After long delay, proceedings set to resume in Trump’s election interference case
(WASHINGTON) — After months of delays, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday that could determine the trajectory of former President Donald Trump’s election interference case.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is expected to consider competing proposals for how the case should proceed following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting broad immunity for official acts taken by presidents.
Thursday’s hearing will mark the first time lawyers for Trump and special counsel Jack Smith set foot in Chutkan’s courtroom since last fall. Trump’s lawyers successfully delayed the case — which was originally set to go to trial in March — by appealing their claim of presidential immunity to the Supreme Court, whose ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape for the former president.
In a superseding indictment handed up last week, Smith attempted to revise his case against the former president by trimming out any allegations related to Trump’s official duties — which would be exempt from prosecution following the Supreme Court’s ruling — while keeping the same four criminal charges that Trump faced in his original indictment.
“The Defendant had no official responsibilities related to the certification proceeding, but he did have a personal interest as a candidate in being named the winner of the election,” the new indictment said.
Trump, who is not expected to appear at Thursday’s hearing in person, has directed his attorneys to plead not guilty on his behalf.
In addition to making minor changes to clarify Trump’s actions were undertaken in a private capacity, prosecutors removed the once-central allegation that Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice to support his false claims about election fraud. The indictment also removed details about Trump’s conduct while rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 — including refusing to call off the rioters — and some examples of advisers directly correcting Trump about his false claims of election fraud.
In a joint filing last week, prosecutors told Judge Chutkan that the revisions to the indictment ensured the Supreme Court’s protections for official acts would not apply to the new case, which distinguishes Trump’s “private electioneering activity” from “official action.”
Defense attorneys disagreed, arguing in the same filing that prosecutors wrongly included allegations that are subject to presidential immunity and that they misused a federal obstruction statute.
“We believe, and expect to demonstrate, that this case must end as a matter of law,” defense attorneys wrote.
While the Supreme Court’s decision broadly expanded the scope of presidential immunity — conferring absolute immunity for core presidential powers and a presumption of immunity for all other official acts — the court declined to fully apply its decision to the facts alleged in Trump’s indictment, and instead tasked Chutkan with conducting a “fact-specific analysis” to determine whether the former president’s conduct was official or unofficial.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys disagreed about the best way for Chutkan to proceed following the Supreme Court’s decision, with Smith urging Chutkan to address the immunity question “first and foremost” through a series of paper briefings, according to Friday’s joint filing.
Defense attorneys, in contrast, urged Chutkan to first consider whether the case should be thrown out on the grounds that Smith was illegally appointed — the same argument used by a federal judge in Florida to dismiss the former president’s classified documents case — before taking up the question of presidential immunity in a schedule that could stretch the proceedings into the new year.
Thursday’s hearing is likely to offer the first indication of how Chutkan plans to address the long-delayed case ahead of the November election and apply the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.
Addressing reporters Wednesday on the topic of election interference, Attorney General Merrick Garland defended Smith’s decision to bring a superseding indictment two months ahead of the November election, saying that he is “quite confident” that Smith observed DOJ policies related to elections.
“I stand by the actions of the special counsel,” Garland said. “The superseding indictment is an effort to respond to the direct instructions of the Supreme Court as to how to effectuate a new indictment in an ongoing case.”
Trump, meanwhile, has continued to defend his efforts to overturn the election results.
“Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it?” Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired this past Sunday.
(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump met for the first time Tuesday in their first presidential debate of the 2024 election, hosted by ABC News.
The high-stakes, 90-minute debate is being held at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, with Trump and Harris arguing their case for the White House.
As the Democratic and Republican nominees debate the most pressing topics facing the nation, ABC News is live fact-checking their statements for answers that are exaggerated, need more context or are false.
Please check back for ongoing updates.
HARRIS CLAIM: 16 Nobel laureates say Trump’s plan would increase inflation and land us in a recession
FACT-CHECK: Mostly true
Harris correctly describes what the Nobel laureates said about inflation during a Trump presidency: “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation.” But while the group describes Harris’ agenda as “vastly superior” to Trump’s, their letter doesn’t specifically predict a recession by the middle of 2025. Rather, the group wrote: “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”
The 16 economists are George Akerlof, Angus Deaton, Claudia Goldin, Oliver Hart, Eric S. Maskin, Daniel L. McFadden, Paul R. Milgrom, Roger B. Myerson, Edmund S. Phelps, Paul M. Romer, Alvin E. Roth, William F. Sharp, Robert J. Shiller, Christopher A. Sims, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert B. Wilson.
-PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump wants “20% tax on everyday goods” that would cost families “about $4000 more a year”
FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context
Trump has proposed a universal “10-20%” tariff on all U.S. imports, from cars and electronics to wine, food products and many other goods. He has also proposed a 60% tariff on imports from China. Vice President Harris called the plan “Trump’s sales tax,” though the former president has not explicitly proposed such a tax. Independent economists, however, say the proposed import tariffs would unquestionably result in higher prices for American consumers across the board.
The precise financial impact on families is hard to predict and estimates vary widely — from additional annual costs per household of $1,700 to nearly $4,000, depending on the study. Trump has not called for any tax hikes for American families.
He has proposed exempting Social Security benefits and tips from taxation, as well as extending individual tax cuts enacted in 2017.
-ABC News’ Devin Dwyer
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump says “We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history.”
FACT-CHECK: False, but it was very high
It’s true that early in Joe Biden’s presidency the annual inflation rate peaked at roughly 9 percent (June of 2022), but that’s not the highest it’s ever been. There are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9 percent in the U.S, including in the immediate aftermath of WWII and during the oil embargo and shortages of the late 70’s and early 1980s.
But, there are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9 percent in the U.S., including in the immediate aftermath of WWII and during the oil embargo of the late 70’s and early 1980s when the inflation rate peaked at 14.5 percent. The inflation rate as of July 2024 is at 2.9 percent annual inflation, the lowest it has been in 3 years. It should also be noted that President Biden has falsely claimed that he inherited a high rate from his predecessor. In fact, inflation was at 1.4 percent when he took office.
*Data for this fact check was gathered from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, or St. Louis Fed
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The unemployment rate peaked at 14.8% in April 2020 when Trump was in office – that was indeed the highest level since the Great Depression, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But unemployment rapidly declined to 6.4% in January 2021 by the time Trump left office, as the economy started to rebalance. And that 6.4% unemployment rate is still better than the 10% peak during the Great Recession in October 2009.
If you eliminate pandemic statistics, the lowest unemployment rate under Trump was just slightly higher than the lowest point under Biden. Both were good: 3.5% under Trump and 3.4% under Biden at their lowest respectively, according to data provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump “killed” bill that would have secured border
FACT-CHECK: True
Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a $20 billion plan to substantially bolster security along the U.S.-Mexico border. It would have added hundreds of border patrol and ICE agents and asylum officers; funded construction of new border wall; expanded detention facilities; ended “catch and release;” effectively closed the border entirely when illegal crossings surge; and raised the bar for asylum claims, according to the bill.
The influential Border Patrol union, which has previously endorsed Trump, publicly backed the bill. But hours after the draft legislation was unveiled on Feb. 5, Trump urged his party to oppose the bill, even as many Republicans have spent years lobbying for some of the security measures included in the deal.
“I’ll fight it all the way,” Trump told supporters at a Las Vegas rally Feb. 8. “A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I say, that’s okay. Please blame it on me.” Trump openly invoked election-year politics as a motivation for his position: “This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans,” Trump wrote on social media. The bill failed a key Senate procedural vote in May, with all but one Republican voting against it, including all those involved in crafting the deal.
TRUMP CLAIM: Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio
FACT-CHECK: False
According to the city of Springfield, Ohio, these claims are false. A city spokesperson tells ABC News there have been “no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals in the immigrant community.”
Rumors that migrants from Haiti are stealing and eating animals there have run rampant after a series of claims spread widely online, amplified by social media posts from leading political figures in recent days.
“Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents’ homes. Furthermore, no reports have been made regarding members of the immigrant community deliberately disrupting traffic,” the spokesperson added.
The House Judiciary GOP X account used AI tools to show Trump holding cats and ducks, portraying him as a savior of animals.
One of the main images circulating online, showing a man holding a dead goose, was taken not in Springfield but in Columbus, Ohio, two months ago. The resident who captured the image told ABC News he was surprised to see his image used to ” push false narratives.”
According to the Springfield News-Sun, the Springfield Police Department has not received any reports of pets being stolen and eaten. The city even created a webpage debunking some claims.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and that the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources. But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of Temporary Protected Status from the federal government.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump ‘intends on implementing’ Project 2025
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
Conservative allies and former advisors to Donald Trump published a 900-page policy blueprint in April 2023 to help a new Republican administration transition to power. The effort – dubbed Project 2025 – was organized by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank. It details proposals for staffing the government and restructuring federal agencies, writing regulations, managing the economy and ensuring national security.
Harris claims Trump “intends on implementing” the “detailed and dangerous” plan if he wins a second term. But Trump denies any association with Project 2025, saying on social media in July: “I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it,” and also publicly denounced its substance as “seriously extreme” and developed by the “severe right.”
“I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” Trump posted on social media. Many of the document’s priorities, however, are broadly championed by Trump, including construction of a border wall, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and banning transgender athletes from women’s sports, among other things.
Dozens of former members of his administration were involved in the project, including former cabinet secretaries and West Wing aides. Many of the same people helped craft the Republican Party platform, ABC News has reported. Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event in April 2022, Trump said: “This is a great group and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do… when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
HARRIS CLAIM: ‘If Donald Trump were to be reelected, he will sign a national abortion ban.’
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump has said he has “no regrets” in selecting the Supreme Court justices who overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. But he also repeatedly has promised that if elected, he will not sign a federal abortion ban into law and will leave the issue up to the states. One open question this year had been whether he would enforce the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits mailing materials used in abortions.
Among other things, the law would make it illegal to ship the drug mifepristone, which is used to terminate early pregnancies. The Biden administration has said the law is unenforceable because the drug has medical uses other than abortion, and it would be impossible to know how the drug was being used. Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, and other conservatives have called for the enforcement of the law.
In an August interview with CBS News, Trump said that while “we will be discussing specifics of it,” he will not enforce the Comstock Act.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said ‘they didn’t fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan.’
FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context.
It is accurate that no one with a direct role in the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021 has been held publicly accountable.
Trump appears to be specifically referring to a suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members. U.S. Central Command ultimately concluded that the bombing was not preventable and that members of a Marine sniper team were mistaken when they told others they had the suicide bomber in their sights.
Trump, congressional Republicans and several Gold Star families say they believe these investigations have not gone far enough.
TRUMP CLAIM: Kamala Harris wants to ban fracking
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
It’s true that Harris once called to ban fracking altogether, but she has since said she changed her policy view. During a CNN town hall on climate change in 2019 when she was still a Senator, Harris said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking is short for “hydraulic fracturing,” and it’s a technique used in the extraction of oil and natural gas from underground rock formations.
Harris also said she backed California’s efforts to stop the practice in her home state when she was the state’s attorney general. However, she eventually changed her view on fracking when she became Biden’s running mate in 2020. During an October 2020 segment on ABC’s The View, Harris said neither she nor Biden would ban fracking. Harris reiterated that she would not ban fracking during the ABC News Presidential Debate.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said ‘I’d like to give you 10,000 National Guard soldiers. They rejected me. Nancy [Pelosi] rejected me.’
FACT-CHECK: False
The final report by the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol determined there was “no evidence” to support the claim that Trump gave an order “to have 10,000 troops ready for January 6th.”
The report quoted President Trump’s Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who directly refuted this claim under oath, saying, “There was no direct order from the President” to put 10,000 troops to be on the ready for January 6th.
Instead, the report noted that when Trump referenced that number of troops, it was not to protect the Capitol but that he had “floated the idea of having 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by left-wing counter-protesters.”
HARRIS CLAIM: If elected, Trump would be immune from criminal prosecution
FACT-CHECK: Partly true
Vice President Harris claimed Trump would be “immune from any misconduct” and have “no guard rails” after a landmark Supreme Court decision in June.
The court did rule the core powers, which include the ability to make treaties, veto bills, nominate cabinet members, appoint ambassadors, act as Commander-in-Chief of the military, and grant pardons.) The court also said that presidents enjoy “at least presumptive immunity” for other “official acts” – defined broadly as actions within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibilities but not “manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
While the decision is widely construed as granting broad protection for a president, the court said presidents are “not above the law” and enjoy no “absolute” immunity, leaving room for a narrow set of cases where a current or former president could face criminal prosecution. There is also no immunity for “unofficial” acts, the court said.
Trump faces a pair of active federal criminal cases against him brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Supreme Court decision does not mean those prosecutions cannot move forward, but it has significantly delayed proceedings and made it more difficult to convict Trump. If he were to win a second term, Trump’s Justice Department could dismiss the Special Counsel and effectively end the cases against him.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said he ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and ‘Biden put it back on day one.’
FACT-CHECK: Mostly false
The Nord Stream 2 is an undersea pipeline that would have allowed Russia to increase natural gas exports to Western Europe while bypassing Ukraine and depriving Kyiv billions of dollars in access fees. It’s true that in 2019, Trump announced sanctions that halted the pipeline’s construction. But by that point, the pipeline was nearly complete with a majority of the project occurring under Trump’s presidency, according to a 2020 analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
Biden later waived sanctions against the pipeline’s builder at the request of Germany in 2021, but reimposed penalties the following year as Russia invaded Ukraine.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump’s deal with the Taliban is to blame for the chaotic withdrawal in Afghanistan.
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The top government watchdog on the Afghanistan war blames Trump’s 2020 deal with the Taliban as “the single most important factor” in the rapid collapse of Afghanistan’s forces a year later. But the same office also says Biden’s decision to stick with a firm withdrawal date of U.S. troops was a factor as well.
Trump’s deal with the Taliban called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021 and release 5,000 of its fighters from Afghan prisons so long as they agreed not to attack U.S. forces. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the agreement was seen by Afghan forces as a “signal that the U.S. was handing over Afghanistan to the enemy as it rushed to exit the country.” Trump also had reduced U.S. troop levels to the lowest point in the 20-year war, and Afghan forces weren’t prepared to take over, according to the inspector general.
Biden aides say the poor security situation when he took office in January 2021 put the newly elected president in an almost impossible position. Biden could have surged U.S. troops to the country to try to bolster the weakened Afghan government. But doing so would have extended what was already the nation’s longest war and put American forces at risk of renewed attacks by the Taliban. According to the inspector general, Biden’s announcement that he would stick with a 2021 withdrawal date contributed to the poor morale among Afghan troops, paving the way for a government collapse and subsequent Taliban takeover.
TRUMP CLAIM: Harris and Walz support abortion ‘in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month… And probably after birth.’
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump has claimed that Democrats in some states allow for the killing of an infant after birth. This is false.
There is no state that allows the killing of a baby after birth. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states. His false claim stems from a refusal by many Democrats to support any legal restrictions on abortion, and he specifically references comments by former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a physician, who once said that in rare, late-pregnancy cases when fetuses are nonviable, doctors deliver the baby, resuscitate it if the mother wishes, and then have a “discussion” with the mother.
While most states that allow abortion do so only up until fetal viability, there are several states – including Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Gov. Tim Walz’s home state of Minnesota — that do not impose a legal limit on abortion procedures. Advocates for abortion rights say the absence of legal consequences after fetal liability doesn’t mean doctors will try to terminate full-term, healthy pregnancies.
In fact, access to late term procedures is limited, costly and medically complex — typically done only when a woman’s life is threatened or the fetus isn’t expected to survive. Many Democrats say they want to pass legislation that would codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which protects abortion rights up until viability.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said he lost the 2020 election on a ‘technicality’ because judges determined he lacked standing in election lawsuits.
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump lost the 2020 election after Biden won 306 electoral votes, compared to Trump’s 232 electoral votes.
After losing the 2020 election, Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits to challenge the outcome of the election — the overwhelming majority of which were dismissed or dropped. Many of the cases were dismissed because the plaintiffs in the cases could not prove a strong enough connection to the action they were challenging. Not having “standing” is a common and legally justifiable reason for a case to be dismissed.
TRUMP CLAIM: The Biden administration left $85 billion worth of ‘brand new beautiful military equipment behind’ in Afghanistan that was seized by the Taliban.
FACT-CHECK: False
This is not accurate, as $83 billion is an estimate of the entire amount spent by the US in security assistance in Afghanistan since 2001.
Still, the Defense Department’s Inspector General estimates $7.12 billion worth of U.S.-funded equipment was seized by the Taliban when the U.S. withdrew. According to the government watchdog, that amount includes 78 aircraft, some 9,500 air-to-ground munitions, 40,000 vehicles, 300,000 weapons and nearly all night-vision, surveillance, communications and biometric equipment provided to Afghanistan forces.
HARRIS CLAIM: ‘Trump took out a full page ad calling for their execution’
FACT-CHECK: True
Not long after the Central Park Five were arrested, Trump placed full-page ads in New York newspapers urging New York to bring back the death penalty. “These muggers and murderers” should be “forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes,” said the ad, above Trump’s signature.
-PolitiFact’s Aaron Sharockman
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump did exchange letters with Kim Jong Un in August 2018 after the two leaders held a summit together in Singapore in June 2018. Trump tweeted thanking the North Korean leader “for your nice letter – I look forward to seeing you soon.” The White House at the time said Trump sent a reply to the North Korean leader, but the White House did not provide details about what was in Kim Jong Un’s letter or what was in Trump’s reply.
In August 2019, Trump said he received a “very beautiful letter” from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when speaking to reporters.
In September 2018, Trump told a crowd at a campaign rally that there was once tough talk between the two leaders, “and then we fell in love.”
“And then we fell in love, okay? No, really – he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters,” Trump said at the rally. Trump did often speak favorably of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during and after his presidency.
HARRIS CLAIM: Biden-Harris made historic investments in clean energy
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The U.S. budget for clean energy investments (over $559 billion as of August 2023) is the largest in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. About a third of that investment is going toward low-carbon electricity projects, and about a quarter is aimed at developing low-carbon, efficient transportation, according to WEF. In the first quarter of 2024, the U.S. “continued its record-setting growth” with a new high of $71 billion invested in clean energy and transportation, according to Clean Investment Monitor.
At the same time, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in March that the U.S. is now producing more crude oil than any country ever has — and has been for the past six years in a row. In December 2023 the U.S. reached a new monthly record high of more than 13.3 million barrels per day, according to the EIA.
The Harris-Walz campaign told ABC News that the trillion-dollar amount cited by the vice president is based on the total spending of the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In a statement, they told us “Vice President Harris was proud to cast the tie-breaking vote on the largest ever investment to address the climate crisis and under the Biden-Harris Administration, America is more energy secure than ever before with the highest domestic energy production on record.”
Even if you take the lowest estimate for federal spending under the IRA, 780-800 billion dollars, adding the funds allocated in the CHIPS and BIL laws does exceed the $1 trillion figures that Harris has cited in her campaign speeches. All three laws include provisions that address climate change.
(CHICAGO) — Former Michigan Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm praised the party’s energy at its national convention in Chicago as Vice President Kamala Harris prepares to formally accept its presidential nomination.
“It is very high,” Granholm told ABC News about Democrats’ enthusiasm. “People will be exhausted if it stays this high all the way through. But honestly, for Democrats, it has to stay high. There is so much work to do if we can’t take anything for granted. These polls are starting to look good. It’s clear she’s got momentum, but this is not for time to let up on the accelerator.”
Still, Granholm said, it’s hard to take anything for granted.
Trump remains the leader of his own movement of loyal supporters, and polling in the past has consistently underestimated his support, including in 2016, when he overcame historical trends and his own stumbles to beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who Democrats were virtually certain would prevail.
“Always concerned about overconfidence. You always have to run like her 10 points behind. Yes, she’s got momentum, but that does not mean you let up, you accelerate. Let’s keep going,” she said.
Still, Granholm said, Democrats are putting forth an inspiring candidate.
Harris would be a groundbreaking president as a woman of color. But, Democrats have argued, her appeal expands beyond that.
“I do think that it is emblematic of the diversity and coalition that the Democratic Party represents,” Granholm said. But her policies “are what really gets and bring people in, in addition to the more than symbolism of having a first in a woman person of color.”
Harris is set to blitz the campaign trail in the sprint to Election Day on Nov. 5, even making a pit stop in Milwaukee, Wis., on Tuesday night while the convention plays out in Chicago.
Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D, said the energy at the Democratic National Convention is “very high.”
And, Granholm said, it would behoove Harris to have President Joe Biden tag along and allow him to talk about accomplishments that voters may not be aware of, including investments in infrastructure and science and technology.
“What he’s done is given her a foundation on which to build,” she said.
“He’s also somebody who has been focused on bipartisanship, so independents and others who may not be aware of what this president has done and be able to help get the word out, for some weirdo reason, people still seem to think that Republicans have a better agenda, when, in fact, for real people, the agenda that the Democrats are putting forward is so much better, he can be a great explainer for that,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — After nearly two years of House Republicans vowing to investigate President Joe Biden and his family’s business dealings — while repeatedly falling short in substantiating their most significant claims — the House Judiciary, Oversight, and Ways and Means Committees on Monday released a nearly 300-page impeachment inquiry report filled with familiar allegations against the president, who has already announced he will not seek a second term.
The report, released on the first day of the Democratic National Convention and the morning of the day the president is slated to speak, rehashes many of the allegations Republicans previously made against President Biden while alleging that they have uncovered “impeachable conduct.”
However, the report does not recommend specific articles of impeachment; it instead says that the decision on the next steps will be left to the larger congressional body.
There appear to be no new bombshells in the report. The report details six so-called key findings alleging that the Biden family received $27 million from foreign entities using shell companies, $8 million in questionable loans, special treatment for Hunter Biden and White House obstruction of the impeachment inquiry into the president.
While the report is highly detailed and cites a wide array of documents and testimony, it provides few, if any, instances of Joe Biden himself being directly and knowingly involved in illegal or improper activities – mainly focusing on the actions of his son, Hunter Biden and his allies, and the president’s brother, Jim Biden.
The report appears to serve as a roadmap for House Republicans if they move to draft articles of impeachment for the House to then take up when Congress returns on Sept. 9.
It’s not clear yet what the next steps will be, including if articles of impeachment will even be drafted and formally introduced. If articles are introduced, one of the House committees — likely Judiciary led by Jim Jordan — would then hold a markup to pass the articles out of committee for House floor consideration. It’s not clear if Speaker Mike Johnson would hold an impeachment vote on the floor. Republicans have hesitated for months to move forward with impeaching Biden because they do not have enough votes to clear the measure, and many believe Biden’s actions do not merit impeachment.
Congress is only in session for three weeks in September and out on recess until after the November 2024 election. Notably, since Biden has dropped his reelection bid, House Republicans have already trained their sights on the new presumptive Democratic ticket, launching fresh investigations into both Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz.
One of the key allegations in the report says that James Biden and Hunter Biden received a total of nearly $8 million in loans from entertainment attorney Kevin Morris, who represented Hunter Biden; family friend Joey Langston; and car dealer John Hynansky.
The vast majority of the alleged loans — more than $6 million of it — came from Morris, who allegedly paid more than $1.9 million of Hunter Biden’s tax liabilities, helped the president’s son buy a new house in Venice, California, and hire security. But, the report added, “Mr. Morris’s wealth allowed him to cover these tax debts and other debts for Hunter Biden without regard to expectation of repayment.”
The report suggests Morris’ financial assistance “creates the perception, at the very least, there was an unspoken quid pro quo or unlawful campaign contribution for which Mr. Morris would erase Hunter Biden’s IRS troubles—and by extension, help the Biden campaign rid itself of a serious liability—and receive some benefit in return.”
But the report does not provide any direct evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden himself in relation to this financial assistance.
Notably, multiple previous associates of Hunter Biden told the Oversight Committee over the course of the investigation that President Biden had no involvement with Hunter’s business dealings. Rob Walker, a longtime business associate of Hunter Biden, said in a closed-door interview in January that President Biden “was never involved” in Hunter Biden’s business dealings. “To be clear, President Biden — while in office or as a private citizen — was never involved in any of the business activities we pursued. Any statement to the contrary is simply false,” Walker said in his opening statement.
The report also claims the White House obstructed the Committees’ investigation into President Biden’s alleged retention of classified documents by preventing White House officials from testifying, erroneously asserting executive privilege and limiting access to materials from the National Archives.
Biden’s alleged retention of classified documents was independently investigated by Special Counsel Robert Hur, who recommended against charging Biden. While Hur says he found evidence that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified information,” he determined that charges were not warranted because “evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Hur’s decision to not recommend charges against Biden relied in part on his finding that Biden would come off as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” to a jury, a statement the president has slammed.
The report sharply criticized the White House for asserting executive privilege over the audio of Biden’s interview with Hur, arguing that the recording itself was necessary to understand Biden’s “mental state” and overall culpability. The DOJ defended its decision not to turn over the recordings by arguing the audio was “cumulative” and releasing them would harm “the evenhanded administration of justice” by preventing future cooperation from witnesses.
In June, House Republicans voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over the audio recordings, though the DOJ declined to prosecute Garland due to a longstanding policy against prosecuting an attorney general. A Republican-led effort to hold Garland in inherent contempt for his failure to turn over the audio tapes, which would have led to Garland being fined $10,000 per day until he complied with a congressional subpoena, failed in July.