Yearly Archives: 2024

President Joe Biden addressed the nation late Thursday to respond to news that the special counsel tasked with investigating his handling of classified documents had chosen not to charge him, but also questioned his mental capacity.

The blockbuster special counsel report, while clearing Biden, sparked questions about Biden’s mental fitness when it called him an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Biden is 81 years old.

“The special counsel released his findings today about their look into my handling of classified documents,” Biden said. “I was pleased to see he reached the firm conclusion that no charges should be brought against me in this case. This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970’s when I was still a United States Senator.”

During the remarks, Biden blamed his staff for the handling of classified documents and attempted to dispel questions about his memory.

As The Center Square previously reported, Special Counsel Robert Hur said Thursday that he found evidence that Biden "willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen" but said the evidence "does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The nearly 400-page report said Biden did not commit a crime but that he was careless with the documents.

"We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter," the report said. "We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president."

Former President Donald Trump faces charges for the same allegations of mishandling classified documents, one of his multiple indictments across several states. Former Vice President Mike Pence was also not charged though he did hold on to classified documents and then return them after leaving office.

Biden came under investigation for the same allegations after federal authorities found classified documents stored at his home in Delaware as well as one of his offices in Washington, D.C.

“I was especially pleased to the Special Counsel make clear the stark distinction and difference between this case and Mr. Trump’s case,” Biden continued.

Biden argued he more readily handed over any documents and cooperated with federal authorities while Trump did not. Biden said he cooperated completely with the investigation and gave a five-hour interview in person with the special counsel.

Biden also argued the headlines about his willful retention of documents are misleading.

The special counsel made note of Biden’s poor memory in the report, saying the president could not remember key events such as the details of when he was vice president or when his son died.

Biden made a point to address those concerns late Thursday.

“How in the hell dare he raise that,” Biden said. “Frankly, when I was asked the question I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business. Let me tell you something.

“I don’t need anyone to remind me when he passed away,” Biden said, arguing that he was managing the Israel-Hamas crisis while dealing with the special counsel’s interview.

“The bottom line is the matter is now closed,” Biden said.

Reporters immediately questioned Biden about his memory Thursday evening after his remarks.

“My memory is fine,” Biden responded, before pointing to his accomplishments since taking office.

Notably, while answering a question from a reporter about the Israel-Gaza conflict, Biden appeared to call Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi the president of Mexico.

Biden's political opponents online immediately responded to that blunder in what is the first of likely months of ongoing attacks on his mental fitness.

"Joe Biden is unfit for the office of the presidency," U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, late Thursday. "President el Sisi is the President of Egypt not Mexico."

When asked why he should be the Democrat to take on Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, Biden said he is the most qualified.

“I did not break the law,” Biden said to reporters. “Period.”

The DOJ report lays out Biden's mishandling of classified documents but said ultimately mitigating factors prevented a formal legal charge.

"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," Hur said. "These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home."

One of those mitigating factors, according to the special counsel report, was that jurors would be sympathetic to Biden's poor memory.

"In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden's memory was worse," the report said. "He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended ('if it was 2013 - when did I stop being Vice President?'), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began ('in 2009, am I still Vice President?')"

President Joe Biden won't be charged with a crime over his handling and sharing of classified documents.

The 388-page Justice Department report found that Biden was careless with classified documents, but didn't commit a crime.

Read the full report here:

President Joe Biden won't be charged with a crime for his handling and sharing of classified documents, but the report clearing him of wrongdoing raises questions about his memory.

The 81-year-old President is seeking another four-year term. After years of gaffes, on and off the campaign trail, the 388-page special counsel report highlights Biden's trouble remembering things, including the year his son died.

"In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden's memory was worse," according to the report. "He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended ("if it was 2013 - when did I stop being Vice President?"), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began ("in 2009, am I still Vice President?"). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he 'had a real difference' of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama."

That's not the only time Biden's memory is mentioned in the report.

"Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023," according to the report.

Another part said jurors would be sympathetic given Biden's memory.

"Given Mr. Biden's limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghostwriter and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence," according to the report.

That was repeated elsewhere in the lengthy report.

"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," according to the report. "Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."

(The Center Square) – One of the Republicans in charge of the legislature’s audit committee made strong accusations for against Gov. Tony Evers’ administration over nearly $100 million in COVID-19 relief interest.

Sen. Eric Wimberger, R-Green Bay, on Tuesday grilled the Secretary of the Department of Administration, Kathy Blumenfeld, over an audit from December of last last year that shows the state accrued $97.2 million in interest on the $3 billion the federal government sent Wisconsin as part of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds in the American Rescue Plan.

Wimberger and other Republican lawmakers say the $97 million should be returned to the state’s general fund.

But Blumenfeld and the Evers’ Administration wants to keep the money in a special account, which Wimberger said the governor wants to spend on his own.

“It just seems like the things that the DOA is doing is over the edge. It's beyond awful. And who is personally responsible, and whether the agency is responsible, I guess it's up in the air,” Wimberger said during a hearing.

“We feel confident in our position,” Blumenfeld told lawmakers. “These funds were received by the federal government, and therefore they belong to the federal appropriation. We don’t feel like we have the statutory authority to transfer them to the general fund.”

Blumenfeld said she and the DOA are waiting for clarification as to how the money can be spent.

Republican lawmakers have been advocating for years to have some control over how Wisconsin spends its federal money. Those calls ramped up after the pandemic, and a string of questions about how the Evers Administration spent the billions of dollars the state received.

Wimberger said allowing the governor to hoard all of Wisconsin’s federal money is dangerous.

“If the federal government can give the state money, and the governor is in control of all the money that's given by the federal government, and then can accrue interest in a way that is untouchable by the legislature or the there's no power of the person anymore, there is essentially a shadow government where the executive branch has control of not only federal money but in an untouchable interest account to the tune of $100 million dollars in growing so far,” Wimberger said.

(The Center Square) – Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says Democrats in the state continue to hate him for what he did more than a decade after he took office. But he said the current redistricting effort, and the political change that could follow, are more a reflection of the feft’s hate for former President Trump.

Walker told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber the effort to flip Wisconsin toward Democrats is a direct result of last spring’s election that flipped the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

And that election, Walker said, is a direct result of the Democrat’s fundraising and campaigning in the state.

“It is a reflection of what happens when the feft is driven largely by their hate and disdain nationally for President Trump. They see Wisconsin is a key state, which it is. And they've just been better at Republicans and conservatives at pouring money into things like the supreme court race,” Walker said. “It's hard to deny the enormous advantage that was held by the liberal candidate in that race and then they were really good at targeting. You know they put a million and a half just into the University of Wisconsin campus at Madison.”

Walker added that the new liberal-majority Supreme Court now needs to decide what it will do with its majority.

“We have to wake up to the reality that with this new liberal majority, they're kind of setting aside judicial restraint and basically doing what [Justice Janet Protasiewicz] said during the campaign, which was she's going to throw the maps out, that she's going to throw Act 10 out, and she's going to do the other things,” Walker explained. “The rest of the justices have to decide whether they want to be justices or they're just going to be political hacks.”

Walker said Act 10, which radically transformed how teachers unions could negotiate with their local schools, remains popular with both taxpayers and local school leaders. He said Act 10 has saved the people of Wisconsin nearly $20 billion since it became law in 2011, and he said many local superintendents and school board members would be sad to see it overturned.

“People need to realize this, if [Act 10] gets reversed, it doesn't go back to the way it was years and years ago. It means all this money that right now is actually going into the classroom, that's able to reward exceptional teachers, that’s able to put curriculum and things for kids in the classroom could potentially now be sucked up by the union bosses, and used for all sorts of outrageous things,” the former governor said. “It would take money out of the classroom we we be back at where we were the year before I took office.”

(The Center Square) – Some Democrats at the Wisconsin Capitol want the state to help save local newsrooms.

Two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Jimmy Anderson, D-Fitchburg, and Sen Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloint, introduced three pieces of legislation they hope will save local journalism.

The first would be a local journalism fellowship that would pay a handful of young reporters $40,000 to start their career in a local newsroom. The lawmakers are also pitching a 50% tax credit for newspaper subscriptions and a Wisconsin Civic Information Consortium.

“The Civic Information Consortium will boost local news coverage and civic engagement across the state, with a focus on addressing information gaps in communities long underserved by the commercial news market,” Spreitzer said. “A similar model in New Jersey has already allocated more than $6 million over just the past few years, uplifting Innovative new approaches to civic media and supporting news coverage in pockets of the state that have long been ignored by mainstream news beats.”

Anderson said there is a need for someone to do something to bolster local news in Wisconsin and across the country.

“Local news is dying. Over the past 20 years, a quarter of American newspapers have shuddered, and an average of two papers close down almost every week. Surviving newsrooms have been bought by venture capital firms and consolidated, often leading to massive layoffs. I think we saw just the past couple weeks there's a report of even more layoffs at the LA Times for instance,” Anderson added. “As our news diets are becoming increasingly nationalized, televised and sensationalized, the way we engage with our politics has changed for the worse. The news we consume today leaves us feeling disaffected, powerless, angry, and often serves to enforce tribal loyalties. In fact, decreased access to local journalism has been associated with higher levels of partisanship polarization and other negative affects voter turnout.”

The Wisconsin Newspaper Association supports the plan because it would mainly benefit the state’s newspaper industry. Advocates with Free Press Action also support the proposal. Free Press Action has a history of pushing for more government involvement in the news industry and a history of opposing media companies and the free market approach to new journalism.

The plan in Wisconsin comes after Democrats in Illinois pitched a similar proposal in their state earlier this month.

Former President Donald Trump will remain on the Illinois ballot after the State Board of Elections dismissed a challenge alleging he was ineligible because of his challenging the results of 2020 election.

The elections board, in a bipartisan 7-1 vote, said it did not have the jurisdiction to remove Trump from the ballot.

A hearing officer had earlier recommended Trump’s name be removed.

The primary in Illinois is March 19. The General Election is Nov. 5.

This story is developing and will be updated.

(The Center Square) – As expected, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the political maps that he mostly drew.

Evers on Tuesday said he scuttled the so-called 99% maps because they were too favorable to Republicans.

“These maps are more the same. Republicans passed maps to help make sure Republican-gerrymandered incumbents get to keep their seats. Folks, that's just more gerrymandering,” Evers said. “Allowing politicians to move district lines so that their party can retain political power doesn't help root out gerrymandering from our democracy, it further entrenches it. And that's wrong.”

The maps the governor drew moved dozens of incumbent Republicans into new districts. Republicans moved some of those lawmakers back but largely left the governor’s maps unchanged.

Evers has denied he gerrymandered Wisconsin with his maps that would give Democrats control over the state legislature. Instead, he calls them fair maps.

“I have never been more hopeful that when Wisconsinites head to the ballot box later this year, they'll be voting under legislative maps that finally reflect the people of the state,” Evers explained. “Wisconsin voters don't want Republican or Democrat maps because Wisconsin isn't a red state, or blue state, or purple state. And our map should reflect that basic fact.”

Republicans weren’t surprised by Evers’ veto.

“This just proves that the governor is counting on the $10 million purchase of our Wisconsin State Supreme Court to unconstitutionally draw completely slanted maps to give a desired outcome,” Rep Barb Dittrich, R-Oconomowoc, said on social media Tuesday.

“Gov. Evers just vetoed a ‘Fair Map’ he claimed he wanted,” Wisconsin Republican Party boss Brian Schimming said in a statement. “What he really wants is obvious: to have the legislative map decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that his party just bought and paid for. It’s as simple as that.”

The Center Square) – Act 10, the law that fundamentally weakened Wisconsin’s public school teachers’ unions, is headed back to court. And again there is an effort to save it.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on Monday filed a motion to join the new case that seeks to end Act 10. That case claims there was “no conceivable rational basis” for Act 10 to begin with.

“There is no question that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 significantly changed labor relations in Wisconsin. But since Act 10’s enactment over a decade ago, state and federal courts have repeatedly rebuffed constitutional challenges to the law by those who oppose it,” WILL wrote in its memo to the court. “Both the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and Seventh Circuit in [the Walker case] had little trouble concluding that Wisconsin was free to distinguish between public safety and general employees, with the latter labeling this conclusion as ‘uncontroversial.’”

The latest challenge to Act 10 comes is a claim the law violates equal protection requirements by treating public safety employees like police officers differently than public school teachers.

“Not only has Act 10 survived more than a decade of state and federal court challenges, but it set a national precedent for protecting the freedom of taxpayers and state employees everywhere. WILL is proud to once again be on the side of Act 10. Wisconsin cannot afford to go backwards on this important issue,” WILL’s Lucas Vebber said in a statement.

WILL is asking to join the case on behalf of Kristi Koschkee, who it describes as an employee at a public school district.

“She does not want her local union interfering with her relationship with her employer by bargaining on subjects beyond those permitted by Act 10 or entering agreements that last longer than a year; she supports requiring unions to recertify annually, does not want to have her decision to abstain from a union certification vote work in the union’s favor, and does not want to be pressured into participating in recertification elections; and she opposes allowing unions to access employee wages directly through payroll deductions,” WILL’s court memo stated.

Former Gov. Scott Walker signed Act 10 in 2011. It limited teachers unions in Wisconsin to negotiating only salaries, and stopped unions from including other benefits in their regularly scheduled contract negotiations.

Conservatives estimate that Act 10 has saved taxpayers in Wisconsin over $17 billion in the decade-plus that it’s been a law.

A coalition of state attorneys general sent a letter Monday to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas backing Texas in its border battle with the Biden administration.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defied the Biden administration last week, making clear he would continue to put up concertina wire fencing at the southern border to help stop the flow of illegal immigration, which has soared since Biden took office.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue last week, saying federal agents could continue to remove the concertina wire, but the ruling did not prohibit Texas from installing the border defenses. Abbott said after the ruling that the federal government had broken its pact with the states for not stopping what more than 50 Texas counties have declared an “invasion.”

That court case is the latest touchpoint for the ongoing immigration crisis and frustration of many border states and Republicans who argue Biden is willfully aiding millions of illegal immigrants get into the U.S.

“Since the Biden Administration has failed to do its job and secure the border, states like Texas have stepped up to protect their citizens,” the letter said. “A federal district court found that Texas’s border defense wires reduced illegal border crossings by more than two-thirds. Those barriers protect not just Texans from millions of illegal border crossings, but the rest of the nation.”

More than 10 million illegal immigrants have entered the U.S. since Biden took office, more than the population of about 40 U.S. states.

An impeachment effort is underway in the House for Mayorkas, the recipient of this letter, over similar concerns about the lack of border enforcement and Mayorkas policies.

The Biden administration has blamed Republicans, saying they have not passed the needed funding to secure the border. Republicans have pushed back, saying Biden’s changes to things like asylum policies have turned border agents into a processing and entry program instead of deterrence.

The Monday letter sided with Texas and said states “have an independent duty to defend against invasion.”

The letter was signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The leadership of the Arizona state legislature signed as well.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes co-led the effort.

“The invasion on our southern border has made every state a border state,” Bird said in a statement. “While the Biden Administration has opened the door wide for drug cartels, traffickers, and potential terrorists to cross our border, States have been left to fend for themselves. If the Biden Administration won’t do its job to secure our border and keep Americans safe, it should step aside to let the States do the job for them. Iowa proudly stands with Texas in this fight.”

Notably, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, introduced the “State Border Security Act” last week, which would block federal agents from “dismantling, removing, destroying” border barriers installed by states.