President Biden’s reelection campaign just released more details about his upcoming trip to the area on Saturday.
The president plans to deliver a speech near Valley Forge to mark three years since the January 6 Capitol attack.
He will lay out what he sees as the stakes of the 2024 election: a fight for democracy and freedom.
The location is significant, as it is near the spot where General George Washington transformed militias into a force that defeated the British to create a new nation.
The trip will be Biden’s first campaign event of 2024.
Former President Trump, the GOP front-runner, will hold a rally in Iowa on January 6, ahead of the Iowa caucuses in less than two weeks.
President Joe Biden plans to mark three years since the 2021 Capitol riot with a speech at Valley Forge, where George Washington staged American troops during the Revolutionary War.
His remarks in Pennsylvania on Saturday are intended to frame the 2024 presidential election as a fight for democracy. Mr. Biden’s reelection campaign said he will also be making a speech next week at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, the site of the 2015 shooting by a white supremacist. There, Mr. Biden aims to draw a contrast with former President Donald Trump and the “anti-freedom agenda” of his “[Make America Great Again] apostles,” the Biden campaign says.
“When Joe Biden ran for president four years ago, he said we are in a ‘battle for the soul of America,’ and as we look towards November 2024, we still are,” Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said during a campaign strategy briefing on Wednesday.
Trump was the primary focus of the briefing by top Biden campaign officials, who mentioned him more than a dozen times during a session that lasted under 30 minutes.
“The threat that Donald Trump posed in 2020 to American democracy has only grown more dire in the years since,” Chavez Rodriguez said, adding the Biden reelection campaign is being run like the “fate of our democracy depends on it — because it does.”
Two weeks before the first Republican presidential primary contest in Iowa, Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler said if another Republican presidential candidate besides Trump wins the nomination, the candidate will “have done so by hard tacking to the most extreme positions that we have seen in recent American history.”
“Obviously, we have Donald Trump out here promising to rule as a dictator on day one, but every last one—[Nikki] Haley, [Ron] DeSantis—they’re about extreme abortion bans,” Tyler said, in addition to noting Haley’s recent campaign trail omission of slavery as a cause of the Civil War.
The Biden campaign did not say if or when the pace of Mr. Biden’s campaign trail appearances will pick up, but campaign sources have told CBS News the sitting president’s travel will mostly focus on official White House duties until an official Republican presidential nominee emerges.
Campaign officials said the president and Vice President Kamala Harris on Jan. 22 will use the 51st anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which granted abortion access nationwide until it was struck down in 2022, to make clear that the Biden campaign focus on “freedom” isn’t just rhetoric. The campaign also plans to point out book banning, criticize corporate interests and stress the importance of free and fair elections.
President Joe Biden has an Iowa problem. While the incumbent has the Democratic nomination on lock, the general election presents a much heavier lift. Why? Not only does the state historically flip-flop between parties, but the White House’s hostility towards heartland farmers is glaring. And Hawkeye State voters are taking notice.
As Congressman Randy Feenstra of Iowa noted earlier this year, “President Biden has absolutely turned his back against the American farmer.”
The rocky landscape for Biden will provide the eventual Republican nominee a big opportunity in Iowa and across the Midwest. A common-sense policy agenda that strengthens family farming, rather than strangling it with government red tape and opening the door to novel threats, is what will boost political support.
A big part of Biden’s electoral ball and chain is action taken by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year. The federal agency finalized a rule that repealed a Trump-era standard governing how natural water sources are regulated. The change meant farmers would face elevated scrutiny over how they use creeks, drainage ditches, and other water on their own property.
Fortunately, the Biden administration was stopped by the judiciary. Following a unanimous Supreme Court decision, the EPA was forced to weaken the regulation — restoring farmer autonomy over their own land. But given this White House’s track record of using backdoor approaches to sidestep court rulings (see student loan forgiveness), property owners shouldn’t get too comfortable.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has also opened the door to an experimental food product that could devastate animal agriculture. This summer, the federal government greenlit lab-grown meat for consumer sale. It’s made by putting animal cells into a bioreactor where they are left to multiply via chemical stimulation. The cells — which grow and divide indefinitely — mimic the behavior of a tumor.
A shift in food production away from traditional animal agriculture will upend rural communities across the country. Rather than grocery stores and restaurants being stocked with animal protein raised on Iowa or Nebraska farms, the food could be sourced from a sterile, stainless-steel factory. Family-owned farms that have provided the country food security for generations would be kneecapped — destroying a proud American tradition.
The Biden administration’s decision is even more puzzling given lab-grown meat’s unknown health effects and estimated large environmental footprint. The University of California, for example, finds that scaling up production of lab-grown meat would be “highly energy intensive.” The authors conclude the global warming potential of the process could be up to 25 times greater than traditionally raised beef.
And then there’s the White House’s lackluster effort to shield farmers from policies pushed by fringe animal liberation groups.
Exhibit A is California’s Proposition 12, which forbids the sale of conventionally raised and veterinarian approved pork in the state. While California raises little pork within its borders, its massive consumer base means farmers in states like Iowa are financially forced to follow the standards. And that compliance is expensive, driving many out of business and further inflating food prices for low-income Iowans.
While the Biden administration initially opposed Proposition 12 during an unsuccessful legal maneuver, the White House has since been radio silent. With legislation proposed in Congress to protect the country’s food supply chain and family farmers, the West Wing has failed to apply sufficient political pressure to deliver an adequate legislative fix. The lack of presidential leadership on the issue suggests the administration prioritizes blue-haired activists over farmers and low-income families.
As we approach the 2024 general election, Biden is facing an uphill climb with voters in Iowa and other more rural areas of the country. The current White House often gives them lip service, but when push comes to shove, proposes policies that compromise the very industry they depend upon to keep food on their — as well as everyone else’s — table.
The Biden administration should rethink its policy agenda around agriculture for the sake of farmers and its own electoral future. Otherwise, the Republican opponent will swoop in for the win.
Did Joe Biden counsel his son to defy a congressional subpoena? The House Oversight and Judiciary Committee chairs want to know as part of their impeachment inquiry because if the president colluded with Hunter Biden over the latter’s refusal to appear for questioning, Joe Biden committed the crime of obstruction of justice. Yet, ironically, it is Donald Trump charged with criminal obstruction of justice even though the former president did nothing to keep evidence or witnesses from Congress.
Last Wednesday, Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, and Rep. Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee Chair, dispatched a letter to the White House counsel concerning the president’s apparent communications with his son regarding Hunter’s decision to defy a congressional subpoena. As the letter detailed, the House had subpoenaed Hunter Biden to appear for a Dec. 13, 2023, deposition as part of its impeachment inquiry. However, rather than appear for his deposition, Hunter Biden instead held a lengthy press conference at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 13.
Later that day, when asked whether the president had watched Hunter’s performance, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Biden was “certainly familiar with what his son was going to say.” As the House’s letter noted, “Ms. Jean-Pierre’s statement suggests that the President had some amount of advanced knowledge that Mr. Biden would choose to defy two congressional subpoenas.”
“In light of Ms. Jean-Pierre’s statement,” the letter continued, “we are compelled to examine the involvement of the President in his son’s scheme to defy the Committees’ subpoenas.”
Comer and Jordan cited two federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a), that President Biden potentially violated. Section 1505 is part of the federal criminal code that criminalizes “Obstruction of Justice” offenses, providing that “whoever corruptly … endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any investigation or inquiry is being had by … any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress,” is subject to a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. Section 2(a), for its part, creates criminal liability for anyone who, in the commission of a crime, “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procedures.”
Based on the press secretary’s statement that President Biden was “certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” to determine whether the president violated section 1505 or 2(a), Comer and Jordan requested from the White House any documents or communications exchanged by the Executive Office of the President and Hunter Biden and his legal team concerning the deposition of the president’s son.
It is unlikely the White House will comply with the House’s request for such documents. And if pushed on whether he discussed Hunter’s decision to ignore the subpoena, President Biden seems sure to rebuff the suggestion with the same force he exerted to deny ever discussing Hunter Biden’s business dealings.
Of course, the evidence is now overwhelming that Joe Biden not only spoke with Hunter about his business dealings but communicated regularly with his son’s business partners and met and spoke with foreigners who paid Hunter millions — with some of that money being directly traced to Joe Biden.
Adding obstruction of justice to the impeachment inquiry seems like chump change in comparison to charges of bribery and the selling of influence, but there is a delicious irony revealed by the House’s latest salvo: If Joe Biden colluded with his son to keep Hunter from complying with the congressional subpoena, that would actually constitute the crime of obstruction of justice, whereas Trump currently faces two criminal charges for obstruction of justice for conduct that doesn’t even appear to qualify as a crime.
As detailed Tuesday at The Federalist, Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with violating two subsections of § 1512(c) — another section of the criminal chapter covering obstruction of justice. The special counsel’s charges seek to hold Trump criminally liable for the events of Jan. 6, 2021, claiming the former president’s conduct “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding,” namely the certification of the electoral vote.
Smith’s theory, however, ignores the framework of § 1512(c), which only criminalizes conduct that impairs in some way evidence for use in an official proceeding, such as the alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of “a record, document, or other object…” When interpreting a similar “otherwise” catchall clause, the Supreme Court has held that “the statute covers only similar crimes.”
The Supreme Court, when it hears an appeal concerning the scope of § 1512(c) later this year, is extremely likely to similarly hold that federal statute only criminalizes conduct that impairs the availability of evidence for an official proceeding — something the special counsel does not claim Trump did on Jan. 6, 2021.
In that case, the bottom line will be that the Biden administration charged Trump with obstruction of justice for conduct that was not a crime, while Joe Biden may have engaged in conduct that actually qualified as such a crime if he collaborated with Hunter to ignore the congressional subpoena.
The level of projection at play with this administration would be hilarious if it weren’t so damn damaging to our country.