In 1483‚ Edward V (aged 12) and his brother Richard‚ Duke of York (aged 9)‚ disappeared from the Tower of London. For over 500 years‚ history has judged that the ‘Princes in the Tower‘ were murdered on the orders of their uncle Richard III. Until now there has been very little proof‚ but following intensive research in UK‚ American and European archives‚ astonishing new archival discoveries have been uncovered that challenge this historical narrative. Historian Philippa Langley‚ renowned for her role in uncovering Richard III’s remains in 2012‚ established ‘The Missing Princes Project’ in 2016‚ employing the methods of a cold-case policy enquiry to try and solve the case. In her book‚ The Princes in the Tower: Solving History’s Greatest Cold Case – our Book of the Month for December 2023‚ she records the painstaking investigative research work of the project. By questioning received wisdom‚ she and her team shed light upon one of history’s greatest miscarriages of justice‚ revealing a phenomenal‚ untold story. Here we learn more about Langley’s discoveries‚ both from her book and her interview with Matt Lewis on History Hit’s Gone Medieval podcast in which Langley explained her painstaking research and her astonishing new archival discoveries. Who were the ‘Princes in the Tower’ and why were they imprisoned? In 1483‚ King Edward IV died aged 40. His two sons‚ the soon-to-be crowned King Edward V and his younger brother‚ Richard of Shrewsbury‚ were sent to the Tower of London to await Edward’s coronation. However‚ his coronation never came‚ and the two brothers disappeared from the tower‚ and were never seen again‚ presumed dead. Richard III took the crown in Edward’s absence. Since then‚ most people have presumed that Richard III had the boys murdered‚ to avoid rival claimants to his throne. The Princes in the Tower‚ by John Everett Millais (1878)Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / John Everett Millais / Royal Holloway collection / Public Domain The Missing Princes Project Philippa Langley’s ‘Missing Princes Project’ stemmed from the ‘Looking for Richard‘ project‚ the first-ever search for the grave of an anointed King of England. Its evidence-based research approach challenged the beliefs of many historians. After the discovery of Richard III’s body‚ a headline in The Daily Mail published during the reburial week labelled him a ‘child-killer’‚ prompting Langley to realise the need for a fresh evidence-based project to determine the truth – the Missing Princes Project. It’s approach was formulated by Langley who had consulted police and barristers in order to treat the project as a police cold-case investigation – starting with a clean sheet without any biases or use of hindsight. This international effort involved over 300 members who‚ without being told what to look for‚ collected information from local archives spanning 1483-1486. This resulted in over 300‚000 files‚ necessitating a supercomputer to manage‚ cross-check and reference all the material coming in. Despite her long-held interest in the case and doubts about the princes’ murder due to insufficient evidence‚ Langley was determined to approach the evidence objectively – as she explained to Matt Lewis‚ on the Gone Medieval podcast: Searching for evidence of the boys’ deaths Langley meticulously built a chronology of events‚ starting from the last known sighting of the princes at the Tower of London in June 1483. Intriguingly‚ she found no evidence supporting the boys’ deaths during Richard III’s reign. The police advised her that to uncover the truth she should investigate routine administrative records‚ financial accounts and legal documents – combined with examining chronicles from the time‚ Langley saw a shift in historical accounts. Edward V: The elder prince was mentioned in routine administrative records throughout Richard III’s reign. If an account referred to something that took place from April-June 1483 – when Edward V had been the named king – it was referred to in terms of‚ ‘at the time of the bastard Edward V’‚ or ‘the bastard king’. Notably‚ this was without any indications of his death or customary prayers for his soul (as would have been added at the time if relevant)‚ suggesting normalcy‚ and contrary to the expected disruptions if he had indeed died. Richard‚ Duke of York: Richard had fewer mentions in records due to his lesser status. Nonetheless‚ an entry in the Treasurer’s Accounts for Cambridge from September 1484 referred to a payment to Richard‚ Duke of York. Although likely an error by the cleric who had meant Edward‚ Earl of Warwick (who was in King Richard’s household at this time and with him during his visit to Cambridge)‚ this entry implied that at the time‚ there was a belief in Richard‚ Duke of York’s existence. What if the princes had survived? After 4 years of fruitless searching for evidence of the princes’ deaths‚ Langley shifted her focus towards exploring the possibility that the princes might have survived. Following advice from police specialists‚ she conducted a meticulous forensic analysis‚ scrutinising events moment by moment‚ particularly honing in on the Battle of Bosworth where the paths of Richard III and Henry Tudor converged. Langley’s investigation revealed that the narrative of the princes’ murder surfaced with Henry Tudor and his foreign invasion force. The earliest mention of their alleged murder in England came from a Welsh poet around 14 August 1485‚ after the Battle of Bosworth‚ blaming Richard III for the act. This narrative gained momentum in England from that point onward. Notably‚ Henry Tudor’s actions after his victory at Bosworth – delaying his journey to London (a move contrary to expectations given London’s strategic importance) and dispatching searches – suggested a quest for the sons of Edward IV. Actions he wouldn’t have taken if they were already dead. Edward V and the Lille receipt The UK investigation was hampered due to the amount of documents lost under Henry VII’s rule. However‚ a breakthrough came when a Dutch research group discovered a crucial accounting receipt in the Lille archive in France‚ dating back to 16 December 1487. This receipt provided evidence of Edward V’s existence‚ and his leadership of an invasion force into England in 1487‚ culminating in the Battle of Stoke. The receipt‚ detailing a payment for 400 pikes‚ was made by King Maximilian I on behalf of the Dowager Duchess‚ Margaret of Burgundy‚ sister of Richard III and aunt to Edward V. It explicitly mentioned the pikes were ‘to lead across the sea with a specialist a German mercenary‚ who the Madam the Dowager sent at that time‚ together with several captains of war from England‚ to serve her nephew‚ son of King Edward‚ late her brother‚ who was expelled from his dominion’ – identifying him as Edward V. Significantly‚ the receipt was signed by three prominent members of Maximilian‘s court (his secretary‚ and‚ controllers of the artillery and weaponry)‚ reinforcing its authenticity and accuracy. There would have been multiple opportunities for correction if the information wasn’t true. Crucially‚ the absence of customary phrases indicating the person’s death in the receipt‚ a common practice in those religious times‚ suggested that Edward V was believed to be alive after the Battle of Stoke in 1487. This discovery challenges the established narratives surrounding Richard III‚ the princes’ fate‚ and the early years of Henry VII’s reign‚ prompting a reevaluation of the Yorkist dynasty and Henry VII’s rule. Despite deliberate destruction of paperwork by Henry VII’s government‚ European archives‚ beyond Henry’s reach‚ provided crucial insights. Langley’s investigation‚ tracing accounts‚ revealed Edward V’s presence in the Channel Islands (Guernsey) during both Richard III and early Henry Tudor’s reign‚ confirming his expulsion from his dominion. Richard‚ Duke of York If Edward had survived beyond 1485‚ it was hopeful that his younger brother Richard had too‚ but Langley needed evidence. In November 2020‚ a stunning discovery emerged from criminal lawyer‚ Natalie Neyman at the Gelderman archive in Holland—a four-page note purportedly written by Richard‚ Duke of York. The note chronicled his story from sanctuary at Westminster Abbey to the Tower of London and subsequent escape to safety in France and the Low Countries‚ orchestrated by John Howard‚ Duke of Norfolk‚ as well as Richard’s journey abroad with two companion retainers‚ Thomas and Henry Percy. When this revelation was cross-referenced with existing administrative records‚ Langley found everything fell into place. Previously puzzling actions by key figures‚ including Elizabeth Woodville‚ the Princes’ mother‚ began to make sense in light of this evidence‚ suggesting her awareness of her sons’ survival. Langley also asserted that Henry VII’s actions‚ like imprisoning Thomas Grey‚ Marquis of Dorset‚ could be linked to the boys’ existence. Addressing sceptics The extraordinary nature of this evidence raised doubts about its authenticity. To validate it‚ Langley sought triple-checks from the archives that had made these discoveries. After receiving confirmation of authenticity‚ the documents were then scrutinised by leading medieval scholar Dr Janina Ramirez at Oxford University‚ who also confirmed the authenticity of three of the documents. As the Gelderman document felt too good to be true‚ Ramirez recommended further verification. Langley’s documentary film team engaged two leading experts‚ one from Belgium specialising in Middle Dutch (the language the note was written in)‚ and Dr Andrew Dunning (a leading expert at the Bodleian Library in Oxford). Both experts corroborated the legitimacy of the documents’ language and content‚ providing additional assurance of their authenticity. Subsequently‚ more evidence surfaced‚ including a document signed by Richard as ‘Richard of England’‚ and a letter from King Maximilian in the Austrian archives. Maximilian’s letter described meting Richard‚ Duke of York‚ identifying his 3 unique birthmarks (by his eye‚ mouth‚ and thigh)‚ and offering full support. (Maximilian was close to Margaret of Burgundy and favoured Yorkist claims‚ yet sought peace with Henry VII but felt mistreated. His support for Edward and Richard promised favourable trade and diplomatic relations if either reclaimed the throne.) Philippa Langley’s book offers further evidence and explanations surrounding the princes and events that may have happened to them after their exit from the Tower of London‚ yet she acknowledges may people may inevitably not be convinced. However‚ she maintains that evidence-based research enables people to have an informed opinion. After all‚ before Richard III’s body was discovered people thought he had been thrown into a river. The project remains ongoing‚ seeking further evidence for the final resting places of both princes. As for Richard III‚ in Langley’s view‚ he is exonerated of killing his nephews – the totality of evidence is in her book. Philippa Langley MBE is a British writer/producer with a passion to tell distinctive and original narratives that challenge our perception of established truths. In 2012 she led the successful search to locate the grave of King Richard III through her Looking For Richard Project‚ conceiving‚ facilitating and commissioning this unique historical investigation. Her book‚ The Princes in the Tower: Solving History’s Greatest Cold Case published by The History Press‚ reveals the findings of The Missing Princes Project – Philippa’s quest to find out what happened to the Princes in the Tower‚ and was published in November 2023.

Rep. Jayapal Vies for Title of the Worst Member of The Squad

What Have Aliens Done With the REAL John Fetterman...and Are They Willing to Keep Him?

Neanderthals hunted the largest land animals of their time‚ giant beasts that weighed twice as much as African elephants – or mammoths‚ for that matter. The achievement not only shows a level of organization (and courage) previously unconfirmed in our nearest relatives but could have shaped Neanderthal society in Europe between ice ages in a major way.Earlier this year a team led by Professor Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser of the MONREPOS Archaeological Research Center reported cut marks on bones of straight-tusked elephants (Palaeoloxodon antiquus) at Neumark-Nord 1 in Germany from around 125‚000 years ago. Although at first sight the marks could have been the result of scavenging on individuals that died from other causes‚ Gaudzinski-Windheuser and colleagues argued bones treated in this way were so abundant at the one site that they must have been hunted there instead. However‚ this discovery raised the question of whether there was something distinctive about Neumark-Nord‚ or if giant elephant hunting was a more widespread practice. Now‚ these authors have answered their own question using Palaeoloxodon bones from two other sites in modern-day eastern Germany‚ Gröbern and Taubach.The common feature of the three sets of bones (besides all being quite close together) is that all were created around 125‚000 years ago‚ during the last interglacial period when the Earth was at a similar temperature to today. Only one elephant carcass is available from Gröbern for study‚ and only 17 of the bones from Taubach display cutmarks. Nevertheless‚ the similarities were striking.“We identified in both assemblages similar butchering patterns as at Neumark-Nord‚ demonstrating that extended elephant exploitation was a widespread Neanderthal practice during the (early part of the) Last Interglacial‚” they write. These sites also reveal the same bias seen at Neumark-Nord towards adult male Palaeoloxodon‚ much larger than the females‚ but probably traveling along rather than in herds. Life-sized reconstruction of a bull straight-tusked elephant (P. antiquus) in the Landesmuseum for Vorgeschichte‚ Halle‚ with Dr Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser for scaleImage Credit: Lutz Kindler‚  LEIZA (CC BY-NC-ND)Toothmarks at Taubach indicate large carnivores also got at the bones‚ but these were rare enough to suggest the Neanderthals were able to keep their competition at bay for a long time. On their own‚ Gröbern and Taubach could have represented fortunate Neanderthals coming across a recently dead elephant. However‚ seen in the light of Neumark-Nord‚ it looks more likely that hunting was a feature of the region’s Neanderthals during this warm era.Unless elephant killing was the extreme sport of its day‚ undertaken without being too worried about maximizing benefit‚ the Neanderthals must have had a way to make use of these giant beasts. The team calculated that you could get enough meat to provide a Neanderthal’s daily calorie needs 2‚500 times over from a single Palaeoloxodon individual – and not even a particularly large one.Unless the hunters had a way to preserve the meat it would have spoiled quickly‚ even in winter.Consequently‚ the authors reason‚ Neanderthals either had preservation techniques we are not aware of – and were able to implement them fast – or they came together in large numbers to consume such abundance. Either would change our view of Neanderthal society‚ at least in Germany. Most likely‚ the paper proposes‚ the truth is a combination of the two. Moreover‚ it would have been impossible for a small group to carry too much meat with them. If they were preserving it‚ they must have stayed nearby for a long time to make full use‚ rather than being constantly on the move.The study is published open access in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

Bus drivers encounter a myriad of sights on their daily routes‚ but it’s not every day that they become heroes. This story begins in Milwaukee‚ where the holiday season brought more than just festive cheer; it brought a remarkable act of kindness and a reminder of the warmth of human spirit. It all started on... The post Bus driver spots 2 lost dogs in freezing cold and makes it her mission to get them home appeared first on Animal Channel.

A school district in Vermont claimed that if schools begin honoring a day that celebrates those who detransitioned after changing their gender (well‚ attempting to)‚ calling it “Detransition Awareness Day” would be hurtful and offensive to “transgender” students.  Townhall obtained documents from Parents Defending Education who’d initially requested the “Detransition Awareness Day.” Supposedly‚ a parent emailed the school board on February 6‚ 2023 asking to add a “Detransition Awareness Day” to the school calendar. The parent proposed March 12 for the celebration.  Townhall reported that the parent also asked that the book “Irreversible Damage‚” a story by Abigail Shrier that details how harmful transgender procedures are‚ be available to students “on an easel atop the shelves in the HS library” in the Essex Westford School District in Vermont. “Within the framework of equity and inclusion‚ those who choose to reverse course on the current prevalent narrative should be celebrated. It is a lonely path since it travels uphill against the downhill slippery slope‚ but students in this marginalized group deserve our support‚” the parent wrote in the email.  While school districts regularly celebrate pride‚ it seems only fair that a day to honor those who don’t celebrate changing their gender be instituted as well‚ yet‚ the Vermont district didn’t agree. Here’s what the school district replied according to Townhall: People who transition genders in any direction are recognized on national coming out day and during Pride month. We would‚ of course‚ support someone transitioning in any direction. Centering transitioning gender as damaging does not align with the EWSD Equity Policy's requirement of being LGBTQIA+ affirming. This particular frame on gender transition -- moving from a trans status to a status of gender assigned at birth because of damage done -- is not something we would center. Instead‚ we would support any person transitioning for any reason through the current days and structures we recognize and be supportive of their transition by recognizing the gender to which they identify. Detransition can be hurtful to transgender people and youth. We want to meet their mental needs. The school district is essentially saying‚ 'We’ll celebrate you if you want to live a delusion but if you accept reality‚ you’re on your own.' In the email‚ the school district indicated that the book‚ “Irreversible Damage‚” “actually goes against our equity policy and can cause harm.” Following that email‚ the parent reached back out insisting that their intention is not to “celebrate cisgender identities‚” but rather bring awareness to “transition regret.” A few days after that email‚ the school district replied that it “would not add a day to the calendar where the underlying narrative or content of the day points at others in harmful ways based on identity or for existing in the first place‚” and later added‚ “If the narrative around detransition day were a genuine celebration or recognition of folks who are detransitioning without pointing toward others as harmful for creating representation and equal rights for trans folks‚ I would see this differently.” So schools can point out how amazing they think transitioning is‚ but not how harmful it can be? Seems like a cherry picked assortment of data and information access in order to push an agenda if you ask me. Erika Sanzi‚ the director of outreach for Parents Defending Education felt similarly and told Townhall the following: Schools should get out of the habit of celebrating all these silly days on the calendar but if they are going to do so‚ they can't choose sides. And if school officials think that detransition awareness violates their equity policy‚ they'd be wise to get rid of that policy because it's clearly not equitable or inclusive despite claims to the contrary. That’s exactly right! Schools shouldn't pick sides or they should allow both or multiple to be supported and be given the opportunity to have equal access and representation.  It’s crazy that parents even have to advocate for a day that brings light to the dangers of transgenderism. Transgenderism isn’t something that should exist‚ so a day celebrating detransitioning shouldn’t have to exist either. But it’s the end of 2023‚ and here we are.  Long story short‚ get your kids out of public school.

Fox Business host Stuart Varney panned absurd comments made by U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry at a Dubai environmentalist conference.  Varney bashed Kerry's calls for the banning of coal-fired power plants as "crazy‚ unrealistic green goals.” On Dec. 3‚ Kerry said‚ "There shouldn't be any more coal-fired power plants permitted anywhere in the world.” But Varney lambasted Kerry's draconian recommendations uttered at the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference. “It shouldn't shock us but it's a grave error‚” Varney said on the Dec. 4 edition of Fox &; Friends. “20% of America's electricity supply today comes from coal. Kerry wants to abandon coal completely. You can't build any new power plants and you will shut down the coal-fired power plants that we have already got probably by 2035.”     Varney went on to ask the obvious question of how to replace all this energy‚ “You face a short-term crunch where they’re gonna get rid of all these coal-fired plants. Where does the electricity come from if it's not from coal? Where are we going to get it from? The president says‚ ‘We can get it from solar and wind.’ They actually said that just a couple of weeks ago.” Varney rejected this suggestion‚ “Dream on‚ Mr. President‚ dream on.”  The Varney &; Co. host then pointed out that many of the already-implemented wind projects are being walked back‚ asking Doocy‚ “Have you seen all those wind projects that have been canceled all up and down the eastern seaboard – Massachusetts‚ Rhode Island‚ New Jersey‚ Delaware‚ [Maryland]. They are not going to get the electricity they will need from those wind farms.”  Varney went on to suggest that restrictions on fracking natural gas in states like New York‚ alongside pipeline issues‚ would make it difficult to replace coal with more natural gas. Varney added‚ “You are going to have an energy crunch because they are committed to these — I think — crazy‚ unrealistic green goals.”  This replacement or at least the destruction of American coal energy without an alternative‚ is already underway.  Earlier this year‚ leftist billionaire Michael Bloomberg perversely celebrated the closure of coal plants at a massive scale and claimed credit for blocking 34 new natural gas plants.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477‚ CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on Michael Bloomberg’s planet-wide push to eliminate coal and make energy more expensive for everyone.

Rabid anti-Semites supporting Hamas terrorists gathered in Philadelphia‚ Pennsylvania Sunday night to call for genocide against Jews and assail a Jewish-owned restaurant. But while the liberal broadcast networks of ABC‚ CBS‚ and NBC had been more concerned with suggesting “islamophobia” was on the rise since the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7‚ they completely ignored the latest act of anti-Semitism in Philadelphia Monday morning. The evil crowd marched on the restaurant called Goldie in the Rittenhouse Square neighborhood of the city. As noted by The Times of Israel‚ the restaurant was part of a chain “founded by Israeli-American celebrity chef Michael Solomonov.” In a video taken of the anti-Semitic rally‚ which was posted on X‚ the crowd chanted “Goldie‚ Goldie you can’t hide‚ we charge you with genocide.”     Fact check: False. The restaurant was not carrying out a genocide‚ nor was the building attempting to hide. CBS’s omission of the story from Monday’s CBS Mornings was particularly awful given the fact that the news outlet had previously promoted the same restaurant chain for supporting relief work in Israel after October 7. “Philadelphia-based Israeli Chef Michael Solomonov is helping to raise money for those injured in the war in Israel‚” wrote reporters Taleisha Newbill and Andi Korff in an online article. “Solomonov owns four restaurants in Philadelphia under the banner CookNSolo‚ including Zahav‚ Goldie‚ Laser Wolf and K'Far Cafe.” Adding: “Solomonov said he would be donating 100% of all sales Thursday to Friends of United Hatzalah. The nonprofit emergency medical service responds to emergencies across Israel free of charge.” CBS also published the addresses of all four restaurants‚ including Goldie’s. The incident Sunday night was serious enough for national and state political leaders to acknowledge it occurred and issue statements about it. White House spokesman Andrew Bates put out a statement declaring: “It is antisemitic and completely unjustifiable to target restaurants that serve Israeli food over disagreements with Israeli policy.” Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (D)‚ who is Jewish‚ condemned the anti-Semitic hate march on X: “Tonight in Philly‚ we saw a blatant act of antisemitism — not a peaceful protest. A restaurant was targeted and mobbed because its owner is Jewish and Israeli. This hate and bigotry is reminiscent of a dark time in history.” He went on to note that he was planning to meet with Solomonov soon.   I’ve communicated tonight with @Mike_Solomonov and his team at Goldie to share our support and Lori and I look forward to breaking bread there with them again soon. — Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) December 4‚ 2023   Philly Congressman Brendan Boyle said on X: “I can’t believe I even have to say this but targeting businesses simply because they’re Jewish-owned is despicable. Philadelphia stands against this sort of harassment and hate.” Nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt‚ who joined NBC in moderating the third GOP presidential debate last month‚ called what happened in Philly a “pogrom” and argued it should be a national story. “The explosion of anti-Semitic acts against Jewish Americans should be leading the news everywhere this morning‚ but legacy media is paralyzed b/c of a reflex that it must also cover hatred against Muslims‚” he said. He noted that the two attacks in Chicago‚ Illinois and Burlington‚ Vermont were “awful‚” but “The number of anti-Semitic acts is far greater. The answer: Cover them all‚ but don't force an equivalency that isn't there.”   The explosion of anti-Semitic acts against Jewish Americans should be leading the news everywhere this morning‚ but legacy media is paralyzed b/c of a reflex that it must also cover hatred against Muslims. There have been two awful attacks against Palestinian-Americans and… https://t.co/QQ6wgop0Pe — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) December 4‚ 2023

NBC’s Today decided on Monday to further draw out the soap opera of now-ex-Congressman George Santos (R-NY) after he was overwhelmingly expelled Friday from Congress and use it as proof of “deep divisions within the GOP” and use it as a jumping off point to bash the impeachment inquiry of President Biden as a waste of time given there’s “no hard evidence” of malfeasance. Co-host Savannah Guthrie boasted in a tease of “Republicans facing more infighting on Capitol Hill” while Nobles bragged that Santos being forced out came “at a time when Congress has a lot to get done” and “revealed deep divisions within the GOP ahead of a busy sprint to the end of the year where Congress is hoping to pass several important pieces of legislation‚ including aid to Israel‚ Ukraine‚ and Taiwan‚ as well as a border security package.”     “Those negotiations are making little progress. So instead‚ House leadership is focusing on something else‚” Nobles huffed‚ referring to impeachment. After a soundbite from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) saying the House has “a duty to pursue the facts where they lead‚” Nobles argued Republicans are focusing on an impeachment inquiry that’s “already well underway” instead of topics such as Israel and the U.S. border. Nobles‚ of course‚ had to use his variation of “no evidence” to dismiss any and all inklings of Biden family corruption: “Republicans accusing the President and his family of corrupt business deals‚ but so far‚ they’ve produced no hard evidence to back up their claims. For his part‚ the President has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.” Take one look at stories this fall such as here and here from our Geoffrey Dickens and Nobles argument could be assigned a pants-on-fire ruling. For example‚ the House Oversight Committee said on November 1 that now-President Biden received $40‚000 laundered from brother Jim Biden via the Chinese Communist Party-linked CEFC China Energy. Another concerning find Nobles would want to look at is the fact that Biden used a pseudonym for over 82‚000 e-mails‚ including one about Hunter’s meeting with then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. In September‚ Dickens flagged earlier scandals that included Hunter Biden’s business partner Eric Schwerin as having visited the Obama White House 19 times and the allegation that Biden received $5 million from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. This‚ along with dozens of other revelations in recent years‚ have seen the light of day on NBC or any of the broadcast networks and their flagship morning and evening shows. Instead‚ Nobles resorted to more mockery: “That inquiry was launched without a....but now Republicans are having trouble enforcing high-profile subpoenas of witnesses‚ like the President’s son‚ Hunter Biden.” With a formal vote expected‚ Nobles insinuated it wouldn’t be because of anything discovered about Biden family corruption on a massive‚ global scale enveloping the current President. Instead‚ you see‚ Nobles proclaimed it’s to placate some in the House GOP: “The move to formalize impeachment comes as the right wing members and Speaker Mike Johnson’s ranks are getting increasingly antsy his leadership is not conservative enough.” To see the relevant transcript from December 4‚ click “expand.” NBC’s Today December 4‚ 2023 7:01 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Republican Infighting] SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Republicans facing more infighting on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail with the first presidential contest just six weeks away now. (....) 7:09 a.m. Eastern GUTHRIE: And‚ in the meantime‚ House Republicans are moving toward a vote on a formal impeachment inquiry of President Biden. (....) 7:09 a.m. Eastern RYAN NOBLES The fallout from his short time in office continues‚ at a time when congress has a lot to get done. (....) 7:10 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Biden Impeachment Inquiry] NOBLES: But the vote that led to his removal revealed deep divisions within the GOP ahead of a busy sprint to the end of the year where Congress is hoping to pass several important pieces of legislation‚ including aid to Israel‚ Ukraine‚ and Taiwan‚ as well as a border security package. Those negotiations are making little progress. So instead‚ House leadership is focusing on something else. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA) [on 11/29/23]: We have a duty to pursue the facts where they lead. NOBLES: The impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden is already well underway‚ with Republicans accusing the President and his family of corrupt business deals‚ but so far‚ they’ve produced no hard evidence to back up their claims. For his part‚ the President has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. That inquiry was launched without a vote under former Speaker Kevin McCarthy‚ but now Republicans are having trouble enforcing high-profile subpoenas of witnesses‚ like the President’s son‚ Hunter Biden. They acknowledge a formal vote would help move that forward. JOHNSON [on FNC’s Fox &; Friends Saturday‚ 12/02/23]: A formal impeachment inquiry vote on the floor will allow us to take it to the next necessary step and I think it’s something we have to do at this juncture. NOBLES: The move to formalize impeachment comes as the right wing members and Speaker Mike Johnson’s ranks are getting increasingly antsy his leadership is not conservative enough. And the Senate Majority Leader‚ Chuck Schumer‚ said that he plans to put the supplemental aid package on the floor‚ perhaps as early as this week‚ but if it does not include a border package that some Republicans can support‚ it likely cannot pass. Savannah? GUTHRIE: All right. Ryan‚ thank you.

The Liz Cheney book tour has begun‚ and it’s very pleasing to Democrats to hear her demand everyone vote against Republicans. On the second hour of Monday’s Today‚ co-host Savannah Guthrie gave Cheney nine-and-a-half minutes of book promotion -- for this "staunch conservative‚" as she put it. The first six minutes (and seven questions) were along the expected line of “please underline how dangerous Trump and his GOP enablers are.” This portion had all the “if Trump wins‚ democracy ends” bluster. It was more interesting when Guthrie pressed her on just how much she wants Democrats to win. “You said the Republican Party of today has made a choice‚ has not chosen the constitution. Do you think Democrats‚ it would be better for Democrats to regain control of Congress in 2024?” Cheney said yes. Some "staunch conservative‚" pushing for an all-Democrat Washington.   Guthrie underlined: "This is just crazy stuff! You are Liz Cheney. You are previously known as one of the most conservative members of Congress. You're the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. You are saying it would be safer if Republicans weren't in control of the House." Cheney said "I think what we have seen is that you cannot count on this group of elected Republicans to uphold their oath."  Guthrie pressed further: "You write that. You say every one of us‚ Republican‚ Democrat‚ independent must work and vote together. I will put it to you plainly. Will you vote for President Biden if Donald Trump is on the other side of the ticket?" Cheney said‚ " I will never vote for Donald Trump" and that she would "do whatever it takes to make sure that Donald Trump is defeated in 2024." Asked if that means she'd vote for Biden‚ she repeated‚ "I will do whatever it takes." Guthrie then noted Trump is beating Biden in the polls‚ not just nationally‚ but in battleground states. "Do you wish the Democrats had nominated someone other than Biden? Do you feel he is the best chance to defeat Donald Trump?" Cheney wouldn't answer that directly. Then came a question about persuadable voters:  GUTHRIE: I keep thinking when I was reading your book‚ about who is persuadable at this point? You call it a cult of personality on the Trump side. Okay‚ fine. So if you're in the cult‚ you're not going to vote for anyone except Trump. And then you have people on the other side‚ they will vote for the Democrats. This is a sliver of people who think‚ "okay‚ I may not have loved Trump. I'm tired of his antics‚ but I'm worried about the border. I'm worried about crime. And I think Biden is too old." What do you say to them that they think a Trump vote is -- it'll end up being all right. Maybe not pleasant but it'll be all right.  Cheney explicitly lectured: "I think that's a real problem‚ and the challenge is to make sure those people understand and recognize that a Trump vote is not acceptable....that choice can never be Donald Trump because a vote for Donald Trump may mean the last election that you ever get to vote in. " Welcome to democracy!