‘Failures' of Joe Biden exposed during committee hearing
Republican Senator Katie Britt has hit out at the Democrats for refusing to show up to a committee addressing the 'failures' of former US president Joe Biden.
The senator's comments came at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing named 'Unfit to Serve: How the Biden Cover-Up Endangered America and Undermined the Constitution'.
Senator Britt condemned the Democrats who did not attend the hearing, saying the American people 'deserve better'.
'You look at what the administration did, you look at what the democrat party did, you look at what the legacy media did, it is absolutely inexcusable, it is not only dangerous, it is disgusting,' she said.
Britt then drew into question Joe Biden's time as president and his most controversial decisions.
'When we're looking at what Joe Biden did while he was in office, you have a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving equipment, leaving allies, changing the way the world viewed us,' she said.
'You look at an emboldened Russia, Iran … you look at millions flooding across our border … you look at hundreds of thousands of Americans dead because of fentanyl poisoning … who was in charge?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Iran's envoy warns Australia to stay out of Middle East war
Iran's top local diplomat has warned against Australia supporting any US escalation of air strikes against his country's nuclear program, saying American intervention would widen the war and threaten commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, two major arteries for the world's oil supply. In an interview with AFR Weekend, ambassador Ahmad Sadeghi said any attempt to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as Israel's defence minister has suggested, would also be met with a fierce response.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Court lets Trump keep National Guard troops in LA
An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Most oblivious woman in America': Jasmine Crockett claims Biden's mental state was ‘supreme'
Author and commentator Adam B Coleman has slammed Democrat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett for claiming former US president Joe Biden possessed a 'supreme' mental acuity. 'It was bad enough for every Democrat to get behind and force Joe Biden to step down,' Mr Coleman told Sky News host James Morrow. 'She's apparently the most oblivious woman that exists in America.'
