President Barack Obama today spoke on “common-sense measures to reduce gun violence.” Full video and transcript.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE
University of Hartford
5:45 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Connecticut. (Applause.) Thank you. Well, thank you so much, everybody. Let me begin by thanking Nicole, and Ian, for your brave words. (Applause.) I want to thank them and all the Newtown families who have come here today, including your First Selectman, Pat Llodra. (Applause.) Nobody could be more eloquent than Nicole and the other families on this issue. And we are so grateful for their courage and willingness to share their stories again and again, understanding that nothing is going to be more important in making sure the Congress moves forward this week than hearing from them.
I want to thank all the educators from Sandy Hook Elementary who have come here as well — (applause) — the survivors —
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: We love you, Obama!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. I do. (Applause.)
— the survivors who still mourn and grieve, but are still going to work every day to love and raise those precious children in their care as fiercely as ever.
I want to thank Governor Malloy for his leadership. (Applause.) Very proud of him. I want to thank the University of Hartford for hosting us this afternoon. (Applause.) Thank you, Hawks. (Applause.) And I want to thank the people of Connecticut for everything youâ€™ve done to honor the memories of the victims — (applause) — because youâ€™re part of their family as well.
One of your recent alumni, Rachel Dâ€™Avino, was a behavioral therapist at Sandy Hook. Two alumni of your performing arts school, Jimmy Greene and Nelba Marquez-Greene, lost their daughter, Ana — an incredible, vibrant young girl who looked up to them, and learned from them, and inherited their talents by singing before she could talk.
So every family in this state was shaken by the tragedy of that morning. Every family in this country was shaken. We hugged our kids more tightly. We asked what could we do, as a society, to help prevent a tragedy like that from happening again.
And as a society, we decided that we have to change. We must. We must change. (Applause.)
I noticed that Nicole and others refer to that day as â€œ12/14.â€ For these families, it was a day that changed everything. And I know many of you in Newtown wondered if the rest of us would live up to the promise we made in those dark days — if weâ€™d change, too; or if once the television trucks left, once the candles flickered out, once the teddy bears were carefully gathered up, that the country would somehow move on to other things.
Over the weekend, I heard Francine Wheeler, who lost her son Ben that day, say that the four months since the tragedy might feel like a brief moment for some, but for her, it feels like itâ€™s been years since she saw Ben. And sheâ€™s determined not to let what happened that day just fade away. â€œWeâ€™re not going anywhere,â€ she said. â€œWe are here. And we are going to be here.â€ And I know that she speaks for everybody in Newtown, everybody who was impacted.
And, Newtown, we want you to know that weâ€™re here with you. We will not walk away from the promises weâ€™ve made. (Applause.) We are as determined as ever to do what must be done. In fact, Iâ€™m here to ask you to help me show that we can get it done. Weâ€™re not forgetting. (Applause.)
We can’t forget. Your families still grieve in ways most of us canâ€™t comprehend. But so many of you have used that grief to make a difference — not just to honor your own children, but to protect the lives of all of our children. So many of you have mobilized, and organized, and petitioned your elected officials â€œwith love and logic,â€ as Nicole put it — as citizens determined to right something gone wrong.
And last week, here in Connecticut, your elected leaders responded. The Connecticut legislature, led by many of the legislators here today, passed new measures to protect more of our children and our communities from gun violence. And Governor Malloy signed that legislation into law. (Applause.)
So I want to be clear. You, the families of Newtown, people across Connecticut, you helped make that happen. Your voices, your determination made that happen. Obviously, the elected leaders did an extraordinary job moving it forward, but it couldnâ€™t have happened if they werenâ€™t hearing from people in their respective districts, people all across the state. That’s the power of your voice.
And, by the way, Connecticut is not alone. In the past few months, New York, Colorado, Maryland have all passed new, common-sense gun safety reforms as well. (Applause.)
These are all states that share an awful familiarity with gun violence, whether itâ€™s the horror of mass killings, or the street crime thatâ€™s too common in too many neighborhoods. All of these states also share a strong tradition of hunting, and sport shooting, and gun ownership. Itâ€™s been a part of the fabric of peopleâ€™s lives for generations. And every single one of those states — including here in Connecticut — decided that, yes, we can protect more of our citizens from gun violence while still protecting our Second Amendment rights. Those two things donâ€™t contradict each other. (Applause.) We can pass common-sense laws that protect our kids and protect our rights.
So Connecticut has shown the way. And now is the time for Congress to do the same. (Applause.) Now is the time for Congress to do the same. This week is the time for Congress to do the same. (Applause.)
Now, back in January, just a few months after the tragedy in Newtown, I announced a series of executive actions to reduce gun violence and keep our kids safe. And I put forward common-sense proposals — much like those that passed here in Connecticut — for Congress to consider. And you’ll remember in my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to give those proposals a vote. And that moment is now.
As soon as this week, Congress will begin debating these common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence. Your senators, Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy — they’re here — (applause) — your Representatives, John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, Elizabeth Esty, Jim Hines, Joe Courtney, they are all pushing to pass this legislation. (Applause.) But much of Congress is going to only act if they hear from you, the American people. So hereâ€™s what we have to do.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. (Laughter.) Here’s what we’ve got to do. We have to tell Congress itâ€™s time to require a background check for anyone who wants to buy a gun so that people who are dangerous to themselves and others cannot get their hands on a gun. Letâ€™s make that happen. (Applause.)
We have to tell Congress itâ€™s time to crack down on gun trafficking so that folks will think twice before buying a gun as part of a scheme to arm someone who wonâ€™t pass a background check. Letâ€™s get that done. (Applause.)
We have to tell Congress itâ€™s time to restore the ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines, to make it harder for a gunman to fire 154 bullets into his victims in less than five minutes. Letâ€™s put that to a vote. (Applause.)
We have to tell Congress itâ€™s time to strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems get the treatment they need before itâ€™s too late. Letâ€™s do that for our kids and for our communities. (Applause.)
Now, I know that some of these proposals inspire more debate than others, but each of them has the support of the majority of the American people. All of them are common sense. All of them deserve a vote. All of them deserve a vote. (Applause.)
Consider background checks. Over the past 20 years, background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun. A group of police officers in Colorado told me last week that, thanks to background checks, theyâ€™ve been able to stop convicted murderers, folks under restraining orders for committing violent domestic abuse from buying a gun. In some cases, theyâ€™ve actually arrested the person as they were coming to purchase the gun.
So we know that background checks can work. But the problem is loopholes in the current law let so many people avoid background checks altogether. Thatâ€™s not safe. It doesnâ€™t make sense. If youâ€™re a law-abiding citizen and you go through a background check to buy a gun, wouldnâ€™t you expect other people to play by the same rules? (Applause.)
If youâ€™re a law-abiding gun seller, wouldnâ€™t you want to know youâ€™re not selling your gun to someone whoâ€™s likely to commit a crime? (Applause.) Shouldnâ€™t we make it harder, not easier for somebody who is convicted of domestic abuse to get his hands on a gun? (Applause.)
It turns out 90 percent of Americans think so. Ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. Think about that. How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything? (Laughter.) And yet, 90 percent agree on this — Republicans, Democrats, folks who own guns, folks who donâ€™t own guns; 80 percent of Republicans, more than 80 percent of gun owners, more than 70 percent of NRA households. It is common sense.
And yet, there is only one thing that can stand in the way of change that just about everybody agrees on, and thatâ€™s politics in Washington. You would think that with those numbers Congress would rush to make this happen. That’s what you would think. (Applause.) If our democracy is working the way itâ€™s supposed to, and 90 percent of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy youâ€™d think this would not be a heavy lift.
And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. Think about that. Theyâ€™re not just saying theyâ€™ll vote â€œnoâ€ on ideas that almost all Americans support. Theyâ€™re saying theyâ€™ll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions. Theyâ€™re saying your opinion doesnâ€™t matter. And thatâ€™s not right.
AUDIENCE: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: That is not right.
AUDIENCE: We want a vote!
THE PRESIDENT: We need a vote.
AUDIENCE: We want a vote! We want a vote!
THE PRESIDENT: We need a vote.
AUDIENCE: We want a vote!
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Iâ€™ve also heard some in the Washington press suggest that what happens to gun violence legislation in Congress this week will either be a political victory or defeat for me. Connecticut, this is not about me. This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence. (Applause.) Itâ€™s about them and all the families going forward, so we can prevent this from happening again. Thatâ€™s what itâ€™s about. Itâ€™s about the law enforcement officials putting their lives at risk. Thatâ€™s what this is about. This is not about politics. (Applause.) This is not about politics.
This is about these families and families all across the country who are saying letâ€™s make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
When I said in my State of the Union address that these proposals deserve a vote — that families of Newtown, and Aurora, and Tucson, and a former member of Congress, Gabby Giffords, that they all deserved a vote -â€“ virtually every member of that chamber stood up and applauded. And now theyâ€™re going to start denying your families a vote when the cameras are off and when the lobbyists have worked what they do? You deserve better than that. You deserve a vote.
Now, look, we knew from the beginning of this debate that change would not be easy. We knew that there would be powerful interests that are very good at confusing the subject, that are good at amplifying conflict and extremes, that are good at drowning out rational debate, good at ginning up irrational fears, all of which stands in the way of progress.
But if our history teaches us anything, then itâ€™s up to us â€“- the people -â€“ to stand up to those who say we canâ€™t, or we wonâ€™t; stand up for the change that we need. And I believe that thatâ€™s what the American people are looking for.
When I first ran for this office, I said that I did not believe the country was as divided as our politics would suggest, and I still believe that. (Applause.) I know sometimes, when you watch cable news or talk radio, or you browse the Internet, youâ€™d think, man, everybody just hates each other, everybody is just at each otherâ€™s throats. But thatâ€™s not how most Americans think about these issues. There are good people on both sides of every issue.
So if weâ€™re going to move forward, we canâ€™t just talk past one another. Weâ€™ve got to listen to one another. Thatâ€™s what Governor Malloy and all these legislative leaders did. Thatâ€™s why they were able to pass bipartisan legislation. (Applause.)
Iâ€™ve got stacks of letters from gun owners who want me to know that they care passionately about their right to bear arms, donâ€™t want them infringed upon, and I appreciate every one of those letters. Iâ€™ve learned from them. But a lot of those letters, what theyâ€™ve also said is theyâ€™re not just gun owners; theyâ€™re also parents or police officers or veterans, and they agree that we canâ€™t stand by and keep letting these tragedies happen; that with our rights come some responsibilities and obligations to our communities and ourselves, and most of all to our children. We canâ€™t just think about â€œusâ€ â€“- weâ€™ve got to think about â€œwe, the people.â€
I was in Colorado. I told a story about Michelle. She came back from a trip to rural Iowa; we were out there campaigning. Sometimes it would be miles between farms, let alone towns. And she said, you know, coming back, I can understand why somebody would want a gun for protection. If somebody drove up into the driveway and, Barack, you werenâ€™t home, the sheriff lived miles away, I might want that security. So she can understand what it might be like in terms of somebody wanting that kind of security.
On the other hand, I also talked to a hunter last week who said, all my experiences with guns have been positive, but I also realize that for others, all their experiences with guns have been negative.
And when he said that, I thought about the mom I met from suburban Chicago whose son was killed in a random shooting. And this mom told me, I hate it when people tell me that my son was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was on his way to school. He was exactly where he was supposed to be. He was in the right place at the right time, and he still got shot. (Applause.)
The kids at Sandy Hook were where they were supposed to be. So were those moviegoers in Aurora. So were those worshippers in Oak Creek. So was Gabby Giffords. She was at a supermarket, listening to the concerns of her constituents. (Applause.) They were exactly where they were supposed to be. They were also exercising their rights — to assemble peaceably; to worship freely and safely. They were exercising the rights of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So surely, we can reconcile those two things. Surely, America doesnâ€™t have to be divided between rural and urban, and Democrat and Republican when it comes to something like this.
If youâ€™re an American who wants to do something to prevent more families from knowing the immeasurable anguish that these families here have known, then we have to act. Now is the time to get engaged. Now is the time to get involved. Now is the time to push back on fear, and frustration, and misinformation. Now is the time for everybody to make their voices heard from every state house to the corridors of Congress.
And Iâ€™m asking everyone listening today, find out where your member of Congress stands on this. If theyâ€™re not part of the 90 percent of Americans who agree on background checks, then ask them, why not? Why wouldnâ€™t you want to make it easier for law enforcement to do their job? Why wouldnâ€™t you want to make it harder for a dangerous person to get his or her hands on a gun? Whatâ€™s more important to you: our children, or an A-grade from the gun lobby? (Applause.)
Iâ€™ve heard Nicole talk about what her life has been like since Dylan was taken from her in December. And one thing she said struck me. She said, â€œEvery night, I beg for him to come to me in my dreams so that I can see him again. And during the day, I just focus on what I need to do to honor him and make change.â€ Now, if Nicole can summon the courage to do that, how can the rest of us do any less? (Applause.) How can we do any less?
If there is even one thing we can do to protect our kids, donâ€™t we have an obligation to try? If there is even one step we can take to keep somebody from murdering dozens of innocents in the span of minutes, shouldnâ€™t we be taking that step? (Applause.) If there is just one thing we can do to keep one father from having to bury his child, isnâ€™t that worth fighting for?
I’ve got to tell you, I’ve had tough days in the presidency — I’ve said this before. The day Newtown happened was the toughest day of my presidency. But I’ve got to tell you, if we donâ€™t respond to this, that will be a tough day for me, too. (Applause.) Because we’ve got to expect more from ourselves, and we’ve got to expect more from Congress. We’ve got to believe that every once in a while, we set politics aside and we just do what’s right. (Applause.) We’ve got to believe that.
And if you believe that, I’m asking you to stand up. (Applause.) If you believe in the right to bears arms, like I do, but think we should prevent an irresponsible few from inflicting harm — stand up. Stand up. (Applause.)
If you believe that the families of Newtown and Aurora and Tucson and Virginia Tech and the thousands of Americans who have been gunned down in the last four months deserve a vote, we all have to stand up. (Applause.)
If you want the people you send to Washington to have just an iota of the courage that the educators at Sandy Hook showed when danger arrived on their doorstep, then weâ€™re all going to have to stand up.
And if we do, if we come together and raise our voices together and demand this change together, Iâ€™m convinced cooperation and common sense will prevail. We will find sensible, intelligent ways to make this country stronger and safer for our children. (Applause.)
So letâ€™s do the right thing. Letâ€™s do right by our kids. Letâ€™s do right by these families. Letâ€™s get this done. Connecticut, thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END 6:13 P.M. EDT
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Republicans Kill Bill to Protect IVF After Claiming They Fully Support It
After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled two weeks ago that frozen embryos are “children,” causing several medical facilities to pause their in-vitro fertilization services, Republicans rushed to get ahead of the growing national outrage.
Many Republicans insisted that although they oppose abortion and support the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, they did not think it would have effects this far-reaching. And they insisted, repeatedly, on-camera, they absolutely support in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
“Once you pass a law or accept the view that life begins at conception, IVF & some forms of birth control are at risk, along with abortion. It was never ‘just’ about abortion & women pay the price for all of it,” wrote professor of law and MSNBC legal contributor Joyce Vance on February 23. Three days later she added, “It’s pretty simple. If life begins at conception, IVF is off the table. If you make an exception for IVF then we’re just having a conversation about who you’re willing to make exceptions for.”
Republicans insisted they were willing to make an exception for IVF.
For years, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who has given birth to two children with the help of IVF, has tried to pass legislation to protect IVF.
Republicans each time have killed the bills.
Her latest attempt was Wednesday.
U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) on Wednesday spoke against the bill.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith blocks an attempt by Sen. Tammy Duckworth to enshrine access to IVF in federal law on Wednesday by saying it would legalize the creation of human cloning and “human-animal chimeras”
1) The bill does no such thing.
2) It’s not pronounced that way pic.twitter.com/0CbDd1LXGw
— Marcus Baram (@mbaram) February 29, 2024
Sen. Duckworth stamped out Hyde-Smith’s claims, saying, “She said at one point the bill would allow for chimeras — human-animal hybrids — it does nothing of the sort. All the bill says if you want to seek reproductive technology you can …”
Sen. Hyde-Smith then killed the bill by formally objecting to Duckworth’s bill on Wednesday, which the Illinois Democrat tried to pass via unanimous consent.
It was the second time in two years Sen. Hyde-Smith has killed that bill.
“They’re hanging this on Hyde-Smith. But the entire senate gop has now united to block a federal law to keep ivf legal,” observed Talking Points Memo publisher Josh Marshall. “They’re all coming out saying that frozen embryos are equal to living children.”
Also on Wednesday, the lone House Republican supporting legislation to protect IVF withdrew her sponsorship of that bill.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL), the only Republican in either chamber of Congress cosponsoring legislation to codify protections for IVF access nationwide, just withdrew her cosponsorship of the bill: pic.twitter.com/DaBAykcsri
— Aaron Fritschner (@Fritschner) February 29, 2024
The Biden campaign on Thursday blasted Republicans for claiming to support IVF then killing the bill that would have protected it.
NBC: Democrats, led by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, tried to expand IVF protections at the federal level, but Senate Republicans blocked the bill pic.twitter.com/ssq4fEQlKt
— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) February 29, 2024
Watch the videos above or at this link.
‘Injustice’: Experts Condemn Supreme Court’s ‘Fundamentally Corrupt’ Trump Decision
Legal and political experts were stunned by the Supreme Court announcing Wednesday it will take up Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, despite there being no contradiction in the lower courts. Compounding experts’ surprise and concern over granting certiorari was the length of time it took to announce the decision, and that they will not hear arguments until April 22.
“The Supreme Court heard and decided Bush v. Gore in THREE DAYS. THAT was expediting a case of national importance,” noted Tristan Snell, the former New York State prosecutor who led the successful investigation and $25 million prosecution of Donald Trump’s Trump University. “The Supreme Court apparently now thinks expediting means THREE MONTHS. Clearest evidence yet that SCOTUS is corrupt and broken.”
Professor of law and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann, the former FBI General Counsel who served at DOJ for decades, asked: “Why on god’s green earth did the S Ct [Supreme Court] not take the case earlier when the Special Counsel sought review directly from the District Court? They have really played into Trump’s hands.”
He adds: “The Supreme Court is going straight for the capillaries: an issue the DC criminal case does not raise, namely the outer bounds of a presidential immunity doctrine.”
Weissman Thursday morning noted that the Supreme Court’s actions essentially make Trump “de facto immune.”
“By granting the stay, [SCOTUS] is essentially saying that [Trump] is de facto immune…And I think it ends up being that they’ve given a win to Trump here, and I think they’re gonna give a win to Trump in the Colorado case as well.”
— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) February 29, 2024
Foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and author David Rothkopf replied, “I think you have answered your own question. The only reason to handle this the way they did is to, at best, play Trump’s delay game and, at worst, set the stage for one of the most indefensible, corrupt decisions (or outcomes) in US history.”
“Those who did not understand the urgency of stopping the threat posed by Trump, MAGA and the dark money right, those who did not actively hold them accountable with every available institutional tool, may have been the undoing of American democracy…no matter their intentions,” he noted.
“Let’s not beat around the bush, decision by the Supreme Court to hear the Trump immunity case is outrageous and, at its heart, fundamentally corrupt,” Rothkopf also wrote. “The Appeals Court decision was bullet proof and there is no case Trump has any sort of immunity. The decision not to hear it until late April makes further significant trial delays likely. They are deliberately delaying the trial without any reasonable legal reason to do so. This is a political decision and, in my estimation, an ugly one.”
“If a special counsel had been appointed early in 2021,” Rothkopf also wrote, “if Trump obstruction of justice had be prosecuted, if Trump had not been granted special treatment on his theft of classified documents, if the classified documents case had been brought in DC as it should have been, Trump might very well be in jail now.”
He also pointed to this monologue from MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, calling it “correct.”
.@chrislhayes: The SCOTUS order “was a clear unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of the Trump-created court that they are with him. That they are going to use their power to make sure that he does not face trial in an election year for attempting to end American democracy.” pic.twitter.com/fgrrP0tEw0
— All In with Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) February 29, 2024
University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University Laurence Tribe blasted “the SCOTUS decision to slow-walk Trump’s outrageous immunity claim — the claim everyone knows would be rejected 9-0 by any self-respecting court.”
Noting the Supreme Court could have taken up the case back in December, Tribe told CNN, “There’s nothing new under the sun” in this case. “It doesn’t make any sense to stretch this out this way.”
“We can be sure that they want to use this case to settle a whole broad range of issues, contrary to their supposed practice of deciding no more than you must decide. In fact, the Chief Justice once famously said, if we don’t have to decide something, that means we have to avoid deciding it. He’s obviously violated that mandate here and the struggle within the court results in injustice for the nation.”
Tribe also slammed the Court for choosing to announce it will decide “the broadest possible question.” He suggests they could stretch it out even more, by taking the case, hearing it, then sending it back to the lower courts again.
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) February 29, 2024
Daily Beast columnist and “recovering attorney” Wajahat Ali observed: “A thoroughly corrupt Supreme Court with right-wing justices bought out by conservative billionaires and beholden to Christian nationalism should not be expected to side with justice, the rule of law, or democracy. Elections matter.”
CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic on Wednesday said, The fact that they delayed this order … suggests that they certainly did not embrace the urgency that Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to impose upon them, way back in December.”
“Former President Trump’s effort to run the clock has a partner in the Supreme Court at this point,” she notes.
“Former President Trump’s effort to run the clock has a partner in the Supreme Court at this point.” pic.twitter.com/bjgbTxA1RP
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) February 28, 2024
Watch the videos above or at this link.
Comer Announces Public Hearing After Hunter Biden Closed Door Testimony
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer announced he will hold a public hearing with Hunter Biden after the president’s son testified behind closed doors for most of Wednesday.
“I think this was a great deposition for us, it proved several bits of our evidence, that we’ve been conducting throughout this investigation, but there are also some contradictory statements that I think need further review,” Comer told reporters Wednesday afternoon.
“So this impeachment inquiry will now go to the next phase, which will be a public hearing. And that’s something that I think everyone in the media has been asking a lot of questions about. Something that I know that Mr. Biden and his attorney both demanded, just as I said, when we said we were going to do the deposition first, we will have a public hearing next.”
It’s unclear what other witnesses Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan will present.
Comer claimed that parts of Hunter Biden’s testimony contradicted some of their previous witness’ testimony, although he refused to elaborate.
Hunter Biden stated in the opening remarks he released publicly Wednesday morning that Chairman Comer and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan had built their “entire partisan house of cards on lies told by the likes of Gal Luft, Tony Bobulinski, Alexander Smirnov, and Jason Galanis.”
“Luft, who is a fugitive, has been indicted for his lies and other crimes; Smirnov, who has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father, has been indicted for his lies; Bobulinski, who has been exposed for the many false statements he has made, and Galanis, who is serving 14 years in prison for fraud.”
Politico described Hunter Biden’s opening statement as “blistering.”
“I am here today,” the President’s son began, “to provide the Committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never.”
Watch Comer below or at this link.
Comer announces another impeachment public hearing pic.twitter.com/UjlWAs8zbb
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 28, 2024
- News2 days ago
‘Conspiring With Putin’: Democratic Congressman Brings the Hammer Down on Jim Jordan
- News2 days ago
House Republicans Move to Upstage SOTU With New Hur Investigation Subpoena and Hearing
- News1 day ago
Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story
- News2 days ago
At the White House Johnson Says Biden Must Use Executive Orders After Calling Them ‘Gimmicks’
- COMMENTARY2 days ago
Stephen Miller: Arrest ‘Commie’ Teachers, Use Government Power to ‘Defeat Evil’
- News2 days ago
Democratic Senators Now ‘Daring’ Republicans to Block IVF Protections: Report
- News1 day ago
‘MAGA-Motivated Conspiracies’: Hunter Biden Decimates Comer and Jordan in Opening Remarks
- News1 day ago
‘Neck Snapping’: Speaker Johnson’s Latest ‘Flip Flop’ Could Kick Shutdown Down the Road