Apology Letters Surface in Georgia Trump Case and It's Weird

In an extraordinary display of talent‚ a chicken named Jokgu captivates audiences by playing Giacomo Puccini’s “O Mio Babbino Caro” on a piano keyboard. This remarkable feat not only demonstrates the unexpected musical abilities of a chicken but also blurs the lines between animal intelligence and artistic expression. The video‚ which has garnered over 10... The post Incredibly talented chicken plays opera song on keyboard appeared first on Animal Channel.

Fans of the heartwarming movie “Babe” might find themselves deeply moved by the real-life story of Katniss‚ Rue‚ and Prim. These three pigs‚ now residing at Arthur’s Acres Animal Sanctuary‚ are living a life that’s a stark contrast to their past. They spend their days enjoying treats like pumpkins‚ peanuts‚ and grains‚ a far cry... The post Pigs who spent life stuck in wastewater-filled pen can’t contain emotions when finally freed appeared first on Animal Channel.

Liberal media are declaring Bidenomics a success – but‚ hard numbers tell a much different story‚ regardless of whether the measure is how much Americans are paying‚ earning or saving. Gas prices: While gas prices held steady under Pres. Donald Trump (down four cents a gallon)‚ they’ve surged 42% in the first 34 months of Pres. Joe Biden’s term. From January 2021 to November of this year‚ the average price of a gallon of gas (all grades) has increased from $2.42 to $3.44‚ according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Real Wages: After accounting for inflation‚ real wages earned by Americans have declined under Biden. In the first quarter of 2021‚ median weekly real earnings averaged $373. But‚ by the third quarter of this year‚ average real earnings had fallen to $365. Under Trump‚ however‚ real wages rose from $352 on January 1‚ 2017‚ to $373 on January 1. 2021. Real wages are calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) median usual weekly earnings for full-time employees at least 16 years old and are represented in terms of quarterly 1982-84 Consumer Price Index (CPI) seasonally-adjusted dollars. Consumer Price Index: Consumer prices rose 7.6% in the 48 months of the Trump Administration‚ from a CPI of 243.618 in January 2021 to one of 262.035 in December 2020. In contrast‚ prices have already risen more than twice as much‚ 17.2%‚ in just 34 months under Biden. Slightly more than two-thirds of the way through his term‚ the CPI has risen from 262.650 in January of 2021 to 307.917 last month (November 2023)‚ putting it on pace to increase three times as much as it did during Trump's full‚ four-year term. On a monthly basis‚ inflation averaged 1.9% under Trump‚ compared to 5.8% under Biden‚ thus far. Mortgage Rates: It’s also costing far more to finance a home purchase under the Biden Administration. Mortgage rates today are more than twice the average rate home buyers paid when Trump left office‚ Freddie Mac data reveal. Under Biden’s predecessor‚ the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate fell by a third‚ from 4.09% to 2.77%. But‚ by December 7‚ 2023‚ mortgage rates had more than doubled‚ increasing by more than four and a half percentage points‚ to 7.03%. Savings Rates: With Americans earning less and spending more‚ their average savings rate has declined under Biden. From February 1‚ 2017 to February 1‚ 2021‚ the average personal savings rate increased 86%‚ from 7.2% to 13.4%. But‚ by October 1 of this year‚ it had plunged to 3.8% - a mere quarter of its pre-Biden level – according to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED) calculations‚ incorporating BLS data. Editor's Note: This article was originally published on MRCTV.org.

The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh declared that "the Bud Light boycott is still on‚” after Dana White called for conservatives to drink the woke company’s beer.  On the Dec. 13 edition of The Matt Walsh Show‚ Walsh explained that the successful boycott was incredibly significant and that those who have abandoned Bud Lite should not back down. “[F]or once in our lives‚ for once ever‚ in modern American history‚ conservatives fought back in an organized‚ competent‚ effective way. We organized a boycott. We stuck with it‚” he said. “We actually made the woke company feel the pain. We imposed our will in a way that conservatives have never been able to do‚ ever. The Bud Light boycott is by far — and it’s not close — the most effective conservative boycott of a major company ever‚ of all time.”  Bud Light partnered with “transgender” actor Dylan Mulvaney‚ who claimed to be a woman‚ in April. As Walsh described it‚ “Bud Light‚ the foreign-owned brand tried to push [the left’s] trans ideology. It spat in the face of its own customers.” The incident led to a national boycott that cost Bud Light’s parent company Anheuser-Busch billions of dollars and ended Bud Light’s run as America’s top-selling beer. The company’s disastrous‚ woke blunder caused such universal distaste for the brand that Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth confessed on national television that his company was providing “financial assistance” to wholesalers. Bud Light sales have repeatedly and drastically underperformed month-to-month compared to 2022‚ among other humiliations.  Walsh rejected the idea that Bud Light’s recent $100 million deal with the UFC should appease boycotters‚ and he panned the deal as a “marketing ploy” rather than an apology or a concession‚ pointing out that the UFC was not a victim of gender ideology.  The Daily Wire host then laid out his terms for Anheuser Busch’s surrender‚ noting that it would take a “very compelling strategic reason‚” and boycotters would need “some kind of major concession” from Bud Light to end the boycott. “They would need to apologize for pushing transgenderism. They would need to apologize specifically and explicitly. They would need to grovel at our feet in humiliating fashion and disavow gender ideology entirely‚” he said. Anything less would mean trading victory for defeat. Walsh hammered the point home that there are only three endings to a devastating boycott: abject surrender and concessions from the company‚ financial destruction of the target or boycotters backing down in defeat. As Bud Lite has yet to surrender‚ Walsh encouraged those boycotting the brand to continue letting the woke beer company face the consequences of its own actions.  “Let them wither and die‚ let their brand destroy itself‚ let it burn‚ I don’t care‚” Walsh said.  He went on to sum up how the boycott goes beyond Bud Lite and why it has been massively successful. “ [W]e have made this company into a cautionary tale‚” said Walsh. “The whole point was to put its head on a spike on the edge of town as a warning to others. It’s a trophy for the mantle. We want to show corporate America that this is what we will do‚ this is what we are capable of doing and willing to do if you spit in our face the way that Bud Light did.”  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477‚ CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and tell them to report on how the ESG movement is harming corporate America.

On the Wednesday edition of the PBS NewsHour‚ host William Brangham neutrally noted the launch by House Republicans of a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Congressional reporter Lisa Desjardins also set the scene in straightforward fashion‚ observing that House Republicans are aiming to get more leverage in court to enforce subpoenas‚ especially against Hunter Biden‚ the president’s son‚ who has just defied a congressional subpoena to testify behind closed doors as opposed to in public. Desjardins even relayed data from a new poll from NPR‚ PBS and Marist‚ including the rather surprising figure that “24 percent of Democrats saying a Democratic president‚ they approve of an impeachment inquiry is significant.” But PBS fell short with its partisan pick for an expert “impeachment expert” to explain things (i.e. why Republicans are being ridiculous). Brangham: ….To explain exactly what changes with a formal impeachment inquiry‚ I'm joined by Michael Gerhardt. He is a professor at the University of North Carolina Law School‚ and he's testified at the impeachment hearings of Presidents Clinton‚ Trump‚ and Biden…. Here's what was left unsaid: Gerhardt has deep ties to Democrats‚ including donating to Barack Obama’s two presidential campaigns‚ serving as deputy media director of Al Gore’s first U.S. Senate campaign‚ and acted as special counsel to former Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) regarding Obama's nominations of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. You might guess this from the "no evidence" spin. Michael Gerhardt‚ University of North Carolina: What changes with today is nothing‚ insofar as any evidence is concerned. One of the embarrassing things that happened at that last hearing is‚ it became obvious to everybody that there was no evidence of President Biden's wrongdoing. But what's changed is‚ we have a new speaker. And‚ as you have pointed out previously in the program‚ the Speaker and other Republicans believe that‚ by calling this formally an impeachment inquiry‚ they will have in courts more power‚ the courts will recognize that the House has more power to go after Hunter Biden. And‚ again‚ that's one of the real problems here‚ which is all the focus right now is on Hunter Biden and not on President Biden. But Hunter Biden is not an impeachable official. He's a private citizen.  ….What Republicans are saying is that they're not getting compliance with some subpoenas and they're not getting the data that they want. But the problem is that Republicans want to use these subpoenas for a fishing expedition. They don't know what they're looking for. They don't know if they will find it. The problem‚ again‚ is that the cart has been put in front of the horse. We’ve got an impeachment inquiry for the first time in American history authorized against the president in the absence of credible evidence…. It's ludicrous to claim there’s no “credible evidence” linking Hunter Biden to his father‚ which requires ignoring all the phone calls between Joe and Hunter's clients (where they "only talked about the weather") and the restaurant meetings and the photographs. Evidence keeps pouring out‚ like the big checks to Joe from his brother James (never mind‚ it's a "loan repayment.") William Brangham: I appreciate what you're saying on that front‚ but the Republicans argue that they do need those tools and that you might characterize it as a fishing expedition‚ but is it not -- is it considered somehow illegitimate for them to use this process to try to get at those answers? Michael Gerhardt: At this point‚ I would say it is illegitimate‚ and that's because‚ typically‚ impeachment inquiries are authorized once there's credible evidence of presidential wrongdoing. That happened with Clinton‚ it happened with Donald Trump in 2019‚ and it happened with Richard Nixon back in the 1970s…. This Biden-defending segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available‚ click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 12/13/23 7:36:10 p.m. (ET) William Brangham: To explain exactly what changes with a formal impeachment inquiry‚ I'm joined by Michael Gerhardt. He is a professor at the University of North Carolina Law School‚ and he's testified at the impeachment hearings of Presidents Clinton‚ Trump‚ and Biden. His upcoming book "The Law of Presidential Impeachment: A Guide for the Engaged Citizen" is out next month. Michael Gerhardt‚ thank you so much for being here. Under former Speaker McCarthy‚ the House Republicans had already started this impeachment inquiry. You were there testifying about this in September. So what changes with today? Michael Gerhardt‚ University of North Carolina: What changes with today is nothing‚ insofar as any evidence is concerned. One of the embarrassing things that happened at that last hearing is‚ it became obvious to everybody that there was no evidence of President Biden's wrongdoing. But what's changed is‚ we have a new speaker. And‚ as you have pointed out previously in the program‚ the speaker and other Republicans believe that‚ by calling this formally an impeachment inquiry‚ they will have in courts more power‚ the courts will recognize that the House has more power to go after Hunter Biden. And‚ again‚ that's one of the real problems here‚ which is all the focus right now is on Hunter Biden and not on President Biden. But Hunter Biden is not an impeachable official. He's a private citizen. William Brangham: So House Republicans‚ though‚ do make this argument that‚ even though we have had these committee hearings and we have been looking into this‚ that we do need these investigative tools. So‚ specifically‚ what things are they able to do now that they couldn't do before? Michael Gerhardt: It's actually not entirely clear. What Republicans are saying is that they're not getting compliance with some subpoenas and they're not getting the data that they want. But the problem is that Republicans want to use these subpoenas for a fishing expedition. They don't know what they're looking for. They don't know if they will find it. The problem‚ again‚ is that the cart has been put in front of the horse. We have got an impeachment inquiry for the first time in American history authorized against the president in the absence of credible evidence. And‚ instead‚ Republicans are hoping that with this formal authorization of an impeachment inquiry‚ they can persuade courts that they can perhaps get at bank accounts they have not been able to get up before‚ not because they think there's anything there necessarily‚ but because they're still fishing to try and find stuff about President Biden‚ as opposed to Hunter Biden. William Brangham: I appreciate what you're saying on that front‚ but the Republicans argue that they do need those tools and that you might characterize it as a fishing expedition‚ but is it not — is it considered somehow illegitimate for them to use this process to try to get at those answers? Michael Gerhardt: At this point‚ I would say it is illegitimate‚ and that's because‚ typically‚ impeachment inquiries are authorized once there's credible evidence of presidential wrongdoing. That happened with Clinton‚ it happened with Donald Trump in 2019‚ and it happened with Richard Nixon back in the 1970s. This is an unusual circumstance‚ in which Republicans are finding out lots of things about Hunter Biden‚ and they want more subpoenas to get at not just Hunter Biden‚ but other people in the Biden family who may or may not have information about Joe Biden. That's almost the definition of a fishing expedition. They don't know what people know. Instead‚ they just want to have the power to — in a sense‚ to press people and see what comes up. It may or may not have anything to do with the president. But‚ again‚ that's not how the process is supposed to work. Typically‚ House committees investigate‚ discover evidence that may show that the president has committed some kind of serious wrongdoing. Keep in mind as well‚ at the September hearing‚ the Republicans' own witness said that they didn't find any evidence at that point showing Biden had committed an impeachment offense. So nothing's changed between their saying that and today‚ except that‚ today‚ the House approved a formal impeachment inquiry against President Biden‚ with the hope that they will have greater subpoena power to conduct this ex — this inquiry to discover who knows what. We don't know what they're looking for‚ and I don't know if they know what they're looking for. William Brangham: So‚ lastly‚ what is the logistics of the next steps? I mean‚ what comes next? What do you expect to likely happen? Michael Gerhardt: Well‚ I think what'll likely happen is‚ there will be committees in Congress‚ like the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee‚ and they will begin to conduct hearings‚ at which supposedly there will be some evidence gathering and evidentiary findings. In addition‚ there may be a court case filed against some of these subpoenas. That's what the Republican leadership's worried about. And in the court cases‚ at that point‚ courts will then have to determine the legitimacy of the subpoenas that have been issued. And the Republican hope is‚ by formally authorizing the inquiry‚ they can use the most powerful mechanism Congress has for investigations‚ impeachment‚ to support their inquiry .

The United Kingdom issued guidance on the use of artificial intelligence that takes society’s reliance on AI to a whole new dystopian level. The British Courts and Tribunals Judiciary announced on Dec. 12  that court officials are now allowed to use AI in legal rulings despite AI companies’ admissions that their chatbots are flawed and should not be relied upon by users. Strikingly‚ the Judiciary went on to say that it hopes the legal field uses advancements in AI technology in the future. “The use of Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) throughout society continues to increase‚ and so does its relevance to the court and tribunal system‚” the Judiciary said in an official statement. “The guidance is the first step in a proposed suite of future work to support the judiciary in their interactions with AI.” While the Judiciary acknowledged that AI responses “may be inaccurate‚ incomplete‚ misleading‚ or biased‚” the guidance manual posted on the judiciary’s website appeared to encourage legal professionals to use the tools as long as they independently verify the information put before the court. “All legal representatives are responsible for the material they put before the court/tribunal and have a professional obligation to ensure it is accurate and appropriate‚” read the AI Guidance document. “… Until the legal profession becomes familiar with these new technologies‚ however‚ it may be necessary at times to remind individual lawyers of their obligations and confirm that they have independently verified the accuracy of any research or case citations that have been generated with the assistance of an AI chatbot.” Of concern‚ many AI tech firms have repeatedly warned that their products are not reliable or trustworthy. Google's Bard disclaimer contains the following warning about the technology's trustworthiness. "Generative AI and all of its possibilities are exciting‚ but it’s still new‚” Google warns. “Bard is an experiment‚ and it will make mistakes. Even though it’s getting better every day‚ Bard can provide inaccurate information‚ or it can even make offensive statements." ChatGPT has a similar disclaimer warning that answers provided in the chatbot could be just plain wrong "ChatGPT is not connected to the internet‚ and it can occasionally produce incorrect answers‚” declared OpenAI‚ the parent company of ChatGPT. “It has limited knowledge of world and events after 2021 and may also occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content." MRC Free Speech America Assistant Editor Luis Corneli contributed to this report.o Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to uphold the First Amendment. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

With President Biden out and about to start the week‚ White House press briefings didn’t kick off this week until Wednesday and continued on Thursday‚ leaving plenty of space for questions from the left bashing Israel‚ the New York Post’s Steven Nelson and Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann stumping Biden flacks Karine Jean-Pierre and John Kirby‚ and‚ of course‚ Doocy Time on Hunter Biden’s life of ruin‚ illegal immigration‚ and White House leaks. Starting with the pro-Hamas questions‚ Patsy Widakuswara with taxpayer-funded Voice of America (VOA) had this insane question on Thursday courtesy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (whose head praised Hamas’s October 7 barbarity): “CAIR has called on the Biden administration to respond to reports that the Israeli military has shot women‚ children‚ and babies‚ in‚ ‘execution style’ after they sought refuge in a school in Gaza.  Is there any truth to those claims?” Reporter from taxpayer-funded Voice of America (VOA) touts CAIR -- who's head said he was "happy to see" Hamas terrorists committing mass slaughter of Jews -- as claiming Israeli Defense Forces are executing Gazan women and children pic.twitter.com/WDDS7UDfqz — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 14‚ 2023 Thankfully‚ Kirby wanted nothing to do with this‚ saying he couldn’t “verify those accusations.” Nadia Bilbassy-Charters of Saudi-funded Alarabyia kept to her shtick‚ lecturing Kirby about how he “seem[s] to give the Israelis more of a benefit of the doubt that your — than your own President” despite “civilian casualties…mounting. “ Kirby thoroughly demolished this‚ noting Israel “moved in — into Northern Gaza on the ground in a way that was much smaller than they had previously planned to do”‚ “reduced the number of airstrikes”‚ and “published online maps of places where people can go or not to go‚” which is “basically telegraphing your punches‚ and there’s very few modern militaries in the world that would do that‚” including the U.S. Also in the left-wing category‚ there was this Wednesday softball to Jean-Pierre from a McClatchy reporter: “Does the White House have a plan to address what is likely going to be a wave of legislation in the statehouses next year restricting LGBTQ rights and gender-affirming care? For example‚ there’s already more than 20 of these kind of bills in Missouri.” On Wednesday‚ there were a number of questions about the pending impeachment inquiry vote against President Biden and Hunter Biden’s public remarks outside the Capitol that defied a congressional subpoena. A few minutes after Jean-Pierre said “the President was…familiar with what his son was going to say‚” in response to a question from CBS’s Ed O’Keefe about whether he watched Hunter’s statement‚ ABC’s MaryAlice Parks and the Daily Mail’s Rob Crilly had some biting follow ups. This included Crilly pointing out Joe Biden himself said in 2021 those who defy subpoenas should face consequences (click “expand”): PARKS: Is the President okay with his son defying a congressional subpoena? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m just not going to get into — into specifics on that. I would have to re- — would have to refer you to the President’s — not the President‚ but Hunter’s personal — personal representatives. He is a private citizen‚ so I’m just not going to get into it. PARKS: Can you tell us when the last time the two of them spoke? JEAN-PIERRE: I mean‚ I’m also not going to get into private conversation that the President has with his family. We’ve been pretty consistent. That’s nothing new. We’re just not going to get into it from here. PARKS: Republicans say that they have to take this vote formalizing an impeachment inquiry because the White House is stonewalling them. What’s your response to that? (….) CRILLY: You just said the President was familiar with what his son was going to say today. Was the President involved in drafting it‚ discussing it? Did he offer advice? What did you mean by “familiar”? JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else to add. He was familiar. I don’t have anything else to add. CRILLY: Okay. And you — you were asked what the President — what his stance was on people who defy congressional subpoenas. In 2021‚ he was asked that question specifically and said that he believed the Justice Department should prosecute them. Is that his — still his position (inaudible) — JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to add to what you have — what you just quoted me from the President. I just don’t have anything to add. Fox’s Peter Doocy had his own questions on this: “You said that President Biden was familiar with what his son was going to say on Capitol Hill. If I called my dad and said‚ ‘I am about to violate a congressional subpoena‚’ he would probably say‚ ‘Son‚ you shouldn’t do that.’ Was there any attempt by President Biden to talk Hunter out of it today?” DOOCY TIME: "You said that President Biden was familiar w/what his son was going to say...If I called my dad and said I am about to violate a congressional subpoena‚ he'd probably say‚ 'son‚ you shouldn't dop that'. Was there any attempt...to talk Hunter out of it today?" KJP:… pic.twitter.com/7O0SRQhrjg — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 13‚ 2023 Jean-Pierre reiterated Joe “was familiar with what Hunter was going to say” and remains “proud of” him‚ but refused to go further (and thus have her cake and eat it too) because Hunter’s “a private citizen” and thus his chats with his father are “private conversations.” Doocy also hammered away on illegal immigration‚ wondering if “10‚000 illegal border crossings” in just one day would be enough for the administration to “admit…the Biden border policy so far has not worked” and if 1‚000 of those being gotaways is “a national security risk.” On both‚ Jean-Pierre instead bashed Republicans‚ accusing them of wanting to slash the number of border patrol agents and prevent law enforcement from stopping the flow of fentanyl. Shifting to Thursday‚ Doocy Time was with Kirby as the Fox correspondent wondered “why would somebody around here leak that the Vice President is upset with the President about Gaza”. DOOCY TIME: "Why did somebody around here leak that the Vice President is upset with the President about Gaza?" Kirby: "Pfff. I mean‚ that's a great question..if I could answer a question why someone would leak...that would make me a lot smarter than I am...You've seen us… pic.twitter.com/Mbo74FEYAn — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 14‚ 2023 Kirby noted the regime officially “refute the basic premise of” it‚ but he didn’t entirely because a vice president should be “offering…advice and counsel to the President” and everyone there “wants to see the Israelis be more surgical‚ more precise”. Doocy unsuccessfully tried again‚ but not without a hilarious flub as he asked whether “President O’Biden” and his team were “okay that people…are going to press with this.” Naturally‚ it drew more than a few laughs‚ including from Kirby and Doocy. As for Wegmann‚ he stumped Kirby on not only what the Taylor Force Act is‚ but also whether the U.S. supports plans by Argentina to move to the dollar (click “expand”): .@PhilipWegmann: "I wanted to follow up on your comments about the Palestinian Authority remaining in governance...[A]s Congress puts together an aid package for Ukraine &; Israel‚ does [Biden] want to see the Taylor Force Act remain in effect or is he open to U.S. aid going… pic.twitter.com/9oPqIl5JW3 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 14‚ 2023 WEGMANN: I wanted to follow up on your comments about the Palestinian Authority remaining in governance. I’m just curious: As Congress puts together an aid package for Ukraine and Israel‚ does the President want to see the Taylor Force Act remain in effect? Or is he open to U.S. aid going directly to the Palestinian Auth — Palestinian Authority there? KIRBY: You’re going to have to refresh my memory on what the Taylor Force Act is. WEGMANN: The Taylor Force Act prohibits direct funding to the Palestinian Authority so long as their policy of sending aid to the families of deceased terrorists is in effect. KIRBY: Yeah‚ look‚ this is all part of what we believe should be a reformed and revitalized Palestinian Authority so that they can be credibly and authentically in charge of governance over Palestinian territories. WEGMANN: So — and then‚ second question. Any comment on Argentinian President Milei’s proposal to dollarize their economy there? Is that something that the White House welcomes? KIRBY: I’ll take the question. Don’t have an answer for you. WEGMANN: Thank you‚ sir. Disappointingly‚ Nelson was the only reporter on Thursday to reup impeachment and Hunter Biden‚ which set Jean-Pierre off on a bender about there being “no evidence” and “zero evidence” to assertions Joe Biden benefitted from Hunter’s foreign business dealings (click “expand”): .@NYPost's @StevenNelson10: "For a lot of people...who only view this in very broad strokes‚ could you explain to people why the President interacted with so many of his relatives' foreign associates and why he continues to deny the interaction? How should people think about… pic.twitter.com/c4kaPFrskL — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 14‚ 2023 NELSON: For a lot of people at home who only view this in very broad strokes‚ can you explain to people why the President interacted with so many of his relatives’ foreign associates and why he continues to deny any interaction? How should people think about this? JEAN-PIERRE: Well‚ let’s be very clear here and I talked about this yesterday‚ and I’ll talk about it a little bit more and the President put out a statement yesterday that was very clear. It’s — you know‚ what we’re seeing from House Republicans is wasted time‚ and it is certainly a‚ you know‚ baseless political stunt. That’s what we’re seeing and they’re leaving — House Republicans are leaving this week to go‚ you know‚ enjoy a nice holiday — right — as most Americans should‚ but where — what happened to the funding to Ukraine? You just asked me about Ukraine. They haven’t been able to get that done. They haven’t been able to fix — help us fix what’s going on at the border. They haven’t been able to get that done. They haven’t been able to start a conversation on how we’re going to avert a shutdown in January. They haven’t been able to do that and so‚ look‚ you know‚ there has been zero evidence — zero evidence. You can ask me about engagement and what the President has done with his family in conversation‚ but there’s no evidence. There’s — NELSON: Well‚ because it’s — JEAN-PIERRE: Wait‚ wait‚ but there’s no evidence. There is no evidence that the President has done wrongdoing. There’s none. Absolutely none. None and that is just a fact. You’ve heard it from Republicans themselves. So‚ they are wasting their time. Instead of doing the work of — for — on behalf of the American people‚ they go after the President’s family. That’s — NELSON: So — JEAN-PIERRE: But that’s a waste of time. NELSON: Is there an easy way to counter the central message‚ though‚ that the President interacted with associates and has been lying about it since? What is the — JEAN-PIERRE: The President is not lying about anything when it — as it relates to what House Republicans are trying to do. It is baseless‚ it is a political stunt‚ and he has — it has not proven that the President has done anything wrong — anything wrong and so‚ they are wasting their time. They are wasting the American people’s time and what they should be doing is the things that I just listed. They’re going to go home‚ but they haven’t taken care of what we need to make sure that we are helping Ukraine. There’s going to be potentially a shutdown next month. They have done nothing — nothing to avert that shutdown. To see the relevant briefing transcripts‚ click here (for December 13) and here (for December 14).

As polls show Joe Biden’s re-election is in peril because of the public’s negative opinion of how he’s handled the economy‚ TV viewers woke up Friday morning to a round of happy talk telling them that‚ despite what they might think‚ the economy is really quite spectacular. “The economy is in solid shape. Job growth is steady and inflation is cooling‚” ABC’s Elizabeth Schulze exclaimed on Good Morning America. Over on Today‚ NBC’s Tom Costello cheered that travel will be cheaper this Christmas: “Gas prices now below $3 a gallon in more than 20 states‚ so if you are planning to hit the road for the holidays‚ you’ll have company.” Earlier this week‚ NBC’s Christine Romans declared that Americans who told pollsters that the economy is bad are just wrong. “So people say the economy‚ you know‚ sucks‚” Romans argued on Wednesday’s Today. “But it really — it doesn’t....I call it the sourpuss economy....You know‚ people just don’t believe it.” A new Wall Street Journal poll last week found voters flocking to Donald Trump due to their deep dissatisfaction with Biden’s handling of the economy. As the Journal’s Aaron Zitner and Alex Leary summarized: Only 23% of voters say Biden’s policies have helped them personally‚ while 53% say they have been hurt by the president’s agenda.... “Bidenomics‚” the president’s signature economic platform‚ is viewed favorably by less than 30% of voters and unfavorably by more than half....Two-thirds of voters rate the economy as poor or not good‚ and two-thirds say the economy has gotten worse in the past two years‚ during Biden’s time in office. And as reported by the New York Post just yesterday‚ former Obama strategist David Axelrod called the recent polling “very‚ very dark” news for Biden’s re-election prospects. So this morning‚ ABC wanted to make sure viewers knew that the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a record high yesterday‚ that the average 401(k) balance had increased by almost $13‚000 in 2023‚ and that the monthly mortgage cost associated with a new home was down $230 dollars vs. two months ago. Of course‚ overall housing prices are up a shocking 20 percent since Biden took office‚ according to Redfin. Inflation has driven up household expenses by more than $700 a month since 2012‚ and last year’s massive stock market decline deducted more than $26‚000 from the typical 401(k)‚ so even after this year’s increase‚ the average worker is still way behind. And NBC’s celebration that gas prices are below $3/gallon in more than 20 states (which means they're above $3/gallon in most states) ignores the fact that gas prices were significantly cheaper (a national average of $2.379/gallon) when Biden took office on January 20‚ 2021. But Biden’s re-election campaign is in trouble‚ so expect his friends in the media will likely keep zeroing in on positive economic anecdotes to help shore up his position as we head into 2024. Here’s a bit more of the networks’ recent economic cheerleading (click expand) to read the full transcripts: # ABC’s Good Morning America December 15‚ 2023 Co-host MICHAEL STRAHAN: Now to the economy. Stocks closed at another record Thursday while consumer spending remains strong. Let’s go to Elizabeth Schulze on Wall Street for us. Good morning‚ Elizabeth.   Correspondent ELIZABETH SCHULZE: Good morning‚ Michael. Christmas is coming early here on Wall Street‚ with the stock market hitting those new records. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at an all-time high Thursday for the second day in a row‚ adding another 158 points. And when you take a step back and look at the Dow’s performance so far this year‚ it’s gained 12%. To put that into a dollar amount‚ for the typical American’s 401(k) that stayed invested in stocks this year‚ your balance is up about $13‚000. Big picture‚ investors are bullish because the economy is in solid shape. Job growth is steady and inflation is cooling‚ which is why the Federal Reserve now forecasts it could cut interest rates three times next year. In anticipation of that‚ mortgage rates have just dropped below 7% for the first time since August‚ so if you’re taking out a $400‚000 mortgage at today’s rates‚ your monthly payment at $2‚648 is $230 cheaper than two months ago when those rates were near 8%. Now‚ still not quite at the two or three percent level that a lot of home buyers locked in‚ but it is a sliver of relief in an incredibly challenging market. Deborah? Fill-in co-host DEBORAH ROBERTS:  Encouraging news‚ Elizabeth Schulze. Thank you. # NBC’s Today December 15‚ 2023 Correspondent TOM COSTELLO: One reason so many of us are traveling this year: it cost less. KATY NASTRO‚ Travel Expert: Airfare is down 12% from where we saw it last year. As well‚ you know‚ gas prices are down quite considerably from 2022. COSTELLO: Gas prices now below $3 a gallon in more than 20 states‚ so if you are planning to hit the road for the holidays‚ you’ll have company.... # NBC’s Today December 13‚ 2023 Co-host HODA KOTB: We had all good numbers‚ things to be excited about‚ but if you do a poll of what people think‚ they do not think the economy is going well. Correspondent CHRISTINE ROMANS: Isn’t that interesting? KOTB: What is that saying? ROMANS: So people say the economy‚ you know‚ sucks. (Sorry‚ Mom‚ but that’s what they say.) But it really — it doesn’t. So there’s this disconnect and I think it’s something that’s going to be important going into an election year as well. Because I call it the sourpuss economy. I say‚ “GDP is good‚” people go (grimaces). You know‚ people just don’t believe it. They don’t believe it.  

The White House may have accidentally given House Republicans another avenue of investigation in the formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.On Wednesday‚ Hunter Biden defied a congressional subpoena‚ opening himself up to additional criminal prosecution. When asked about the first son's decision‚ White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that President Biden "was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say." The comment suggests that Biden knew his son would defy Congress because they had discussed it beforehand.If that is true‚ it is "a breathtaking mistake‚" according to legal scholar Jonathan Turley‚ because it implies that Biden obstructed Congress' investigation."One of the four most obvious potential articles of impeachment that I laid out in my prior testimony was obstruction‚" Turley explained in a new essay. "There already are questions over special treatment potentially being given to Hunter in the form of alleged felonies being allowed to expire‚ warnings about planned federal raids‚ and sweetheart deals‚" he continued. "In addition‚ President Biden has enlisted White House staff to actively push challenged accounts of his conduct and attack the House Republicans' investigative process."If this latest allegation is true‚ the president was speaking with his son about committing a potentially criminal act of contempt‚" Turley explained. "The House can pursue evidence on that conversation and how the president may have supported his son’s effort." Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFox News correspondent Peter Doocy gave Jean-Pierre an opportunity to clarify what "familiar" means‚ asking if President Biden attempted to convince Hunter not to defy Congress. But Jean-Pierre declined the chance."I don’t have anything else to add‚" she said. "The president was familiar with what Hunter was going to say today."Multiple sources who spoke with Politico confirmed that Biden knew about Hunter's planned speech on Capitol Hill and‚ therefore‚ his plan to defy a congressional subpoena.This series of events raises two important questions.First‚ will the Justice Department prosecute Hunter Biden for contempt of Congress? The Merrick Garland-controlled DOJ‚ after all‚ had zero issues quickly prosecuting Steve Bannon when he defied a subpoena for the Jan. 6 committee two years ago. Moreover‚ President Biden stated at the time that any individual who defied Congress should be criminally prosecuted.Second‚ will House investigators probe Biden's role in Hunter's defiance of a congressional investigation‚ which the White House seemingly admitted to?Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!