake” attack. It’s real.

And Hamill just doesn’t care.

While Jane Fonda teared up watching President Joe Biden decompose and director Rob Reiner screamed at his screen, Hamill refused to face reality.

One off night doesn't change the fact that @JoeBiden is the most legislatively successful @POTUS in our lifetime. One off night also doesn't change the fact that the former guy is a convicted felon, serial liar & adjudicated rapist who is unfit for ANY office. Period.

You might say Hamill carried on in the grand Jill Biden tradition. Apologies! The Dr. Jill Biden tradition.

Buckwheat butthurt

Eddie Murphy — genius, stand-up legend, Oscar nominee ... snowflake?

The 63-year-old is back to his signature franchise with this week’s “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” on Netflix. That means he’s making the press rounds and, in the process, sharing why he’s still sore over a joke told 29 years ago.

“Saturday Night Live’s” "Hollywood Minute" skewered everyone without mercy in the 1990s, courtesy of the King of Snark, David Spade. Murphy’s 1995 dud “Vampire in Brooklyn” had just underwhelmed at the box office, giving Spade fodder for this comedic kill shot. “Look, children, it’s a falling star. Make a wish!” as an image of Murphy graced the screening.

Ouch. No, really, ouch! (And funny!)

Except not to Murphy, who is still talking about it to journalists. The bit was “kind of racist,” too, he argued to a New York Times scribe.

Has Eddie Murphy ever watched an Eddie Murphy stand-up special? The dude takes no prisoners. Why so thin-skinned when the shoe is on the other foot?

Maybe he’ll get over it on the gag’s 30th anniversary in 2025.

'Jackpot!' a bust?

We miss big-screen comedies. Still.

This week, Murphy’s fourth “Cop” movie opens on Netflix, not a theater near you. Next month, one of the funniest directors returns with an all-new comedy, and it’s debuting on Prime Video.

“Jackpot!” teams Awkwafina and John Cena, no comedy slouches, in a dystopian tale of a lottery winner running for her life. Literally.

It’s 2030 in Los Angeles, and a new rule says lottery winners can keep their millions, but if someone kills them within the first 24 hours, the murderer gets that cash.

It’s a sly attack on L.A.’s “soft on crime” policies and Biden’s pathetic economy, right?

Not according to the trailer. And given director Paul Feig’s progressive politics, there’s little hope those issues creep into the frame.

Feig previously gave us “Spy” and “Bridesmaids,” and he was a critical force behind the classic TV comedy “Freaks and Geeks.” He hasn’t been the same since his “Lady Ghostbusters” reboot fizzled with fans.

Neither are we.

Maybe Feig and company can tap into the zeitgeist for a return to form — or there’s a reason it’s skipping theaters for the streaming world.

Colbert's despair

The only people more frazzled by Biden’s horrific debate performance? The writers at Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show.” Let’s hope they’ve got plenty of boxed wine within reach.

The far-left showcase has spent three years protecting the president from himself, a balancing act that found Colbert spinning the special counsel’s report so hard the earth nearly came off its axis. When the Wall Street Journal noted Biden’s obvious decline, Colbert trashed the paper like it was the Weekly World News.

Now what? Can Colbert ignore the debate’s fallout? Would he repeat the media’s heel pivot and say Biden must be replaced atop the Democratic ticket (without apologizing for his spin cycle)?

We may never know.

“The Late Show” is in reruns until July 8. Plenty can change between now and then. Heck, Colbert may have a whole new set of DNC talking points to read from by then. President Kamala Harris? A shocking plan B, C, or D?

Just know we won’t get two things on July 8: laughs or an apology.

Senate Democrats rally behind Biden in spite of disastrous debate performance



Shortly before her death, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked, "Where am I going?" as she was wheeled back into the Senate. Even though her handlers had to audibly instruct the nonagenarian left partially paralyzed by a bad case of shingles to "just say aye" during votes, Feinstein's colleagues appeared unconcerned about the ethics of carting her around to advance their agenda.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), for instance, said that with Feinstein back, "Anything we do in the Senate that requires a majority is now within reach."

Just as Democratic senators were happy to squeeze a sickly old woman in a compromised mental state for her remaining votes, they are ostensibly trying to keep President Joe Biden's campaign alive in hopes of political advantage.

Besides their understanding that Biden cannot be replaced on the Democratic ticket ahead of the election unless he decides to step down, Senate Democrats appear to be trying to prop up the ruins of his campaign because he still might be their best shot at holding on to power. Vice President Kamala Harris is, for instance, even more disliked than Biden. Besides, a competitive open convention could further tear the Democratic Party apart, tipping the election more for Republicans.

In the aftermath of the first presidential debate — while the liberal mainstream media was hurriedly acknowledging the decrepitude they had suggested for years was an invention of the right — Democrats like Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.) began spinning Biden as a viable candidate, reported the Hill.

"Joe Biden might have had a bad evening, but we don't want four bad years under Donald Trump," Cardin told reporters in Washington, D.C., Friday. "Obviously we were all looking forward to a more — I guess — energetic approach."

'Chill the f*** out.'

"But from the substance, I think the American people recognize they have a choice between a person who understands the importance of our democratic system, understands the importance of the issues that he has pursued over the last four years, his record … versus a person on the other side who continues to make things up and wouldn’t respond to simple questions," added Cardin. "To me it's a clear choice that we need to make sure President Biden is re-elected as president of the United States."

While the debate made clear to many Americans that Biden's cognitive faculties are potentially disqualifying, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) drew a different conclusion, writing, "Tonight's debate made the choice clear: Four more years of progress, or four more years of attacks on our fundamental rights and our democracy. We've got to get out the vote for @JoeBiden, @KamalaHarris, and a Democratic Senate and House!"

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman (D) compared his post-stroke debate performance with Biden's post-youth debate performance, stressing on X that "a rough debate is not the sum total of the person and their record."

Fetterman noted further that he had been written off following the debate but came back to win by a comfortable margin. "Chill the f*** out," he instructed his fellow Democrats.

When asked Sunday by NBC News' "Meet the Press" whether Biden should drop out of the race, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock said, "Absolutely not," intimating that he himself had bungled enough sermons as a preacher to warrant cutting Biden some slack.

"Bad debates happen, as President Obama has said. And this was 90 minutes," said Warnock.

Unwilling to admit Biden's decline, Warnock opted instead to paint the president as a paragon of virtue and stress the need to keep former President Donald Trump out of the White House.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) echoed his Democratic peers, stating, "This is election is about more than one night's debate performance."

Blumenthal claimed that while in France, he observed the president to be "strong and eloquent." He also downplayed the possibility of another Democratic candidate, emphasizing, "I continue to support Joe Biden over Donald Trump without any reservation, and I think that's the choice for the American people."

The Hill noted that Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.) made clear that he and his Democratic colleagues, who will all serve as superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention, will back Biden unless he calls it quits.

"I thought President Biden started off not with the enthusiasm, etc., necessary but it's a difference between a bad initial debate and a very bad presidency, which Donald Trump can claim — and also a much worse presidency going forward," said Reed.

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