Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., shares the latest in the Biden family business dealings investigation on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’

Top Comment:

“Imagine if that was Trump

Media and all liberals would be tripping”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has outlined a schedule for David Weiss, the U.S. attorney-turned-special counsel who recently indicted Hunter Biden, the president’s son, on a firearm-related charge, to testify before the committee. Jordan revealed during a Fox News interview on Sunday that Weiss is set to appear before the House on October 18.

“David Weiss has committed to come in front of the committee on Oct. 18, so we can look forward to that,” Jordan said, as reported by Newsmax.

Jordan also provided what he claimed to be evidence connecting President Joe Biden to his son. Hunter Biden, as confirmed by his attorney George Mesires, was a board member of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings from 2014 to 2019.

“You can boil this” question of Joe Biden’s alleged corruption “down to the Burisma situation,” Jordan noted further.

“Burisma, I think, captures it all. Hunter Biden gets put on the board; gets paid a lot of money. Fact No. 2: He wasn’t qualified to be on the board. Fact No. 3: The Burisma executives asked him, ‘Can you help us with the pressure we are facing?’ Fact No. 4: Joe Biden gets [Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin] fired — leverages American tax dollars to accomplish that,” he continued.

“And then what does the [Attorney General Merrick] Garland Justice Department do?” Jordan asked. “They try to sweep it under the rug, so much so that they allowed the statute of limitations to lapse for the most serious … felony tax concerns Hunter Biden had in 2014 and 2015. They let it lapse because those were the years that dealt with the Burisma income,” he noted further.

As the House Oversight Committee, led by Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, prepares for David Weiss’s testimony, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) revealed last week that the first hearing for President Biden’s initial impeachment inquiry is scheduled for September 28.

These developments have taken place as the White House has called on media allies to intensify their examination of House Republicans for launching an impeachment inquiry built on what they perceive as false information.

Newsmax added:

But, according to the New York Post’s reporting, this appears to be inaccurate. The Post reports that an FBI whistleblower has alleged that then-Vice President Biden “pushed for Shokin’s ouster because he was investigating gas company Burisma.” The whistleblower also suggested that “Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky claimed he had ‘bribed’ the Bidens for $5 million each — partly to get Shokin fired.”

Following his tenure as vice president, Biden openly acknowledged what seemed to be a “quid pro quo” scenario during an event organized by the Council on Foreign Relations. He recounted how he had visited Kyiv at the direction of then-President Barack Obama and insisted on the dismissal of a prosecutor, warning that $1 billion in assistance would be withheld otherwise.

NEHLS: “Joe Biden threatened the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister to fire Shokin — if that is not quid pro quo, sir, what is? — It's bribery, and it's impeachable. Are you gonna do something about it?”

“I bet you're not. And that's why you also need to be impeached” pic.twitter.com/zCtDDC22iq

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 20, 2023

Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican representative, has voiced his dissatisfaction with the ongoing Joe Biden impeachment inquiry. During an explosive interview with Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures,” Gaetz made it crystal clear that he believes the GOP, under the leadership of Kevin McCarthy, might be losing its edge.

Top Comment:

“I stand with Gaetz”

The president of Snead State Community College in Alabama is facing criticism from atheists after he offered a prayer before a meal.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization of atheists and agnostics, expressed their discontent after discovering that President Joe Whitmore regularly said grace before meals.

The group, based in Wisconsin, claimed that someone in Boaz, Alabama filed a complaint over the prayer.

They accused the president of “imposing his personal religious beliefs on Snead State employees and treating Snead State as a Christian college, rather than the secular public college it is.”

Furthermore, they expressed discomfort over Whitmore sharing a “guiding Bible verse” with staff, which they believed made non-believers feel “uncomfortable and excluded.”

“Our complainant has been required to partake in Christian prayer before meals and at staff events,” FFRF said in a statement.

FFRF attorney Chris Line attacked the prayers as “unconstitutional.”

“As a state-run institution, Snead State Community College is bound by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which ‘mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,’” Line wrote in a letter. “Federal courts have routinely enforced the strictures of the Establishment Clause in the context of public colleges and universities. Instituting a ‘guiding bible verse,’ leading prayers or otherwise pushing your personal religious beliefs onto subordinates in your official capacity as president is coercive and clearly demonstrates a preference for religion over nonreligion, and Christianity over all other faiths.”

Gov. Kay Ivey defended Whitmore in a fierce statement — as did U.S. Katie Britt (R-AL).

“It is disappointing, although not surprising, to see an out-of-state, leftwing group launch yet another attack on Alabamians’ constitutionally protected religious liberty. Make no mistake — this is part of a continued, concerted effort to get more Americans to turn away from God,” Britt wrote in a statement to 1819News.com. “That’s the opposite of what we need as a nation — we need a revival. I will continue to stand up for the rights of each and every Alabamian in the United States Senate, while fighting every day for Alabama’s values and interests.”

FFRF has also criticized Auburn University for a student baptism service.

But what does the law say?

According to Department of Education guidelines, there is “nothing in the First Amendment that converts public schools into religion-free zones, or requires students, teachers, or other school officials to leave their private religious expression behind at the schoolhouse door.”

So, when the faculty at Snead State Community College shares a meal together, President Whitworth will be within his rights to express gratitude to Jesus for the food, according to these guidelines.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, joins ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ to discuss the looming government shutdown, some Republicans’ opposition to the continuing resolution, the Biden impeachment inquiry and Merrick Garland’s testimony

Top Comment:

“Unbelievable for an AG that kept saying no one is above the Law…”

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito upheld an appeals court decision that temporarily halted a lower court ruling preventing President Joe Biden’s administration from requesting social media companies to remove content categorized as ‘misinformation’ by federal officials.

“The decision to keep the matter on hold until Wednesday gives the court more time to consider the administration’s request to block an injunction issued by a lower court that had concluded that federal officials likely had violated the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by coercing social media platforms into censoring certain posts,” Reuters reported.

“Alito’s order pauses the dispute until Sept. 27 at 11:59 p.m. EDT. He had previously halted the lower court’s ruling through Sept. 22,” the outlet noted further. “Alito is the justice designated by the court to act on certain matters arising from a group of states that include Louisiana, where the lawsuit was first filed.”

Back in July, the Daily Wire covered an injunction by Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, appointed by Trump. This injunction prohibited Biden administration officials from engaging with social media companies, which was seen as a significant First Amendment triumph.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), a former state attorney general, lodged the complaint. He contended that government officials had attempted to inappropriately sway these platforms, leading to the suppression of perspectives differing from the administration’s viewpoints.

“White House officials, CDC & others are stopped cold. We need to continue the fight to take down the Vast Censorship Enterprise,” Schmitt tweeted following the decision. “Their view of ‘misinformation’ isn’t an excuse to censor. This is the most important free speech case in a generation. Freedom is on the march.”

Schmitt filed the case when before he was elected last year.

“White House officials, CDC & others are stopped cold. We need to continue the fight to take down the Vast Censorship Enterprise. Their view of ‘misinformation’ isn’t an excuse to censor. This is the most important free speech case in a generation. Freedom is on the march,” Schmitt said, calling the decision a “[b]ig win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day.”

Judge Doughty made certain exceptions in his ruling. According to The Washington Post, he will permit government officials to communicate with social media companies in cases involving posts related to “criminal activity or criminal conspiracies,” “national security threats, extortion, or other threats,” as well as crimes pertaining to U.S. elections.

Resist the Mainstream added:

Many expect the ruling to disrupt years of collaboration between tech companies and the government, especially in terms of addressing illegal activities and interference in elections.

The injunction applies to various executive agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, prohibiting them from pressuring social media platforms into removing, suppressing or reducing the visibility of content protected by the First Amendment.

Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., lays out what he believes are impeachable offenses by both President Biden and AG Merrick Garland on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’

Top Comment:

“Impeach them all.”

A legal expert has cautioned Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis that pursuing an appeal to transfer a case to federal court might lead her into a potential “trap.” This warning comes in response to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ initial unsuccessful attempt to have Willis’ charges dismissed in federal court.

Meadows subsequently filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court, which has now requested a brief from Willis to address the eligibility of federal officials, including Meadows, for such immunity. Law professor Anthony Michael Kreis from Georgia State University suggests that even if Willis succeeds in this review, it may ultimately prove to be short-lived and without significance.

“I think this is a trap that Fani Willis should not walk into,” Kreis wrote on the X platform. “The consensus has generally been (and I think correct) that the current status of the defendant does not matter but what does matter is whether the acts that undergird the legal action are related to official duties.”

“Willis should shut this down despite it maybe giving Meadows a defeat,” continued Kreis. “First, it is a nasty kind of textualism that conservatives like and liberals should reject. Second, it introduces more unnecessary confusion and opens the door to a greater likelihood of Supreme Court review. Third, it makes little theoretical sense. If the idea of removal is to provide a neutral venue to persons employed by the gov’t or empowered by federal law from vindictive actions in state court, then the D’s current status is irrelevant. It’s about protecting federal integrity.”

Concluded Kreis: “Willis should politely decline the invitation to derail litigation and upend the removal statute.”

Former President Donald Trump is reportedly considering seeking removal of his case to federal court. Legal analysts believe he may have a good chance of doing so. Trump and 18 others face charges related to an alleged conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s election results. His legal team is expected to attempt moving the case from state court to federal court, where they could argue for dismissal based on Trump’s immunity due to acting in an official capacity.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has cautioned that a significant issue with the indictment is the potential for Trump and his associates to request a change of venue, moving the trial out of Georgia’s predominantly liberal county. This strategy resembles former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ unsuccessful attempt to do so recently.

“The other big issue – and we just said this word – is removal. Get ready for a lot of talk about removal. Mark Meadows is already trying to do this. Donald Trump will try to follow. In a nutshell, what this means is, if a federal official gets charged with a state crime that relates to that federal official’s official job duties, you can get the case removed.”

Honig argued that such duties must be “within the legitimate scope of those jobs,” adding that is “an important qualification. He [Trump and others] can get the case moved over to federal court and then potentially dismissed. So, these are really important motions. Mark Meadows has already done this, Trump is sure to follow.”

“The hard part [is] it’s a lot of work. You’re not going to be able to try all 19 at once. That’s not going to happen. And you just never know how every one of these defendants, let’s put aside Trump. Every one of these defendants, even the people we heard of, is going to mount a furious defense, as is their right to do,” Honig said.

“They all work together as one cohesive entity towards an illegal end,” Honig said. “You have the advantage to pick off some low-hanging fruit and get them to flip.”

‘The Five’ co-hosts react to Democratic lawmakers speaking out over Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., dropping the Senate dress code.

Top Comment:

“I can not believe the people of Pennsylvania elected this guy to represent them in the Senate.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has escalated its criminal investigations into Elon Musk, the head of Twitter/X, who is a prominent critic of President Joe Biden.

The DOJ is looking into allegations that Musk received various benefits from his electric car company, Tesla, dating back to 2017, as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. This inquiry has expanded beyond its initial scope.

As was previously reported, the DOJ had initiated an investigation into Musk regarding claims that Tesla resources may have been used for secretive plans to construct a glass mansion for him.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the DOJ’s investigation now includes a broader range of claims. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has also requested information on transactions between Tesla and other entities connected to Musk.

This expanded timeline and the broader scope of the investigation suggest that federal prosecutors have a deeper interest in both Musk and Tesla than previously known. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Biden has also launched a civil investigation into the construction project and is seeking similar information from the company.

The project, known as “Project 42,” was described internally at Tesla as a mansion for Musk and involved the construction of a glass-walled building near Tesla’s Gigafactory in Austin, Texas. Following the purchase of specialized glass worth millions of dollars, Tesla’s board members conducted a quiet investigation to determine whether company resources were misused for the project and if Musk had any involvement.

It’s important to note that Tesla is not solely focused on manufacturing cars; it also specializes in advanced solar roofs and energy storage systems for residential use.

Musk has denied these allegations, stating on his Twitter/X platform that there is no glass house being built, under construction, or planned, emphasizing that he is not involved in any house construction anywhere.

Tesla has abandoned plans to build a glass house for Musk after the CEO was informed that he would not be able to throw stones if he lived there

— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) September 1, 2023

A recently released authorized biography of Elon Musk, the tech billionaire, revealed that last year, Musk considered the possibility of constructing a home for himself on a horse farm located across the Colorado River from the Texas factory. Reportedly, he even met with an architect to brainstorm designs but ultimately postponed the project, as documented by Walter Isaacson in the biography.

Musk proposed a design that included a shard of glass emerging from a lake, as detailed in the book.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) previously issued a statement indicating that they do not comment on the existence or nonexistence of potential investigations. SEC regulations mandate that public companies disclose any perks or personal benefits exceeding $10,000 provided to top officers, including the CEO.

In recent times, the regulatory agency has taken civil enforcement actions against publicly traded companies that failed to disclose executive perks, such as Hilton Worldwide and Stanley Black & Decker. The SEC also requires public companies to inform investors of any transactions exceeding $120,000 in which a related party, like an executive officer, holds a significant interest.

Information regarding the proposed glass mansion has been gradually emerging at Tesla for over a year. Plans evolved over time, with some renderings depicting a residential area featuring bedrooms, bathrooms, and a kitchen. One rendering portrayed the building as a glass cube similar to the Apple Store on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, while another depicted it as a “twisted hexagon” adjacent to a body of water, with the Tesla factory in the background.

Additional renderings included a waterfall as part of the landscaping, leading some Tesla employees to speculate that the project might involve a museum of some kind. As of now, the building in question has not been constructed, and Tesla insiders are uncertain about the project’s status and the outcome of the board’s investigation.