On Tuesday’s Morning Joe, suggesting he had merely made a “mistake,” Joe Scarborough said he “got it wrong” when “I talked about Biden at his best.”
No, Joe. You didn’t make a “mistake.” And it’s not that you “got it wrong.” You lied. You looked into the camera, and angrily lied to your viewers. As we noted at the time, you said:
“Start your tape right now, because I’m about to tell you the truth. And f-you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I’ve known him for years. The Brzezinskis have known him for 50 years. If it weren’t the truth, I wouldn’t say it.”
It wasn’t the truth, but you did say it, Joe.
Biden was already exhibiting unmistakable signs of mental acuity loss as early as 2019. That’s why his handlers hid him in a Delaware basement during the 2019 primary and subsequent 2020 campaign.
But Scarborough’s “tell you the truth” about the best Biden ever didn’t come back then. It came five years later, in March of 2024, at a time when, as disclosed in the Tapper/Thompson book, Biden’s aides were so alarmed by his mental and physical incapacity that they contemplated putting him in a wheelchair.
Just three months after Scarborough’s angry outburst, Biden suffered his infamous “we finally ended Medicare” debate meltdown.
Scarborough tried to soft-pedal his lie, saying, “You see some facts, the facts change, you change your mind with those facts.” No, the debate disaster didn’t offer new “facts,” or change Scarborough’s mind. It’s simply that Biden’s primetime performance was so egregious that even diehard defenders like Scarborough could no longer deny the undeniable. (Even so, Mika Brzezinski still opposed driving him out of the race.)
Scarborough contrived that rosy depiction of his deception for the purpose of putting himself on a higher moral plane than the MAGA members who have changed their views on the Epstein matter. As you’ll see in the screencap, Scarborough mockingly imagined that it was the sprinkling of “magic pixie dust” on them that caused hardcore MAGA to muffle their criticism of the Trump administration.
Sort of like the dismal debate pixie dust that was sprinkled on you, Joe, causing you to see the light about Biden’s disability?
More at:
Brit Hume Explains Why Biden’s Autopen Story Is Much More Serious Than NBC News Suggests
Brit Hume weighed in on a podcast Tuesday about NBC News’ portrayal of former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen, calling out the network for downplaying the issue and failing to understand its seriousness.
NBC News published an article Tuesday reporting that House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, who is leading the investigation into Biden’s use of the autopen for pardons and other matters, often signs letters as part of the investigation using an autopen. During an appearance on the podcast “Next Up with Mark Halperin,” Hume dismissed the report as misguided and misleading.
“It’s perfectly clear, or should be, that nobody is talking about Mr. Biden’s use of the autopen for letters and other routine things. The concern, to the extent there is a concern, is about using the autopen for very serious official documents, such as pardons and the like,” Hume said.
Hume explained why he believed the story lacked substance and why NBC either misunderstood the issue or knowingly pushed a false narrative.
WATCH:
“Well, I’m afraid I think it’s the latter, Mark,” Hume said when host Mark Halperin asked if NBC knew the story was phony but wrote it on purpose, or if they were so deluded that they thought it was a real story. “As young journalists come along and they hear the story about an autopen being used by Mr. Biden, and, therefore, you know, anybody using the autopen becomes kind of an equivalent in their mind and imagination. And the next thing you know, you’ve got stories written about it.”
Hume said that while the use of the autopen for routine matters may raise concerns, the president’s power to grant pardons is so broad that it likely passes legal scrutiny.
“My own view is that the pardon power, which is what’s most often talked about, is so plenary, so nearly absolute, that if he chose to do it by saying certain categories of people should be pardoned and the staff then whipped up a group that fit the criteria, and the auto pen was used to do it, then that probably passes muster in the courts,” Hume said.
From December 2024 to January 2025, Biden signed only one pardon by hand: for his son Hunter. He used the autopen to issue 25 pardons and commutations during the same period.
Biden told the New York Times that he allowed his staff to use the autopen due to the high volume of clemency requests he had granted. The former president said he personally approved all pardons and commutations at the end of his term but instructed his staff to use the autopen on clemency warrants because of the large number involved.
As Biden granted clemency and pardons in large batches towards the end of his administration, he didn’t personally approve each name but signed off on the criteria and standards, according to the NYT report.
More at:
Federal Judge Takes Control of US Government
There is no basis in the Constitution or any Supreme Court decision to support the right of a court – any court – to interfere in congressional decisions to fund, or cease funding, a private organization.
Just days after the Supreme Court again made it clear that the separation of powers is sacrosanct, Indira Talwani, an Obama appointed federal judge in Massachusetts, has taken the unprecedented step of ordering the government to fund Planned Parenthood, purporting to enjoin implementation of a portion of the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) passed by Congress.
The BBB imposed a one-year ban on state Medicaid payments to health care nonprofits that offer abortions and also received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023. Three days after the president signed the BBB into law, Planned Parenthood sought a temporary restraining order (TRO). Without hearing from the government, complying with federal rules, or even providing an explanation, within hours after the filing, Talwani issued a TRO for at least 14 days that requires the government to spend money Congress declined to appropriate.
Four days later, the administration asked Talwani to dissolve the TRO because of its obvious infirmities. Instead, she doubled down, issuing an amended TRO that satisfied the technical requirements she had previously ignored.
I work with Planned Parenthood’s very capable lead lawyers. Without the facts or the law on their side, they did the right thing. They found a far-left federal judge who has repeatedly ruled against the Trump administration and is willing to create a constitutional crisis to advance a political cause.
Numerous Supreme Court decisions explain that merely because something is legal does not mean that Congress must fund it, or continue to do so. Just a few weeks ago, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court rejected Planned Parenthood’s challenge to South Carolina’s right to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. For more than 40 years, the Hyde Amendment has generally prohibited federal funding for abortion, and the court has repeatedly held that the government is under no contrary obligations (e.g., Maher v. Roe and Harris v. McRae).
Talwani’s order violates Article I of the Constitution, which could not be more clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Article I vests the power to authorize spending exclusively in Congress. In OPM v. Richmond (1989), the Supreme Court confirmed that the Appropriations Clause conveys a “straightforward and explicit command” that no money “can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.”
There is no basis in the Constitution or any Supreme Court decision to support the right of a court – any court – to interfere in congressional decisions to fund, or cease funding, a private organization. To the contrary, in Rust v. Sullivan (1991), the Supreme Court held that “the Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because the activity is constitutionally protected.”
Planned Parenthood’s main argument is the equivalent of jury nullification. Because it is the dominant provider of abortion services in the United States, limiting its ability to carry out its mission would deprive women of access to such services. Even if true, that is a political argument unsuccessfully made during the last election and during the debate over the BBB.
Planned Parenthood asserts that the BBB is an unconstitutional bill of attainder because the criteria for defunding effectively single it out. That absurd argument flies in the face of an unbroken line of cases that apply the Article I prohibition on bills of attainder only to criminal or quasi-criminal punishment. Congress often funds, or defunds, individuals and organizations. In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1971), the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that an individual or defined group is subject to a bill of attainder merely because Congress singles them out. Talwani did not mention bills of attainder in her amended TRO.
Planned Parenthood also claims that defunding its efforts constitutes viewpoint retaliation under the First Amendment, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Rust, the Supreme Court rejected similar claims. In its papers, Planned Parenthood cites no Supreme Court case compelling Congress to appropriate spending on these grounds.
Nonetheless, in her amended TRO, Talwani relied on the First and Fifth Amendments to justify issuance of the TRO. She also rejected the government’s concern that it would be harmed if it paid money to Planned Parenthood, because, she averred, the government likely would instead use the funds to pay another provider. By that logic, a mugger is only taking money that his victim would probably spend on something else.
The first hearing is on Friday. If Talwani does not relent, she can expect an unpleasant rebuke from appellate courts.
More at:
More Stories
The Chief Justice and His Wife Took $20 Million From Firms He Rules On. I’m Filing for His Disbarment Today
Surprise! En-Banc Appellate Court Restores ‘Ten Commandments’ Law in Texas
NEW: Iran Caves, Declares Strait of Hormuz “Completely Open” for All Commercial Ships – Trump Responds