Washington (AFP) - The United States said Tuesday that Russia was not complying with New START, the last remaining arms control treaty between the world's two main nuclear powers, as tensions soar over the Ukraine war.
Responding to a request from Congress, the State Department faulted Russia for suspending inspections and canceling talks but did not accuse Moscow of expanding nuclear warheads beyond agreed limits.
"Russia is not complying with its obligation under the New START Treaty to facilitate inspection activities on its territory," a State Department spokesperson said, charging that Moscow's refusal "threatens the viability of US-Russian nuclear arms control."
"Russia has a clear path for returning to full compliance. All Russia needs to do is allow inspection activities on its territory, just as it did for years under the New START Treaty, and meet in a session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission," he said, referring to the formal talks set up under the treaty.
"There is nothing preventing Russian inspectors from traveling to the United States and conducting inspections."
Moscow announced in early August that it was suspending US inspections of its military sites under New START. It said it was responding to American obstruction of inspections by Russia, a charge denied by Washington.
Diplomacy between the two powers has ground to a bare minimum over the past year as the United States leads a drive to punish Russia economically for its war against Ukraine and arm Kyiv with billions of dollars in weapons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, reviving Cold War era fears of an apocalyptic war.
Russia indefinitely postponed talks under New START that had been due to start on November 29 in Cairo, accusing the United States of "toxicity and animosity."
President Joe Biden shortly after taking office extended New START by five years until 2026, giving time to negotiate while preserving what the Democratic administration sees as an important existing treaty.
The previous administration of Donald Trump had ripped up previous arms control agreements and had been hesitant to preserve New START in its current form, saying that any nuclear treaty must also include China, whose arsenal is rapidly growing but still significantly below those of Russia and the United States.
The Biden administration indicated that it wanted to preserve New START. The State Department spokesperson said the treaty was meant "to make the world safer."
Republican lawmakers, who took control of the House of Representatives in January, had asked Secretary of State Antony Blinken to report by Tuesday whether Russia was in violation.
A group of Republicans active on defense policy responded that Biden had "naively" extended New START and said that Russia "cannot be trusted to abide by any international agreement."
"We urge President Biden to direct the Department of Defense to prepare for a future where Russia may deploy large numbers of warheads, well in excess of New START treaty limits," said a statement by Republicans including Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
New START, signed by then president Barack Obama in 2010 when relations were warmer, restricted Russia and the United States to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads each -- a reduction of nearly 30 percent from the previous limit set in 2002.
It also limits the number of launchers and heavy bombers to 800, still easily enough to destroy Earth.
Some conservatives are wary over Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) choosing to appoint Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to lead the House's antitrust subcommittee, saying it may be a sign that he's backing off his crusade to go after Big Tech, Fox News reports.
Jordan chose Massie over Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), who has led Republican efforts on antitrust reform.
"I was disappointed, but not surprised… when Jim told me that I would not be the subcommittee chair," Buck said in an interview with Fox News Digital, adding that Massie was not previously on the subcommittee and had voted against antitrust legislation that targeted Big Tech companies.
"I like Thomas, he's a good friend and I wish him the best, but it's pretty clear that Jim made a decision on what direction he wanted the committee to go," Buck said.
IN OTHER NEWS: Stormy Daniels takes victory lap after Trump pens tirade about her on Truth Social
"In my view, you need antitrust enforcement, you need Section 230 reform, and you need to look at the privacy laws. And a lot has been written about all three and the impact that all three would have in this area," Buck said. "To take antitrust off the table is a mistake."
As Fox News points out, some conservatives see Massie’s "anti-antitrust history and libertarian approach" as a sign that he won't deliver on the effort.
"The reason Big Tech can censor, silence, de-platform, or cancel conservatives is because they have monopoly power," Internet Accountability Project Mike Davis said. "And they use their monopoly power to shutter small businesses and crush competition. Section 230 reform is not going to pass this Congress. Antitrust reforms can pass if Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan get out of the way."
"They’ve really shown their cards here by passing over Ken Buck," Davis said.
READ MORE: Trump served with $10 million wrongful death suit as his legal woes escalate
Rather than focusing on antitrust legislation, Jordan -- the head of the new Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government -- appears to be more interested in an investigative war against President Joe Biden and the issue of censorship.
The new panel has asserted powers to oversee "ongoing criminal investigations" -- putting Republicans on a collision course with the DOJ, which has a history of fiercely protecting open probes.
It was created partly in response to the release of internal files by Twitter owner Elon Musk that Republicans say demonstrated that the company was working with government officials to silence right wing voices.
Jordan wrote to several tech giants in December asking for details of "'collusion' with the Biden administration to censor conservatives on their platforms."
But its top target is likely to be the FBI, which Republicans argue has been politicized by liberals, and its probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
With additional reporting by AFP
By Brendan Pierson
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a New Jersey law authorizing the state's attorney general to sue gun manufacturers and sellers for endangering public safety, finding it ran afoul of a federal law protecting the gun industry from such claims.
The preliminary order by U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi in Trenton, New Jersey, means the law cannot be enforced while the judge considers a legal challenge by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a gun industry group. It comes a day after a different judge struck down parts of a separate gun control measure in the state.
"NSSF wholeheartedly welcomes this decision," said Mark Oliva, a spokesperson for the group.
A spokesperson for New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy said the governor was disappointed and confident the order would be reversed on appeal.
The now-blocked law, passed last June in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights, allows the state attorney general to bring lawsuits accusing gun manufactures and sellers of creating a "public nuisance" that endangers health and safety - for example, through dangerous marketing or failing to prevent illegal trafficking.
Quraishi found that it was in "direct conflict" with the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 (PLCAA), which shields gun makers and sellers from being sued over crimes committed with guns they legally sold.
The PLCAA has largely thwarted efforts to hold the gun industry legally responsible for gun violence, and Monday's ruling is an early test of some Democratic-led states' efforts to get around its shield. NSSF is also challenging similar laws in New York, where it lost its initial bid to block enforcement, and in Delaware.
Gun control has long been politically divisive in the United States, championed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. Democratic President Joe Biden last June signed the first bipartisan national gun safety bill in 30 years, which was spurred by mass shootings in Texas and New York that killed more than 30 people, including 19 children at an elementary school.
(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis)
A new analysis is criticizing Rep. James Comer's (R-KY) blatant double standard regarding former President Donald Trump's classified documents.
Like many Republican lawmakers, Comer has had difficulty seeing Trump and President Joe Biden's situations through an unbiased lens. However, MSNBC's Steven Benen is explaining how the two cases differ vastly.
"There are obviously a handful of ongoing controversies surrounding national officeholders and alleged mishandling of classified materials, but by any sensible measure, the controversy surrounding Donald Trump is qualitatively different," Benen wrote.
He continued:
After all, the former president, unlike President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence, ignored requests to return the relevant documents, and failed to comply with a federal subpoena," he explained. "And stands accused of obstructing the retrieval process. And reportedly proposed a possible trade in which he said he’d consider returning materials, but only if officials gave him something else in return. And launched a months-long crusade against federal law enforcement, literally equating the FBI with 'the Gestapo.'
Despite Trump’s track record of misconduct, Benen notes that the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Comer, does not appear to have any interest in investigating the former president.. Expounding on the issue, Benen wrote, "The Republican chairman of the panel, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky has not only defended the former president’s actions, he’s also dismissed the scandal’s importance."
"Comer is, however, deeply interested in pursuing the Biden story, despite the fact that it appears far less serious. How does the GOP chairman explain the double standard? He’s still working on that," Benen wrote.
Referencing Comer's Sunday night discussion with CNN’s Pamela Brown, Benen noted that the Republican lawmaker was asked one compelling question: "Does he have evidence of influence peddling surrounding Biden and classified documents?"
Comer responded saying, “We don’t know. We want to look.”
To that answer, Benen offered a critical assessment, writing, "It was like watching a snake eat its own tail."
Following that interview with CNN's Brown, Comer appeared the National Press Club while in Washington, D.C. where he explained his reason for not putting energy into the Trump classified documents investigation.
“Well, there’s a special counsel,” Comer explained. “There’s a special counsel and I am confident that that special counsel is looking into everything.”
However, Benen has pushed back with a detailed argument explaining why Comer's explanation falls flat. "It was not a good point," Comer noted.
"As the chairman of the House Oversight Committee really ought to know, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to scrutinize the Biden matter, too," Benen wrote. "If the existence of a special counsel investigating Trump leads Comer to believe he should focus his attention elsewhere, then the existence of a special counsel investigating the Biden story should lead him to the same conclusion."
Former President Donald Trump has been served a wrongful death lawsuit from the longtime partner of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who died a day after the Capitol riot, WUSA9 reports.
The lawsuit accuses Trump and his allies of spreading disinformation and inflammatory rhetoric that helped spark the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, which Sandra Garza alleges led to the death of Sicknick. A medical examiner found that Sicknick died of natural causes. However, the U.S. Capitol Police released a statement saying that the medical examiner's finding "does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol."
Garza is also suing Julian Khater and George Tanios, who were sentenced Friday in federal court for their roles in assaulting Sicknick.
"Although it is beyond question Defendant Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he still remains unwilling to accept defeat, He lied to his followers by, among other things, telling them that the certification of Joe Biden’s election was a 'coup' and that their country was being stolen from them," the lawsuit states. "He filed dozens of frivolous lawsuits, all of which substantively failed. And he tried to intimidate state officials, none of whom caved to the pressure."
IN OTHER NEWS: Marjorie Taylor Greene attacks Dems over Jan. 6 in first appearance on Oversight Committee
"Out of options and out of time, Defendant Trump finally called his supporters to Washington, D.C. on the day Congress met to certify President-elect Biden’s win, telling them to 'Stop the Steal' and that the day 'will be wild.' Tens of thousands of his supporters came to the District in response, including Defendants Khater and Tanios. Some, including Defendants Khater and Tanios, planned violence at the U.S. Capitol in advance; some were stirred to violence by Defendant Trump’s words on that day," the lawsuit added.
Trump is attempting to revive a faltering third run for the White House. But the biggest roadblack to his path to the nomination may end up being his mounting legal woes, with a quasi-independent "special counsel" appointed to look into numerous allegations of misconduct.
He is under the spotlight over his handling of classified documents found in an FBI raid of his beachfront mansion in Florida, his role in the 2021 insurrection and, in Georgia, his attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.
Earlier this month, a federal judge sanctioned Trump and his lawyers nearly $1 million for a "frivolous" lawsuit claiming Hillary Clinton had tried to rig the 2016 election.
District Judge John Middlebrooks said the Republican, who is seeking to return to the White House in 2024, exhibited a "continuing pattern of misuse of the courts" and had filed the suit "in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative."
With additional reporting by AFP
In the wake of 10 classified documents being found by lawyers for President Joe Biden, the FBI searched the Penn Biden Center offices in mid-November, CBS News reports.
It's not known if the FBI found any materials in addition to the documents the lawyers found. Sources tell CBS News that there was no search warrant and Biden's representatives cooperated with the search.
From CBS News: "The FBI search of the think tank was not previously disclosed by the White House, Mr. Biden's personal attorneys, or the Department of Justice. A Jan. 14 statement from the president's personal attorney Bob Bauer referred to the government conducting 'its inquiry, including taking possession of any documents and reviewing any surrounding material for further review and context.'"
In total, the FBI has found between 25 and 30 documents marked classified from the office space and Biden's Wilmington home. The documents are from Biden's vice presidential and Senate days. As CBS News points out, some of the documents found at the Penn Biden Center were labeled top secret.
IN OTHER NEWS: Letitia James seeks Trump sanctions over 'demonstrably false' fraud suit response
The National Archives has called on presidential administrations going back to Ronald Reagan to check for any classified or presidential records potentially in their possession.
Read the full report over at CBS News.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Joe Biden will release his proposed budget on March 9, the White House said on Tuesday, setting a deadline before his meeting with the Republican House speaker on Wednesday to discuss the nation's spending.
Biden will ask Kevin McCarthy to release a budget plan in the meeting, and to pledge to meet the nation's debt obligations, according to a White House memo seen by Reuters.
McCarthy and his fellow conservatives, who narrowly won control of the House of Representatives in November, are threatening to block a regular increase of the nation's debt limit unless Biden pledges lower spending. Biden has said any negotiation on previously approved U.S. spending, which is generally approved on a bipartisan basis, was a non-starter.
Republicans have not yet agreed on how fiscal spending should be trimmed, or firmed up the parameters of a 2023 budget.
The White House has seized on the lack of consensus to highlight fringe proposals from some Republicans, including one that abolishes the Internal Revenue Service in favor of a higher sales tax and one that trims Social Security retirement benefits.
Asked what his message will be for McCarthy, Biden told reporters on Monday: "Show me your budget, I’ll show you mine."
McCarthy responded with an admonition to Biden to not rule out negotiations before their White House meeting.
"The first thing they should do, especially as the president of the United States: say he's willing to sit down and find a common ground and negotiate together," McCarthy said on Tuesday.
EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES
While the president can propose a budget plan, both houses of Congress must pass any spending legislation. Biden's fellow Democrats narrowly control the Senate, where spending bills need 60 votes to pass. The House needs a simple majority to pass these bills; McCarthy has ruled out cuts to Social Security and Medicare, the two largest benefit programs.
The showdown over the growing U.S. debt threatens to roil the global economy if the United States defaults. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said the country may reach its debt limit as soon as June and has called on Congress to take swift action.
The Treasury Department has already started taking "extraordinary measures" to stave off a default until summer after hitting the U.S. government's $31.4 trillion borrowing limit earlier in January.
On Wednesday, Biden plans to ask McCarthy if he will "commit to the bedrock principle that the United States will never default on its financial obligations" and if he agrees "that it is critical to avoid debt brinksmanship."
(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt, David Morgan, Nandita Bose; writing by Susan Heavey and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Heather Timmons and Jonathan Oatis)
An oddsmaker slashed Donald Trump's of winning the 2024 election since his low-energy weekend rally in South Carolina.
The former president is the first serious candidate to officially announce for next year's election, although President Joe Biden is widely expected to seek re-election and a number of Republican challengers are still sitting on the sidelines, but Trump's odds of winning seem to be trending in the wrong direction, reported Newsweek.
"Before he took to the stage at his low-key campaign launch in South Carolina, Donald Trump returned to be the clear favorite at 8/5 to be the 2024 Republican nominee, and since then his odds have continued to shorten and he's now 6/4 to run as president for the Grand Old Party," said Sam Rosbottom, a spokesman for the bookmaker Betfair. "While he's the favorite to be the Republican nominee, it's actually his party opponent, Ron DeSantis who is the 16/5 favorite to win the 2024 presidential election.
Trump's odds improved last week on Irish bookmakers PaddyPower -- from 11/2 into 4/1 -- after Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, confirmed he would be allowed back on the platforms following his suspension for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, but he remains far behind the Florida governor in the eyes of oddsmakers.
RELATED: 'Going for the kill': Experts say Trump could face 4 years in prison amid new grand jury probe
"Donald Trump's chances have shortened, but he's still a way off DeSantis at 5/1," Rosbottom said. "While Joe Biden's chances of winning another term are better than Trump's at 7/2."
A coalition of progressive advocacy groups on Monday launched a campaign urging every member of Congress to pledge to "never vote to cut Social Security or Medicare under any circumstances," an effort that comes as House Republicans are weighing attacks on the two programs as part of their sweeping austerity spree.
Led by Social Security Works and More Perfect Union, the new campaign highlights the massive stakes of the ongoing showdown over the U.S. debt ceiling, which House Republicans have said they will refuse to raise unless congressional Democrats and the Biden White House agree to major federal spending cuts—including damaging changes to Social Security and Medicare.
"To be clear, the debt ceiling legislation is not about new spending; it's about paying our bills," the progressive groups said Monday. "Failure to raise the debt limit will not only wreck the nation's economy; it will wreck the economy of the whole world."
In a launch video for their campaign, the progressive coalition includes footage of Republican lawmakers expressing support for raising the retirement age—a move that would cut Social Security spending across the board—and falsely blaming "entitlements" for the ballooning national debt as Congress hurtles toward another round of debt ceiling brinkmanship.
"Democrats were elected on the promise that they would defend Social Security against Republican attacks," said Alex Lawson, the executive director of Social Security Works. "Now is the moment of the truth. Democrats must refuse to cut Social Security. And they must refuse to create a mechanism—such as a closed-door commission—to cut Social Security down the road."
The campaign was launched ahead of President Joe Biden's planned Wednesday meeting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who has joined the far-right flank of his caucus in pushing for federal spending cuts as a condition for raising the borrowing limit.
In a Sunday appearance on "Face the Nation," McCarthy suggested that he won't insist on cuts to Social Security or Medicare in talks with the president, saying, "Let's take those off the table."
But the Republican leader went on to say that while Biden has expressed opposition to including Social Security or Medicare changes in any debt ceiling legislation, "we've got to make sure we strengthen those." When pressed, McCarthy declined to elaborate on what he meant by "strengthen."
In response to McCarthy's comments, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said that McCarthy's "slip—and his evasiveness after—is the latest giveaway that House Republicans have been telling the truth over the last year as they reiterate time and again that they want to cut Medicare and Social Security."
"For years, congressional Republicans have advocated for slashing earned benefits using Washington code words like 'strengthen,' when their policies would privatize Medicare and Social Security, raise the retirement age, or cut benefits," Bates added. "It's like saying, 'You're not being laid off—we just want to make a change.' House Republicans refuse to raise revenue from the wealthy, but insist they will 'strengthen' earned benefits programs. You do the math. They have—they just won't show you."
While many congressional Democrats have publicly said they would join the White House in opposing any proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare, at least one lawmaker—Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—has floated the possibility of cutting a deal with the GOP on the programs, an idea adamantly rejected by the progressive groups behind the new pressure campaign.
"It is critical for the Democrats to stay united and stand their ground against this latest effort to gut Social Security and Medicare," said Faiz Shakir, executive editor at More Perfect Union.
On their new website, the progressive groups will keep a running tally of the lawmakers who have taken the pledge to oppose Social Security and Medicare cuts, as well as those who are "equivocating" or outright "refusing" to make the promise.
"The only way that Democrats can win this game of chicken is if they stay united and do not blink," the groups said. "Standing with the overwhelming majority of the American people against all cuts to Social Security and Medicare should be the easiest promise any politician can make, so let's make them promise."
Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is under investigation for his supporters' storming of government buildings, is seeking a six-month visa to remain in the United States, his lawyer said Monday.
Bolsonaro flew to Florida in late December as his term ended rather than watch the inauguration of his leftist successor President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
He is understood to have entered on a visa for visiting world leaders, which expires on Tuesday as he is no longer on official business.
AG Immigration Group, a California-based law firm known for its work with Brazilians, said that Bolsonaro has requested a six-month visa to stay in the United States.
"We look forward to achieving the highest level of satisfaction and desired results for our client," it said in a statement.
Bolsonaro had previously told CNN Brasil that he had planned to return by the end of January, and was considering moving his departure earlier for health reasons.
The far-right leader was injured in a knife attack in 2018. He has suffered ongoing health complications from that assassination attempt, and received hospital care during his stay in Florida.
But Bolsonaro has since come under scrutiny over the January 8 riot in the capital Brasilia by his supporters who refused to accept Lula's victory.
The new government has ordered a probe of Bolsonaro, who for years has sought to cast doubt on Brazil's electronic voting system, which has historically won praise around the world.
Bolsonaro's last justice minister, Anderson Torres, was also visiting the United States during the riot and was arrested on his return.
Asked about Bolsonaro's application, the State Department said that visa records are confidential under US law.
"Therefore, we cannot discuss the details of individual visa cases," a State Department spokesperson said.
Thousands of Bolsonaro backers broke into the presidential palace, Congress and Supreme Court buildings in Brasilia in an unsuccessful attempt to seek the overthrow of Lula.
Several lawmakers of Biden's Democratic Party have publicly called on the administration to send Bolsonaro back to Brazil, saying he no longer had a right to stay in the United States as a visiting head of state.
"The United States must not provide shelter for him, or any authoritarian who has inspired such violence against democratic institutions," said a letter signed by lawmakers including Representative Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Joaquin Castro, a prominent progressive Democrat.
Brazilians require visas to enter the United States including as tourists.
Bolsonaro was one of the closest international allies of Donald Trump, another former president living in Florida who has made baseless allegations about electoral fraud.
The Brasilia riot mirrored the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol by Trump supporters who did not accept his defeat to President Joe Biden.
Steve Bannon, a far-right populist strategist who worked for Trump, has developed close ties with Bolsonaro's supporters and raised questions about last year's Brazilian election.
Bolsonaro, however, has largely kept a low profile since flying to Florida. He has been staying near Disney World at the Orlando home of Brazilian former martial arts champion Jose Aldo and was photographed eating fried chicken alone at a KFC restaurant.
© 2023 AFP
Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) explained to CNBC on Monday that the Republicans have no choice but to hold the debt ceiling hostage, even if it means destroying the economy.
Squawk Box host Andrew Sorkin asked the House GOP Budget Committee chairman, "The question that I'd ask you is whether you think this debt ceiling is going to be used as a bargaining chip in a way that could turn dangerous?"
Arrington made it clear: "I believe it will and I believe it has to."
His colleague, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has already said that he wants to use the debt ceiling crisis to usher in border security spending.
The House was already dealing with its own infighting after the far-right side of the House demanded dramatic cuts to Social Security and Medicare. It became big news, making the GOP look as if "they want to kill grandma," said one Democratic Senator. Finally, this week, Speaker Kevin McCarthy said that those cuts are off the table.
President Joe Biden has demanded a "clean bill," with no conditions attached, saying that if Republicans want to negotiate cuts they can propose their own plans and bills, but that the country shouldn't be held hostage in the interim.
See Arrington in the video below or at this link.
The powerful Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer (R-KY) is being highly mocked after declaring he will investigate President Joe Biden for “influence peddling” despite admitting there’s little if any evidence President Biden has engaged in influence peddling.
When pressed, he pointed to Biden’s classified documents and one alleged email from Hunter Biden’s laptop.
But when pressed again by a frustrated CNN host, asking why he’s not investigating ex-president Donald Trump, he couldn’t offer a valid reason, except to claim there no evidence of it.
Some were quick to point out the Trump’s tenure in the White House was filled with alleged influence peddling operations.
Here’s Chairman Comer with CNN’s Pamela Brown on Sunday. While the transcript is a bit simplified, it’s not far off.
“What’s different with Joe Biden is we’re investigating the Biden family for influence peddling,” Comer said on CNN Sunday evening. “We have a strong suspicion that people around Joe Biden, mainly in his family, have been peddling access to the Biden family, with our adversaries around the world, and when we find out that they have multiple classified documents scattered throughout multiple residences and office buildings across the East Coast, then this raises a huge red flag for us. We want to make sure that those documents in the possession of Joe Biden weren’t somehow sent to our adversaries and didn’t somehow compromise our national security.”
CNN’s Pamela Brown pushed back.
“But you’ve also talked about how you worried about the same situation with the Trump family. Trump had 300-plus documents at Mar-a-Lago, why don’t you have that same concern?” Brown asked. “I mean, there are visitors going in and out of Mar-a-Lago from different countries, including China, there’s been a Chinese spy who was arrested at Mar-a-Lago and it was in an unsecure location at Mar-a-Lago. So would you apply that same concern evenly across the board?
Comer was unimpressed with the facts she presented.
“If someone can show me evidence that there was influence peddling with those classified documents that were in the possession of President Trump, then we would certainly expect it.”
His defense for the Chinese spy? It’s a public place – making all the more dangerous for unsecured classified documents.
“Do you have evidence of influence peddling with the classified documents that was for Biden?” Brown asked. “It sounds like you don’t – you’re looking into it, but why wouldn’t you look into it in the same way for Trump?”
“We have evidence that the Biden family has been very cozy with people from the Chinese Communist Party. We have evidence that Hunter Biden was receiving payments that were that were linked directly to the Chinese Communist Party through those Chinese energy companies. We’re very concerned about all the money connected to Ukraine.”
“How is that connected to classified documents?” Brown again pushed.
“We don’t know we want to look. We see there’s one email that’s been identified that is suspicious that we want to look into. We want to make sure that there’s one email that was on Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t one of the classified documents. So I think there’s ample reason to be concerned.”
Comer revealed he has no evidence against President Biden or the Biden family.
Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) called it a “a politically-driven fishing expedition.”
“Republican hypocrisy on full display,” Gomez tweeted in response. “How can you launch an investigation without any evidence? This is a politically-driven fishing expedition — full stop. Lots of political stunts, not a lot of problem-solving.”
But, as several people noted, there is plenty of apparent evidence against Donald Trump.
HuffPost White House correspondent S.V. Dáte called Comer out: “Trump ran a bribery center five blocks from The White House,” he shouted, referring to the Trump D.C. Hotel, while tweeting in all-caps.
“Just a stunning dereliction of duty,” charged Robert Maguire, the research director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Trump brought in tens of millions of dollars as president from businesses he refused to divest, which were used by special interests and foreign governments to enrich him while currying favor with him and his administration.”
Telling Chairman Comer he is “happy to chat,” Mother Jones’ David Corn tweeted, “I know of 2 billion reasons Comer and the House Republicans should look at the Trump family regarding influence peddling and overseas dealings.”
Corn is likely referring to the $2 billion “investment” Trump son-in-law and senior White House Advisor Jared Kushner received.
“Six months after leaving the White House,” The New York Times reported last April, “Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince, a close ally during the Trump administration, despite objections from the fund’s advisers about the merits of the deal.”
MSNBC’s Steve Benen likened Comer’s interview to “watching a snake eat its own tail.” Benen also pointed to Comer’s second attempt, Monday morning, which did not go well.
Bloomberg’s Emily Wilkins, the Vice President of the National Press Club, apparently mistakenly, said to Comer: “So you are asking questions about Trump.”
He made clear he is not.
By Kanishka Singh
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. government likely awarded about $5.4 billion in COVID-19 aid to people with questionable Social Security numbers, a federal watchdog said in a report released on Monday.
The watchdog, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC), said it "identified 69,323 questionable Social Security Numbers (SSNs) used to obtain $5.4 billion from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (COVID-19 EIDL) program and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)."
The loans were disbursed between April 2020 and October 2022, the watchdog said in its report, which comes ahead of a scheduled Wednesday hearing by the Republican-led House of Representatives Oversight Committee on fraud in pandemic spending.
About 57,500 Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans worth $3.6 billion were disbursed by August 2020, the report added.
The United States is probing many fraud cases pegged to U.S. government assistance programs, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, unemployment insurance and Medicare. In May 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland launched a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force.
Last year, the U.S. Justice Department tapped federal prosecutor Kevin Chambers to lead its efforts to investigate fraudsters who used the pandemic as an excuse to bilk government assistance programs.
The report demonstrates "the significant fraud and identity theft that occurred under the prior administration due to the lack of basic anti-fraud controls, as well as how consequential were the Biden administration's quick actions to reinstate strong anti-abuse measures in these emergency small business programs," Gene Sperling, a senior adviser to President Joe Biden said in an emailed statement.
The watchdog report mentioned that in 2021 the U.S. Small Business Administration made improvements to its assistance program controls. Biden took office in January that year.
In September, the inspector general for the U.S. Labor Department said fraudsters likely stole $45.6 billion from the United States' unemployment insurance program during the coronavirus outbreak by applying tactics like using Social Security numbers of deceased individuals.
Also in September, federal prosecutors charged dozens of defendants, who were accused of stealing $250 million from a government aid program that was supposed to feed children in need during the pandemic.
(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by David Gregorio and Christopher Cushing)
Copyright © 2026 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.
