Watch & share highlights of the interview everyone is talking about!

'Remember, you're listening to Vladimir Putin, and you shouldn't take at face value anything he has to say,' Kirby said.

O'Keefe Media Group gains access to government-run illegal immigrant housing facility in Tucson, Arizona, being kept under wraps.

O'Keefe Media Group gains access to government-run illegal immigrant housing facility in Tucson, Arizona, being kept under wraps.

President Joe Biden’s White House counsel erupted over the special counsel’s report from the criminal investigation into Biden’s handling of classified material‚ specifically over portions of the report that highlighted Biden’s serious memory issues. Richard Sauber‚ Special Counsel to the President‚ and Bob Bauer‚ Biden’s personal counsel‚ wrote in a letter to Special Counsel Robert Hur that they “do not believe that the report’s treatment of President Biden’s memory is accurate or appropriate.” The report said that even though Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen‚” prosecutors concluded that “no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.” The report’s summation of Biden’s mental fitness could be highly damaging his re-election campaign as American voters overwhelmingly — 76% — have concerns about the 81-year-old’s mental and physical health. “Mr. Biden’s memory was significantly limited‚ both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017 [with whom he shared classified materials]‚ and in his interview with our office in 2023‚” the special counsel report said in its executive summary. “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.” Prosecutors said that based on the way Biden presents‚ jurors will “want to identify reasonable doubt” and that 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.” Biden’s lawyers claimed that the report used “highly prejudicial language to describe a commonplace occurrence among witnesses: a lack of recall of years-old events.” They claimed that the factual remarks from prosecutors “have no place in a Department of Justice report‚” adding that there was “ample evidence” that Biden “did well” when being questioned. Biden’s lawyers blamed the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel for Biden’s memory issues‚ saying that the interview took place the following day. The lawyers complained that the special counsel did not take issue with witnesses who were interviewed who could not remember past details‚ even though they were not under criminal investigation‚ unlike Biden. Biden’s lawyers attempted to downplay the seriousness of his memory problems‚ arguing his “inability to recall dates or details of events that happened years ago is neither surprising nor unusual.” However‚ as the special counsel’s report outlines‚ many of the details that Biden struggled to remember were major events‚ and he showed clear signs of memory issues during recordings from when he was interviewed by a ghostwriter in 2017. The interview with the ghostwriter‚ with whom Biden shared classified material‚ showed that even then‚ Biden was “struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries‚” the special counsel said‚ adding that even in 2017‚ he was showing signs of “diminished faculties and faulty memory.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “In his interview with our office‚ Mr. Biden’s memory was worse‚” Hur 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?”).” “He did not remember‚ even within several years‚ when his son Beau died‚” the report continued. “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. Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.” Biden’s lawyers claimed that the special counsel treated Biden “differently from other witnesses‚” even though Biden was the one under investigation‚ and that they described Biden’s memory “in prejudicial and inflammatory terms.” “You refer to President Biden’s memory on at least nine occasions‚ a number that is itself gratuitous‚” Biden’s lawyers complained. “But even among those nine instances‚ your report varies. It is one thing to observe President Biden’s memory as being ‘significantly limited’ on certain subjects. It is quite another to use the more sweeping and highly prejudicial language employed later in the report. This language is not supported by the facts‚ nor is it appropriately used by a federal prosecutor in this context.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas clashed on Thursday with a lawyer who argued in favor of Colorado removing former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment‚ an insurrection clause dating back to the Civil War. Jason Murray‚ the attorney who appeared on behalf of Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility over his actions leading up to the U.S. Capitol breach on January 6‚ 2021‚ struggled to come up with instances of national candidates being disqualified by states when pressed by the justice. Thomas asked Murray if he had any “contemporaneous examples‚” which the justice qualified as being “shortly after the adoption of the 14th Amendment‚ where the states disqualified national candidates — not its own candidates.” "I understand the states controlling state elections and state positions. What we are talking about here is national candidates‚" Justice Clarence Thomas said regarding respondents' inability to provide examples of states kicking national candidates off the ballot. pic.twitter.com/wxkiYOI8mt — The Federalist (@FDRLST) February 8‚ 2024 Murray referred to one instance‚ pertaining to an 1868 congressional election in Georgia‚ and said he thought it was “not surprising that there are few examples” because at that time‚ “candidates were either write-in or they were party ballots‚ so the states didn’t run the ballots in the same way and there wouldn’t have been a process for determining before an election whether a candidate was qualified unlike the processes that we have now.” Thomas countered by saying that during the Reconstruction era‚ there would still be a “plethora of Confederates still around” who might run for state or national offices‚ suggesting there would be “a few examples of national candidates being disqualified‚ if your reading is correct.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Murray contended that “certainly” there were national candidates “disqualified by Congress refusing to seat them‚” to which Thomas shot back by reminding the lawyer that they were talking about states disqualifying national candidates. “Other than the example I gave‚ no‚ but again‚ your honor‚ that’s not surprising because there wouldn’t have been — states certainly wouldn’t have the authority to remove a sitting federal officer‚” Murray said. As the exchange continued‚ Thomas explored the purpose of Section 3‚ saying the clause sought to address the concern that “former Confederate states would continue being bad actors and the effort was to prevent them from doing this.” Thomas posited that the thinking behind Section 3 was not “authorizing the South to disqualify national candidates‚” and yet he surmised that the idea underlies the argument being made by Murray to keep Trump off the ballot. He again pressed Murray for examples. Murray said historians filed briefs in support of his case making the point that “the idea of the 14th Amendment was that both states and the federal government would ensure rights and that if states failed to do so‚ the federal government certainly would also step in.” The lawyer went on to repeat that the reason why there are not more examples was because “elections worked differently” in the 19th century. “States have a background power under Article II in the 10th Amendment to run presidential elections‚” Murray said‚ adding that they did not “use that power to police ballot access until about the 1890s” when “everyone had received amnesty and these issues had become moot.”

Massachusetts police department is also featured in the investigation

I’ve helped rescue 235 Ukrainian children who were kidnapped by Russia‚ stolen from their families and country. Russia’s abduction‚ adoption‚ and indoctrination of Ukraine’s children is the most cynical element of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plan to erase the Ukrainian nation.  My organization‚ Save Ukraine‚ has only rescued only a small fraction of those abducted. […]

'Mayor Mahan and Mayor Breed continue to demonstrate leadership'

'It will be interesting to see the pivot'