Nation

Political Gambit or Defense Strategy? Hunter Biden’s Aggressive Testimony Plans Stir Democratic Intrigue

Published

1 year ago

November 28, 2023

As Hunter Biden prepares to testify before the House Oversight Committee, political dynamics within Democratic circles are taking center stage. Politico reports that some Democratic lawmakers are seemingly “betting on the political expediency of sacrificing Hunter,” according to a friend of the president’s son.

Hunter Biden’s decision to adopt a more aggressive stance in agreeing to testify publicly has triggered mixed reactions among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Two Democratic sources mentioned that the politics around Hunter Biden are perceived as “fixed” and that his offensive strategy is considered “all risk, no reward,” according to reports from Fox News. Concerns arise from the perceived lack of defense for Hunter Biden from fellow Democrats, prompting speculation about the political calculations at play.

“Intentionally or not, they’re betting on the political expediency of sacrificing Hunter,” remarked a friend of Hunter’s, highlighting the perceived political maneuvering within the Democratic Party.

Comments from Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler and Jamie Raskin, acknowledging Hunter Biden’s involvement in “improper” and “unlawful” activities, further fuel the political complexity surrounding the president’s son. However, Raskin has also criticized the investigation into Hunter Biden by GOP Rep. James Comer.

According to a former Biden-Harris 2020 campaign aide, some White House staffers are reportedly “irritated” by Hunter Biden’s plans to be more aggressive, citing concerns about the lack of alignment in tactics and strategy. However, individuals close to the president believe that this approach is long overdue.

Hunter Biden’s legal team keeps the president informed of their moves, emphasizing that the president stays out of his son’s legal affairs. The team communicates major decisions to top White House staff, but the strategy is ultimately determined by Hunter Biden and his lawyers.

Hunter Biden has offered to testify publicly before the House Oversight Committee on December 13, demanding that the proceedings be open to the public. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, expressed concerns about closed-door sessions potentially distorting facts and misinforming the public, advocating for transparency in the testimony.

As Hunter Biden’s legal strategy unfolds, the political balancing act within the Democratic Party continues, with divergent opinions on how to navigate the challenges posed by the president’s son’s legal affairs.

Click to comment

Immigration

Ninth Circuit Rules Federal Government Can Deport Illegal Immigrants

Published

1 hour ago

December 4, 2024

Sara Carter Staff

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal government’s authority to deport foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally. The decision came after objections from local jurisdictions, and therefore reaffirms federal immigration enforcement capabilities, and deals a blow to sanctuary policies aimed at obstructing deportations.

The case centered on a 2019 executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine, which barred the use of King County International Airport, near Seattle, for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation charter flights. The airport is adjacent to a major ICE operational base in Seattle, writes The Center Square.

Constantine’s order sought to prevent airport services from supporting ICE deportation flights, citing concerns about family separations, racial disparities in enforcement, and other human rights issues. The federal government, under the Trump administration, sued, arguing that the order violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, and a WWII-era Instrument of Transfer agreement allowing federal use of the airport.

A district court ruled in favor of the federal government, and King County appealed. Writing for the Ninth Circuit, Judge Daniel Bress, joined by Judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton, affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The panel ruled that Constantine’s order improperly targeted the federal government and its contractors, violating the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by “singling out the federal government and its contractors for unfavorable treatment.” The court further found that the order increased ICE’s operational costs and created imminent risks of further injury, thereby giving the federal government standing to sue.

Additionally, the judges upheld the claim that the order violated the Instrument of Transfer under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, which explicitly allows federal use of the airport.

Constantine defended the order as consistent with King County’s commitment to inclusivity and human rights. He argued that deportations conflict with the region’s values, including protecting families and promoting equity. However, the Ninth Circuit held that such ideological arguments could not override federal law and constitutional principles.