Special counsel Robert Hur took fire Tuesday from both Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee while testifying about his report on President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents from his eight years as vice president and 36 years in the Senate.  Hur released his final report last month‚ concluding that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” after his vice presidency ended in early 2009. However‚ the special counsel opted not to bring charges‚ writing that a jury would be unlikely to convict because of Biden’s “diminished faculties in advancing age‚” including a failing memory. During Hur’s six hours of testimony‚ committee Democrats expressed anger that the special counsel’s report brings up Biden’s memory issues.  Republicans‚ for their part‚ were annoyed that Hur’s report didn’t recommend criminally charging Biden for mishandling classified information—particularly when former President Donald Trump was charged earlier for holding on to classified documents from his four years in office.  Here’s eight big takeaways from the hearing. 1. President ‘Put Memory Squarely at Issue’ Hur said he didn’t “sanitize” his report on Biden nor did he “disparage” the president‚ as he fended off repeated assertions from committee Democrats that he was partisan‚ a registered Republican‚ and Trump’s appointee as U.S. attorney for  Maryland.  “The evidence—and the president himself—put his memory squarely at issue. We interviewed the president and asked him about his recorded statement [to his ghostwriter]‚ ‘I just found all the classified stuff downstairs‚’” Hur testified. “He told us he didn’t remember that. He also said he didn’t remember finding classified material in his home after his vice presidency. And he didn’t remember how any classified materials about Afghanistan made their way into his garage.” Democrats criticized Hur’s references to Biden’s memory. During his opening statement‚ however‚ the special counsel explained why that was necessary.  “My assessment in the report about the president’s memory was necessary and accurate and fair‚” Hur testified. “Most importantly‚ what I wrote is what I believe the evidence shows and what I expect jurors would perceive and believe. I did not sanitize my explanation. Nor did I disparage the president unfairly.”  2. ‘8 Million Reasons’ House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan‚ R-Ohio‚ talked about Biden’s five decades in federal elective office and how he should know the rules and law on classified information.  “Why did Joe Biden‚ in your words‚ ‘willfully retain and disclose classified materials?’” Jordan asked the special counsel.  Hur replied: “The conclusion as to exactly why the president did what he did is not one we explicitly addressed in the report.” Jordan disagreed‚ saying‚ “I think you told us‚ Mr. Hur‚” then read from Hur’s report.  “President Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his new book‚” Jordan read out loud. “Why did he have strong motivations? Because he decided months before leaving office to write a book‚” the Ohio Republican said. “Joe Biden had 8 million reasons to break the rules. Took classified information and shared it with the guy who was writing the book. He knew the rules but he broke them for $8 million in a book advance.” Chairman Jim Jordan lays out the "8 million reasons" that Joe Biden shared classified information with his ghost writer when questioning Robert Hur. pic.twitter.com/csyeKgVJvg— Fred Lucas (@FredLucasWH) March 12‚ 2024 Jordan noted the ghostwriter of Biden’s 2017 book “Promise Me‚ Dad” destroyed a recording in which Biden said he was sharing classified information with him.  However‚ later in the hearing‚ Hur said his team didn’t want to charge Biden’s ghostwriter since he did maintain a transcript of that interview with Biden.  3. Report ‘Did Not Exonerate’ Biden Rep. Darrell Issa‚ R-Calif.‚ asked Hur about Biden: “In this case‚ did you reach a conclusion that this man was outright innocent?” “That conclusion is not reflected in my report‚” Hur replied.  In a follow-up question‚ Issa asked: “You did not reach an idea that he committed no wrong. You reached a conclusion that you would not prevail at a trial‚ and therefore did not take it forward. Is that correct?” Hur responded: “Correct‚ Congressman.” Hur made a similar point later when Rep. Pramila Jayapal‚ D-Wash.‚ said that “this lengthy‚ expensive‚ and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of Joe Biden.” Jayapal went on to talk about other issues.  Hur said‚ “I would take note of a word that you used‚ ‘exoneration.’ That’s not part of my task as a prosecutor.” During crosstalk‚ Jayapal said‚ “You exonerated him.” Hur replied: “I did not exonerate him.” Several other Democrats insisted that Hur’s report exonerated the president. During another exchange‚ Rep. Kevin Kiley‚ R-Calif.‚ asked‚ “So a reasonable juror could have voted to convict based on the facts that you presented?” Hur responded‚ “Correct.” Rep. Kiley: So a reasonable juror could have voted to convict based on the facts that you presented?Hur: Correct.And yet‚ Special Counsel Hur recommended against charging President Biden for his unlawful and willful retention of classified documents. pic.twitter.com/czr6BUxxNu— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) March 12‚ 2024 4. Gaetz: Biden’s ‘Elevator Doesn’t Go to Top Floor’ Several Republicans on the committee asked whether‚ had Biden been younger‚ the special counsel would have reached a different conclusion about criminal charges. Hur declined to speculate.  Rep. Matt Gaetz‚ R-Fla.‚ more bluntly‚ said Biden got off on a senility defense.  “You find in your report that the elements of a federal criminal violation are met‚ but then you apply this ‘senile cooperator’ theory that because Joe Biden cooperated and the elevator doesn’t go to the top floor‚ you don’t think you can get a conviction‚” Gaetz told Hur. “I actually think you got to the right answer. I don’t think Biden should have been charged. I don’t think Trump should have been charged.”  Hur disagreed on one point.  “One of the elements of the mishandling statute is the intent element‚” the special counsel said. “What my report reflects is that‚ based on the evidence‚ I would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that intent element.”   5. White House Pressure to Change Report Under questioning‚ Hur said the White House sought to change and edit his final report on the president before it went public.  “Did the White House get the report before the report was made public?” Jordan asked.  Hur cautiously responded.  “We did provide a draft of the report to the White House counsel’s office and members of the president’s personal counsel team for their review‚” Hur said.  Jordan followed by asking: “Once they got the report‚ before it went public‚ did the White House try to weigh in with your investigation on elements of that report and‚ frankly‚ get that report changed?” Hur responded: “They did request certain edits and changes to the draft report.”  Committee Democrats repeatedly suggested that Trump’s second attorney general‚ William Barr‚ aggressively sought changes in a special counsel’s report on Trump.  Trump repeatedly said that report “exonerated” him. 6. ‘Any Reason to Believe That President Biden Lied to You?’ Rep. Jerry Nadler‚ D-N.Y.‚ ranking member of the Judiciary Committee‚ noted that Trump has been charged with trying to obstruct the FBI’s investigation into classified documents stored at his Florida estate. “At any point in your investigation‚ do you have any reason to believe that President Biden lied to you?” Nadler asked‚ then seemed to be surprised by the answer he got from Hur. The special counsel named by Attorney General Merrick Garland‚ a Biden appointee‚ referred to the Feb. 8 report from his office. “I do address in my report one response the president gave to a question we posed to him that we deemed to be not credible‚” Hur said. Nadler moved on to talking more about Trump. But other committee members talked significantly about Biden’s sharing information with his ghostwriter for the 2017 book “Promise Me‚ Dad‚” which the special counsel’s report said Biden was getting up to $8 million to produce for the publisher. Later in the hearing‚ Gaetz‚ the Florida Republican‚ asked more about the matter‚ reading aloud from the transcript in which a federal prosecutor questions Biden. “Mr. President‚ why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter?” the lawyer on the special counsel’s team asks. The president answers: “I did not share classified information. … I guarantee I did not.” “That’s not true‚ is it‚ Mr. Hur?” Gaetz asked. “That is inconsistent with the evidence of the findings in my report‚” Hur responded. Gaetz followed by asking: “It’s a lie is what regular people would say‚ right?” Hur smiled‚ but didn’t answer directly. Gaetz read again from the transcript‚ quoting Biden as saying: “All the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were locked or able to be locked.” “That wasn’t true either‚ was it?” Gaetz said. Hur replied: “That was inconsistent with the findings of our investigation.” “Another lie‚ people might say‚” Gaetz said. 7. Schiff vs. Hur Rep. Adam Schiff‚ D-Calif.‚ who was removed from the House Intelligence Committee for making unfounded statements about Russia‚ attacked Hur for including information in his report about Biden’s memory.  Schiff accused Hur of being partisan and said he would be “naive” to think Republicans wouldn’t use the report against Biden in the 2024 presidential campaign.  “What you did write was deeply prejudicial to the interests of the president‚” Schiff said. “You must have understood the impact of your words.” Hur said his job was to provide a report for Garland‚ Biden’s attorney general.  “What you are suggesting is that I provide a different version of my report that would be fit for public release‚” Hur told Schiff. “I was to prepare a confidential report that was comprehensive and thorough.” Schiff responded angrily.  “You don’t gratuitously add language that you know will be useful in a campaign‚” Schiff said. “You were not born yesterday. You knew exactly what you were doing.”  Hur said he wasn’t going to make political considerations.  “What you are suggesting is that I shape‚ sanitize‚ omit portions of my reasoning and explanation to the attorney general for political reasons‚” Hur said.  8. Raskin vs. Spartz During the hearing‚ Rep. Jamie Raskin‚ D-Md.‚ said this matter and House investigations of Biden are only about getting Trump reelected‚ which Raskin suggested would end democracy.  “This is a memory test‚ but it’s not a memory test for President Biden. It’s a memory test for all of America‚” Raskin‚ who was instrumental in both House impeachments of Trump‚ said.  “Do we remember fascism? Do we remember Nazism? Do we remember communism and totalitarianism?” the California Democrat asked rhetorically. “Have we completely forgotten the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents in prior generations? While we play pin the tail on the donkey in this wild goose chase and all these silly games‚ Donald Trump entertains authoritarian hustler Viktor Orban.” Orban is the prime minister of Hungary‚ and many on the Left in the United States dislike him.  Later in the hearing‚ Rep. Victoria Spartz‚ R-Ind.‚ who grew up in Ukraine when it was under Soviet control‚ took exception to Raskin’s trivializing comments on communism.  “Mr. Raskin mentioned about us not remembering communism—I actually grew up under communism‚ and I have a very good recollection of what it is‚” Spartz said.  “Unfortunately‚ it appears on the march and on the rise‚ as you said‚” she noted. “Unfortunately‚ they’ve been involved with President [Barack] Obama and now President Biden too. Unfortunately‚ our government’s Department of Justice really now resembles a tyrannical government. It is sad for me to see that.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post 8 Big Answers From Robert Hur’s Capitol Hill Testimony on Biden Document Scandal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

HarrisX/Forbes Poll: SOTU Didn't Help Biden‚ and Currently Is Losing

In an enchanting blend of whimsy and wisdom‚ Keanu Reeves joins the ranks of celebrities who have taken to BuzzFeed Celeb’s unique interview format—answering fan questions amidst a playful assembly of puppies. Reeves is seated‚ surrounded by frolicking puppies‚ each vying for his attention‚ creating a scene that’s both heartwarming and entertaining. This juxtaposition serves... The post Keanu Reeves does ‘puppy interview’ and melts hearts with adorable excitement appeared first on Animal Channel.

FINALLY! A positive story...+for once. The National Health Service (NHS) in England announced that puberty blockers for children will be banned since they do all harm and no good. The publicly funded group’s decision should be a model for the rest of the world that doesn't seem to recognize‚ or choose to ignore‚ the fact that permanently ruining a child’s God-given‚ perfectly healthy body‚ is antithetical to what the word “care” means. The NHS said that “outside of a research setting‚ puberty-suppressing hormones should not be routinely commissioned for children and adolescents‚” on Friday according to AP News. The move‚ which England’s government confirmed is one that prioritizes the “best interests of the child‚” comes after a review of puberty blockers for kids‚ led by pediatrician Dr. Hilary Class‚ indicated that there were too many “gaps in the evidence base.”  Class indicated that there was a “lack of long-term evidence and data collection on what happens to children and young people who are prescribed medication‚” TalkTV paraphrased Tuesday. “Which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service."  London’s Gender Identity Development Service is scheduled to be replaced by four new regional clinics set to open later this year‚ AP News reported. Additionally‚ as TalkTV indicated‚ these newer clinics will seek to focus on a more “holistic approach to care.” Now‚ puberty blockers for kids will only be available as part of clinical research or “on an exceptional‚ case-by-case basis.” In response to the news‚ health minister‚ Maria Caulifield‚ said the following:  We have always been clear that children’s safety and wellbeing is paramount‚ so we welcome this landmark decision by the NHS. Ending the routine prescription of puberty blockers will help ensure that care is based on evidence‚ expert clinical opinion and is in the best interests of the child. It’s exciting to see that the tides are turning and that kids in England will be safe from the terrifying destruction and demise that is caused by puberty blockers. Let’s hope and pray that in the future legislators in the U.S. adopt the same sort of policies that will help kiddos.

On Monday night‚ CNN host Erin Burnett tried to undermine the Israeli rationale for continuing its war against Hamas terrorists as she debated right-leaning former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. As Bennett not only invoked the U.S. fight against Japan after America was attacked in 1941‚ Burnett complained that the U.S. did some "shameful" things during World War II as she tried to deflect his point. (Specifically‚ FDR putting Japanese-Americans in camps.) Concluding the segment‚ she played a clip of far-left film film maker Jonathan Glazer who condemned his fellow Jews for their fight against Hamas‚ as the CNN host asked her Israeli guest for his response. Burnett set up the segment by relating a U.S. intelligence assessment predicting that right-leaning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in political trouble before going to correspondent Clarissa Ward to hear about the plight of Palestinian civilians who are trying to get food as Israel battles Hamas in Gaza. The CNN host then brought aboard Bennett‚ who was able to appear in studio‚ and she began by asking what he thought of the assessment of Netanyahu's internal political problems. After Bennett emphasized that the Israeli public is united in the war effort against Hamas‚ he and the CNN host went back and forth over the issue of whether the terrorist group has been sufficiently weakened to justify a military pause. It was toward the end of the segment that the CNN host's pushback turned more obnoxious after the former prime minister brought up the U.S. resolve to defeat Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. BENNETT: When Japan attacked America and killed 2‚400 Americans at Pearl Harbor‚ America took time -- took four years -- three million Japanese were -- died in war‚ but you knew that you had to do that. BURNETT: And America did some shameful things like camps for Japanese people. BENNETT: I think that perhaps America was imperfect‚ but America was darn good in fighting and defeating the total evil that Japan and Nazi Germany presented back then. After Bennett referred to Hamas terrorists as "zombie murderers‚" the CNN host brought up those who would argue against that description and played the clip of Glazer: BENNETT: We're fighting total evil‚ and we might be imperfect‚ but we're doing everyone's job‚ and the world should back Israel. Otherwise‚ everybody is going to face it -- these zombie murderers are going to come right over here. BURNETT: So what you call a "zombie murderers‚" others obviously others see a different way =- maybe not about Hamas specifically -- BENNETT: I'm talking about Hamas. BURNETT: -- but they see this as a broader issue. Jonathan Glazer‚ the film maker who -- Jewish director -- who won an Oscar last night for his Holocaust film‚ The Zone of Interest -- used his acceptance speech -- as I know you may be aware -- to condemn Israel's actions at this point in the war. Here's what he said. Then came a clip of Glazer speaking at the Academy Awards from the night before followed by the CNN host's request for a response from her Jewish Israel guest: JONATHAN GLAZER‚ FILM MAKER: Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present. Right now‚ we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness in the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October 7 (pause for audience applause) whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza -- all the victims of this dehumanization. How do we resist? BURNETT: "We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness on the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation‚" and then the applause. Your response to that? BENNETT: It's shameful. He thinks he's distancing himself from Israel and somehow he will be loved. You know‚ Jews have tried the approach of being murdered again and again and hoping for sympathy. That's not something that I believe in. ... Transcript follows: CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront March 11‚ 2024 7:28 p.m. Eastern ERIN BURNETT: Breaking news‚ a new U.S. intelligence assessment finds that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "viability" -- that's the word used -- as a leader‚ quote‚ "may be in jeopardy." The report says‚ and I quote: "Distrust of Netanyahu's ability to rule has deepened and broadened across the public from its already high levels before the war‚ and we expect large protests demanding his resignation and new elections." This comes as a Palestinian aid worker tells OutFront about the dire situation on the ground in Gaza. We received this latest audio message from Mahmoud Shalabi who we have been speaking to regularly since the start of the war. MAHMOUD SHALABI‚ MEDICAL AID FOR PALESTINIANS (audio): There is no food to sell. (editing jump) I have seen a man in the market buying‚ you know‚ a very crappy type of crisp and giving it to his two children. And I remember him saying‚ "This is for your breakfast and lunch. So make sure you calculate your portions properly because I have nothing left‚ and this is your food for the day." BURNETT: Clarissa Ward is out front live from Jerusalem. And‚ Clarissa‚ what more can you tell us about what's happening inside Gaza tonight? (...) U.S. intelligence community assessment which I just shared a moment ago says that Netanyahu's viability as a leader may be in jeopardy -- that massive protests even more massive than prior -- demanding his resignation are expected. Do you agree with the U.S. intelligence assessment? (NAFTALI BENNETT‚ FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER) BURNETT: Of course their ability to attack you has been dramatically -- just dramatically changed. Hamas now is not Hamas before October -- October 7. BENNETT: Yes‚ but if we don't destroy them fully‚ they'll reconstitute themselves. BURNETT: Okay‚ nonetheless. BENNETT: You can't leave a bit of Hamas so then we'll see Hamas rebuild itself‚ rearm itself‚ and we'll meet them another two years down the road. That's something that Israel tried for 17 years -- it failed. BURNETT: This does come down to Rafah‚ as you said‚ though‚ right now in terms of the U.S. relationship‚ and Biden has said that it's a red line if Israel does go in with an assault in Rafah -- something that at least at this point Israelis appear to be going ahead with or saying they're going to do it in their own terms. In fact‚ when you listen to Biden and you listen to Netanyahu. They both have a red line in the opposite way on the exact same thing. ... They're both very frustrated with each other‚ and it's very open. I mean‚ you heard President Biden after the State of the Union‚ right? He wasn't even upset to be overheard criticizing Prime Minister Netanyahu. How deep do you think the rift is between them right now? (...) BURNETT: Why‚ at this point‚ wouldn't you go after Sinwar and the other leaders of Hamas one by one at a time and place of your choosing much like the United States did with Osama bin Laden as opposed to continuing to have an assault in which innocent people are dying every single day? BENNETT: Well‚ because it's not about only Sinwar. Even if you take out Sinwar‚ you still have this organization called Hamas‚ and we have to dismantle the organization so it doesn't rebuild itself. BURNETT: And you still think it's a strong enough‚ deep enough organization after everything you've done to re-constitute itself as it was before? BENNETT: Yes‚ you need to reach a critical mass of surrender and destruction of Hamas in order for it not to be able to rebuild. BURNETT: Politico is reporting that Biden is so upset by the issue in Rafah that he may condition military aid to Israel. So‚ specifically‚ that if Israel moves forward with a large-scale invasion at Rafah‚ that the United States could withhold military assistance and weaponry to Israel. Now‚ obviously‚ over history‚ Israel is by far the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in history. Council on Foreign Relations has it about $300 billion adjusted for inflation. So if -- do you believe that? Is that a real threat? Do you think he would actually make good on that? BENNETT: I hope not because we're fighting your war‚ Erin. We're fighting the war against radical Islam. Hamas is not about peace -- it's not about the Palestinians -- it's about radical Islam‚ the forefront of radical Islam. And‚ mark my words‚ if we are prevented from defeating radical Islam in Gaza‚ you're going to meet radical Islam here in New York -- you're going to meet it in London on the streets. You're going to meet it across the world. Every Islamic radical terrorist is looking at what's going on in Gaza‚ and that's their litmus test: Do we have the resolve? And we knew it's going to be tough. We knew that. You can't stop in the middle just because it's tough. You know‚ I want to tell you something. When Japan attacked America and killed 2‚400 Americans at Pearl Harbor‚ America took time -- took four years -- three million Japanese were -- died in war‚ but you knew that you had to do that. BURNETT: And America did some shameful things like camps for Japanese people. BENNETT: I think that perhaps America was imperfect‚ but America was darn good in fighting and defeating the total evil that Japan and Nazi Germany presented back then. We're fighting total evil‚ and we might be imperfect‚ but we're doing everyone's job‚ and the world should back Israel. Otherwise‚ everybody is going to face it -- these zombie murderers are going to come right over here. BURNETT: So what you call a "zombie murderers‚" others obviously others see a different way =- maybe not about Hamas specifically -- BENNETT: I'm talking about Hamas. BURNETT: -- but they see this as a broader issue. Jonathan Glazer‚ the film maker who -- Jewish director -- who won an Oscar last night for his Holocaust film‚ The Zone of Interest -- used his acceptance speech -- as I know you may be aware -- to condemn Israel's actions at this point in the war. Here's what he said. JONATHAN GLAZER‚ FILM MAKER: Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present. Right now‚ we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness in the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October 7 (pause for audience applause) whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza -- all the victims of this dehumanization. How do we resist? BURNETT: "We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness on the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation‚" and then the applause. Your response to that? BENNETT: It's shameful. He thinks he's distancing himself from Israel and somehow he will be loved. You know‚ Jews have tried the approach of being murdered again and again and hoping for sympathy. That's not something that I believe in. I think we need to be strong -- we need to be proud. We're in the right. Nobody in Israel wanted this. No one wanted it. We were in our festival in Israel‚ and on that morning‚ I remember it just like right now -- that morning at 6:30 in the morning when Hamas attacked and murdered and raped our women and kidnapped our kids and burned entire families. So who's he kissing up to? You think you're going to be more popular because you get some clapping there? Stand up for your nation -- stand up for the right. And you know what‚ this is not only about Jews‚ it's about right and wrong. And I have moral clarity. They are in the wrong -- we are in the right. Stand behind us. BURNETT: Mr. Bennett‚ I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

During an appearance on ABC’s The View on Tuesday to promote his new Apple TV+ series Manhunt‚ a historical fictional look at the hunt for John Wilkes Booth‚ comedian Patton Oswalt popped the media’s doom and gloom narrative that the end times were upon us and America was at the “brink” of collapse‚ when we’ve been much closer in the past. He called out the obvious that it was in the best interest of “the news business” to keep people scared and “getting eyes on that screen” was their goal. “Here's what's kind of reassuring about watching a show like Manhunt is that we have been way closer to the brink than we are now‚” he argued. “I think that right now the way that the news portrays things‚ because a lot of times you are being exposed to the news business rather than the news. And the news business is about getting eyes on that screen.” Without an ounce of self-awareness‚ the liberal ladies of The View all voiced their approval of Oswalt’s assessment. “So they do have to make it seem like‚ ‘There's no way back from this!’ But we've been way closer‚ leaning over the abyss‚ and we've pulled ourselves back with way less technology and knowledge than we have now‚” he added.     Co-host Joy Behar argued that “it’s the technology itself that makes it just as bad in many ways.” But Oswalt generally disagreed: Yes‚ exactly. But also any technology has its good use‚ its maligned use‚ and then a whoops. You can use an axe to cut wood and build a fire‚ you can also drop it and cut your foot off‚ and you could murder someone with it. So‚ it depends on how you use that technology. And this‚ especially‚ when you watch Manhunt‚ you see that‚ “Oh‚ any new technology can be misused‚ can be” -- And right now we have the chance‚ I think‚ to use technology‚ which‚ yes‚ has kind of messed things up in a lot of ways to once again pull us back from the brink. But immediately after making those points‚ Oswalt had his own moment of stoking blink panic about the future. He was fearful that comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s joke about former President Trump at the Oscars spelled doom for the 2024 presidential election: I loved it but part of me is a little bit worried because let's all remember that Trump's supervillain origin story happened at the correspondents' dinner when Obama and Seth Meyers were ripping into him. And all I saw when they cut to all of the A-listers laughing‚ that is going to be a gallery of faces in his head every night like‚ “I must get vengeance!” “So‚ yes‚ it was brilliant‚ but‚ Jimmy‚ you may have doomed us to failure‚” he proclaimed. “And so‚ I'm wondering‚ again‚ yes‚ that was a great moment but as they cut to all those faces‚ I’m like‚ ‘Oh‚ my God‚ that is going to become Donald's dark motivational…fuel.’” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 12‚ 2024 11:50:01 a.m. Eastern (…) PATTON OSWALT: Here's what's kind of reassuring about watching a show like Manhunt is that we have been way closer to the brink than we are now. I think that right now the way that the news portrays things‚ because a lot of times you are being exposed to the news business rather than the news. And the news business is about getting eyes on that screen. So they do have to make it seem like‚ “There's no way back from this!” But we've been way closer‚ leaning over the abyss‚ and we've pulled ourselves back with way less technology and knowledge than we have now. JOY BEHAR: But it’s the technology itself that makes it just as bad in many ways. OSWALT: Yes‚ exactly. But also any technology has its good use‚ its maligned use‚ and then a whoops. You can use an axe to cut wood and build a fire‚ you can also drop it and cut your foot off‚ and you could murder someone with it. So‚ it depends on how you use that technology. And this‚ especially‚ when you watch Manhunt‚ you see that‚ “Oh‚ any new technology can be misused‚ can be” -- And right now we have the chance‚ I think‚ to use technology‚ which‚ yes‚ has kind of messed things up in a lot of ways to once again pull us back from the brink. SARA HAINES: You were also watching the Oscars‚ you mentioned you didn't host it for anyone confused from Joy. OSWALT: That was Jimmy Kimmel. HAINES: Yes‚ but when Jimmy Kimmel shot back at Trump's review of his performance‚ that was a highlight for Joy and many us laughed. What did you think of that? OSWALT: I loved it but part of me is a little bit worried because let's all remember that Trump's supervillain origin story happened at the correspondents' dinner when Obama and Seth Meyers were ripping into him. And all I saw when they cut to all of the A-listers laughing‚ that is going to be a gallery of faces in his head every night like‚ “I must get vengeance!” So‚ yes‚ it was brilliant‚ but‚ Jimmy‚ you may have doomed us to failure. Anyway‚ but‚ no -- BEHAR: He’s very thin skinned. He cannot take a joke. OSWALT: He is thin skinned. BEHAR: All he knows is how to dish it out. OSWALT: Again‚ if you want to dish it out‚ you can dish it out all you want as long as you can take it. [Crosstalk] He cannot. And so‚ I'm wondering‚ again‚ yes‚ that was a great moment but as they cut to all those faces‚ I’m like‚ “Oh‚ my God‚ that is going to become Donald's dark motivational— SUNNY HOSTIN: That’s his fuel. OSWALT: Yeah‚ that’s going to be his fuel. (…)

A major media association presented its First Amendment Awards ceremony on Saturday which featured woke media personalities who have been anything but champions of free speech. The Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) Foundation invited MSNBC host and former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki to be the Master of Ceremonies for the First Amendment Awards even though she has openly supported censorship from the White House press briefing podium. RTDNA also honored Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)‚ who has downplayed government Big Tech collusion to censor content‚ and CBS President Ingrid Ciprián-Matthews‚ who has come under fire for allegedly firing veteran CBS journalist Catherine Herridge.  Psaki‚ who did not receive an award but had the honor of emceeing the event‚ has not been shy about encouraging censorship. During a July 15‚ 2021 White House press briefing‚ she specifically called for more censorship. “Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful‚ violative posts—posts that will be within their policies for removal often remain up for days. That’s too long‚” she said. During the same briefing‚ she strongly implied that Facebook should censor certain accounts whose content supposedly made up 65 percent of so-called anti-vaccine misinformation on social media. “All of them remain active on Facebook‚ despite some even being banned on other platforms [...] ones that Facebook owns‚” Psaki said. She even went so far as to brag that the White House was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”  RTDNA hailed Rep. Raskin for “his tireless support for press freedoms during his time in Congress.” But his support for press freedoms did not extend to the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden Laptop story when Big Tech censored the outlet.  After The Twitter Files uncovered that the FBI reportedly colluded with Big Tech to censor the story‚ the House Oversight Committee held a hearing to investigate government collusion with Big Tech to censor the New York Post story. At the time‚ Raskin‚ the committee’s ranking member‚ called the hearing “silly” and “an authentically trivial pursuit.” “The majority has called a hearing to revisit a two-year-old story about a private editorial decision by Twitter not to allow links to a single New York Post article made for a two-day period that had no discernible influence on anyone or anything‚” he lamented. But a 2020 MRC poll found that just the opposite is true. A 2020 MRC poll showed that 45 percent of President Joe Biden’s voters weren’t fully aware of the New York Post story precisely because the media and Big Tech whitewashed it. Had Americans been aware of the scandal‚ 9.4 percent of Biden voters in key swing states would have abandoned him‚ ultimately altering the 2020 election results.  The Foundation also honored CBS News's Ciprián-Matthews for her “leadership” and alleged “commitment to excellent and ethical journalism‚” despite the fact that she is currently embroiled in scandal for reportedly playing favorites at CBS.  Ciprián-Matthews has been criticized for her hiring and firing practices concerning alleged anti-white racial discrimination‚ which came under scrutiny during a six-month human resources investigation in 2021‚ according to the Post. The criticism reached a boiling point last month when CBS fired Catherine Herridge‚ whose reporting of the Biden family scandals triggered an internal outcry.  The Post broke the story of Herridge’s contentious firing. Sources reportedly told the Post that‚ “Herridge had clashed with CBS News president Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews — a sharp-elbowed executive who was investigated in 2021 over favoritism and discriminatory hiring and management practices‚ as revealed by The Post.”  The Post stressed how well respected Herridge was by her viewers‚ fellow journalists and sources: “It was well understood on Capitol Hill that Herridge was among the first to receive tips about the Hunter Biden investigation but she ran into ‘internal roadblocks at CBS News.’” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Special counsel Robert Hur admitted Tuesday that his investigation found evidence that Joe Biden retained classified materials to enrich himself. During a House Judiciary Committee hearing‚ Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked Hur to speculate about Biden's motive for retaining classified information. At first‚ Hur declined to comment on Biden's possible motive‚ which prompted Jordan to cite Hur's own words. In his report‚ Hur said Biden had "strong motivations" for ignoring regulations safeguarding classified information because he wanted to write a book. Hur wrote: Mr. Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. He decided months before leaving office to write a book and began meeting with his ghostwriter while still vice president. After his vice presidency‚ the notebooks continued to be an invaluable resource that he consulted liberally. During hours of recorded interviews in which he read aloud from his notebooks in his private home‚ Mr. Biden provided raw material to his ghostwriter detailing meetings and events that would be of interest to prospective readers and buyers of his book. Next‚ Jordan asked Hur about the advance Biden received for that book‚ "Promise Me‚ Dad." According to Hur's report‚ Biden received $8 million — a highly lucrative deal. "Joe Biden had 8 million reasons to break the rules. He took classified information and shared it with the guy who was writing the book‚" Jordan said. "He knew the rules‚ but he broke them for $8 million in a book advance." Next‚ Jordan highlighted Hur's assessment that Biden retained classified documents to "buttress" his view that he played an important role in history. Hur wrote in the report:[Biden] also likely viewed the notebooks‚ like the marked classified documents related to Afghanistan recovered from his garage‚ as an irreplaceable contemporaneous record of some of the most important moments of his vice presidency. This record was valuable to him for many reasons‚ including to help defend his record and buttress his legacy as a world leader. "It wasn't just the money‚ it wasn't just $8 million‚ it was his ego!" Jordan summarized. "Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules. The oldest motive in the book: pride and money."In a follow-up question‚ Jordan asked Hur if he agreed with that assessment — and he did."That language does appear in the report and we did identify evidence supporting those assessments‚" Hur explained. — (@) Hur testified about his investigation and report for more than four hours on Tuesday. Unfortunately‚ Democrats used the hearing to attack Donald Trump repeatedly and to make false claims about Hur's report.Specifically‚ Democrats claimed that Hur "exonerated" Biden or found that he was "outright innocent." But on multiple occasions‚ Hur clarified those are not the conclusions he reached. In fact‚ Hur told Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) that his investigation did not exonerate Biden.On the contrary‚ Hur explained in his opening statement that his investigation "identified evidence that the president willfully retained classified materials after the end of his vice presidency‚ when he was a private citizen." Despite this evidence‚ Hur said he did not recommend criminal charges against Biden because he found it unlikely that prosecutors could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt‚ particularly because of Biden's faulty memory.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Dozens of passengers on a Boeing-made aircraft flying from Sydney to Auckland‚ New Zealand‚ were injured in what has been characterized as "strong movement" on Monday‚ according to NBC News. Some of those on board needed medical attention after the plane landed.The report mentioned that it is not yet clear what caused the sudden and violent movement. South American airline LATAM said in a recent statement that there was a "technical event during the flight which caused a strong movement‚" but the airline did not comment further on the situation. One person who was on the plane is thought to have suffered serious injuries‚ according to the Associated Press.The airline said: "As a result of the incident‚ some passengers and cabin crew were affected. They received immediate assistance and were evaluated or treated by medical staff at the airport as needed.""LATAM regrets the inconvenience and injury this situation may have caused its passengers‚ and reiterates its commitment to safety as a priority within the framework of its operational standards‚" it continued.A Boeing spokesperson said in a statement following the incident: "We are working to gather more information about the flight and will provide any support needed by our customer."NBC News reported that LATAM Airlines Flight LA800‚ a 787-9 Dreamliner‚ landed as scheduled in Auckland despite the issues.The incident comes as John Barnett‚ who worked for Boeing for 32 years‚ was found dead inside his truck outside a South Carolina hotel. Leading up to his retirement in 2017‚ Barnett worked as a quality manager on the 787 Dreamliner at the Boeing factory in North Charleston‚ South Carolina.Reports noted that Barnett had become involved in a whistleblower lawsuit against Boeing‚ detailing possible safety issues at the aerospace and defense corporation's factories. He was supposed to continue his pretrial deposition last week‚ but he never showed up. — (@) The Charleston County coroner told the BBC that Barnett died from "self-inflicted" wounds and that the authorities were currently investigating the incident.Brian Knowles‚ Barnett's attorney‚ said that his client "was supposed to do day three of his deposition here in Charleston on his AIR21 case.""Today is a tragic day‚" wrote Knowles. "John had been back and forth for quite some time getting prepared. The defense examined him for their allowed seven hours under the rules on Thursday. I cross examined him all day yesterday (Friday) and did not finish. We agreed to continue this morning at 10 a.m. (co-counsel) Rob (Turkewitz) kept calling this morning and his (Barnett's) phone would go to voicemail." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Every Republican seems to agree that our country has been taken over by a post-constitutional junta that usurps power to achieve its insidious objectives rather than follows the rule of law. But when it comes to redressing those usurpations with the only tool James Madison gave us — federalism — our elected officials too often shirk their responsibilities. Worse‚ they declare that the egregious usurpations are‚ in fact‚ the law of the land.The latest victim of this dangerous post-constitutional dogma is Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti.This is by far the most dangerous myth Americans must purge from our law and body politic if we ever hope to remain a free people. As part of a growing movement to push back against federal overreach‚ Tennessee lawmakers earlier this month introduced SB 2775‚ the Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act. The bill would empower all state and local government stakeholders to pursue a process barring the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws within the Volunteer State. While similar bills empower only the state attorney general or legislature to interpret the Constitution‚ SB 2775 would leave that power in the hands of the whole people — as it was always meant to be.Here’s how it would work. The law would permit the governor to issue an executive order declaring a federal policy null and void. Or any member of the legislature could trigger a floor debate and vote to nullify the policy. Or any state court may find the policy unconstitutional if the question arises during a legitimate case or controversy. Or any combination of 10 local governing authorities — either through their respective executives or legislative branches — may submit a petition for nullification that would trigger a vote in the legislature. Or‚ last but not least‚ any group of 2‚000 registered voters could submit a similar petition triggering an automatic legislative vote on nullification.In other words‚ the bill underscores how we are all responsible for safeguarding the Constitution. When everyone understands the federal government frequently oversteps its boundaries‚ we have an obligation to push back. Constitutional confusionEnter Skrmetti‚ whose office last week declared SB 2775 “unconstitutional.” The attorney general’s argument isn’t new. He‚ like a great many of his colleagues‚ accepts the dual premise that the federal government is supreme to the states in constitutional interpretation and that‚ within the federal government‚ the judiciary is king. “Legislative action that vests the legislature itself with the authority to nullify unconstitutional federal action is not permissible because it arrogates to itself the power to interpret the law that properly belongs to the judiciary‚” the attorney general argued. “In short‚ under the Tennessee Constitution‚ the judicial branch alone has the power to determine the constitutionality of federal action.”Not so!Let’s begin with Skrmetti’s Supremacy Clause claim. True‚ states may not enact laws that are contrary to federal laws or the Constitution. But the Constitution only makes the federal government supreme when Congress passes and the president signs laws that accord with the charter’s enumerated powers. For example‚ Congress may place tariffs on imported goods because that is a power enumerated under Article 1‚ Section 8 of the Constitution. Just because a tariff might be unfair to some states under certain circumstances does not make the tariff unconstitutional. A state may lobby and complain‚ but the Constitution is clearly on the side of Congress. But what happens if the feds decide to force everyone in a state to wear a mask? Alexander Hamilton‚ the most ardent supporter of a strong national government among our founders‚ told us what he thought would happen in such a circumstance. “It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers‚ but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies‚ will become the supreme law of the land‚" Hamilton wrote in Federalist 33.Roger Sherman argued in a December 1787 letter that when the federal government would promulgate a regulation clearly beyond its jurisdiction‚ the states could easily push back without running to the courts. Sherman wrote: And tho' the general government in matters within its jurisdiction is paramount to the constitutions and laws of the particular States‚ yet all acts of the Congress not warranted by the constitution would be void. Nor could they be enforced contrary to the sense of a majority of the States. One excellency of the constitution is that when the government of the United States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to support it‚ but when it overleaps those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments‚ they will be powerful enough to check it; but distinction between their jurisdictions will be so obvious‚ that there will be no great danger of interference.That sounds exactly like what SB 2775 seeks to reinforce. The most dangerous mythSkrmetti asserts that only the courts have the final say over constitutional arguments. He cites the Supreme Court’s 1958 decision in Cooper v. Aaron‚ which was ostensibly about desegregation but really a brazen assertion of judicial supremacy. “The basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution‚” Chief Justice Earl Warren declared‚ is “a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”Warren was wrong. The Supreme Court is not king. It does not have the last word. This is by far the most dangerous myth Americans must purge from our law and body politic if we ever hope to remain a free people. The very rationale undergirding the concept of the courts also having a say in constitutional interpretation (despite being unelected) — namely‚ that judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution — is a repudiation of the idea of judicial supremacy. After all‚ every member of the federal and state government also swears an oath to the Constitution. The same way a federal judge can’t violate his oath by giving the force of law in a case or controversy to an unconstitutional law‚ an elected state or federal official cannot promulgate‚ fund‚ or enforce an edict of a court that violates the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison that it would be “immoral” and “a crime” to issue an opinion contrary to the Constitution. “How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments‚ and the knowing instruments‚ for violating what they swear to support!” an indignant Marshall thundered in his most famous opinion. In defense of judicial review‚ Marshall asked‚ “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?”This same argument comes back around when‚ for example‚ a federal judge issued a shocking ruling that Knoxville‚ Tennessee‚ school children had to wear a mask for seven hours a day. Nobody alive could justify that edict as a federal power — judicial‚ executive‚ legislative‚ or otherwise. State and county officials had an obligation to set that ruling aside the same way Marshall believed a court would be obliged to do if Congress passed a law forcing people to wear masks. Madison 1‚ Skrmetti 0How can one branch‚ particularly the life-tenured unelected branch‚ be the sole and final arbiters of the boundaries of its own powers as well as that of the states and other federal branches? As Thomas Jefferson admonished in his Kentucky Resolution of 1798‚ “The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion‚ and not the Constitution‚ the measure of its powers.”The Congressional Research Service observed in a 2017 report that “early history of the United States is replete with examples of all three branches of the federal government playing a role in constitutional interpretation.” Members of Congress weren’t so complacent in their duties and‚ the CRS noted‚ never sat idly while allowing the courts to have “a final or even exclusive role in defining the basic powers and limits of the federal government.” Prior to the 20th century‚ most federal legislators subscribed to Madison’s view in Federalist 49 that “the several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission‚ neither of them‚ it is evident‚ can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” Madison emphatically believed that “each [department] must in the exercise of its functions be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it.”Skrmetti could not be more off target by citing the Tennessee State Constitution as rationale for obsequiously crowning the federal judiciary the sole expositors of the U.S. Constitution.In fact‚ Article 11‚ Section 16 of Tennessee’s constitution makes it clear that the state’s declaration of rights “shall never be violated on any pretense whatever.” So‚ what is the remedy when federal officials violate those rights? Cry to the courts and hope for the best? Nope. “To guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated‚ we declare that every thing in the bill of rights contained‚ is excepted out of the General powers of government‚ and shall forever remain inviolate.” Perhaps Skrmetti could use a refresher course on his state’s constitution — and James Madison while he’s at it!