Morning Wire XX
[0] Ukraine's president is back in D .C. urging Congress to approve more aid before the Christmas recess, but Republicans have some conditions.
[1] The issue is with the White House and the Senate, and I implore them to do their job because the time is urgent.
[2] I'm Daily Wire, editor -in -chief John Bickley, with Georgia Howe.
[3] It's Wednesday, December 13th, and this is Morning Wire.
[4] The House is set to vote today on whether to formally launch an impeachment inquiry against President Biden.
[5] You've got a politician who does certain things.
[6] Those actions benefit his family financially, and then there's an effort to conceal it and sweep it under the rug.
[7] Will Republicans have the vote, and how will it impact the investigation?
[8] And Harvard's board allows Claudeen Gay to keep her job as president.
[9] Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire.
[10] Stay tuned.
[11] We have the news you need to know.
[12] Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky visited Washington this week, meeting with President Biden and pleading with lawmakers in Congress to approve more funding for his country's war against Russia.
[13] Here with more on the high -stakes visit and the debate over -continued funding for Ukraine is Daily Wire's senior editor, Cabot Phillips.
[14] Hi, Cabot.
[15] So tell us what we're hearing out of Washington this week.
[16] Well, throughout the last month, President Biden has been putting pressure on Congress to approve his enormous spending proposal that would offer $60 billion in additional funding for Ukraine.
[17] But that measure has faced growing opposition from Republican lawmakers.
[18] However, this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr's Linsky appeared in Washington, hoping to sway members on the fence and secure funding before the year's end.
[19] On Monday nights, Linsky met with the leaders of America's largest defense contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, offering thanks for their support and urging them to help him build support for Ukraine and Washington.
[20] Then on Tuesdays, Linsky headed to the Capitol to meet with lawmakers in both chambers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, before heading to the White House for a meeting with President Biden.
[21] A year ago, Zelensky was greeted as a hero in Washington by both parties, and a package like this likely would have gained bipartisan support.
[22] But as the war is dragged on, voter sentiment on continued funding has clearly begun to Wayne.
[23] A poll this week from the Financial Times found that a plurality of Americans, 48 percent, now say the U .S. is spending too much money on Ukraine.
[24] That is compared to just 11 percent who say we are not spending enough.
[25] President Biden is well aware of that reality and knows that a standalone package would be unlikely to pass in Congress.
[26] So he included the $60 billion for Ukraine in a broader spending package that also offers new funding for things more popular with Republicans, including military aid for Israel and Taiwan.
[27] So he's hoping to slip it in there.
[28] Right.
[29] But so far, Republicans are still standing firm against more funding for Ukraine.
[30] Yeah, to this point, they have held out on supporting the president's plan, saying they'll only consider it if Democrats agree to Democrat.
[31] immigration reform and include funding to secure the southern border.
[32] Coming out of his meeting with Zelensky, House Speaker Mike Johnson voiced some of that anger with the White House, saying Republicans want more clarity on how U .S. dollars would be spent in Ukraine.
[33] We needed clarity on what we're doing in Ukraine and how we'll have proper oversight of the spending of precious taxpayer dollars in the American citizens, and we needed a transformative change at the border.
[34] Thus far, we've gotten neither.
[35] So a lack of oversight and attention to the border really holding this up.
[36] And what are we hearing from Democrats?
[37] Yeah, Democrats have essentially painted the debate over funding as a choice between democracy or dictatorship and say that cutting off aid will only benefit Putin.
[38] To that point, here's Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer following his meeting with Slinsky.
[39] President Zelensky made it so clear how he needs help if we lose Putin wins.
[40] And this will be very, very dangerous for the United States.
[41] So we cannot let Putin influence through any surrogate, what?
[42] We need to do for Ukraine.
[43] President Biden echoed that sentiment during his meeting with Zelensky telling reporters that Republicans were set to give Vladimir Putin, quote, the greatest Christmas gift possible by opposing more aid.
[44] Now, for their part, those in opposition to more funding say that we've already sent over $100 billion to Ukraine with little to show for it.
[45] They argued that taxpayer dollars should first be prioritized for American citizens and specifically, again, want to see that money go towards the border.
[46] One of the strongest critics of more aid to Ukraine has, It's been Ohio Republican Senator J .D. Vance.
[47] Here he is on Fox News ahead of Zelensky's visit.
[48] Zelensky comes to town and demands that you give him, the American taxpayer gives him another $61 billion.
[49] And oh, by the way, if you want to secure your border first, you are actually a Putin puppet.
[50] He said this publicly today.
[51] I think it's disgraceful.
[52] I think it's grotesque.
[53] But while Zelensky and Biden attempt to rally support, it's worth noting it's unlikely that any package will be agreed upon until the new year.
[54] So we'll have to wait and see which party blinks first or if any deal at all is made.
[55] Yeah, fascinating political angling here with billions on the line.
[56] Cabot, thanks for reporting.
[57] Any time.
[58] Speaker Mike Johnson announced Tuesday that the House of Representatives will proceed with a vote set for today to launch a formal impeachment inquiry against President Biden.
[59] Here to discuss the latest chapter in the saga as Daily Wire contributor David Marcus.
[60] So, Dave, tell us what would be the significance of this vote if it indeed passes.
[61] morning back in september then speaker mccarthy directed the house to begin an impeachment inquiry but without a vote to formalize it speaker johnson and the house gop claimed that the biden administration has been withholding witnesses and documents from them and that an actual motion passed by the house will not only put more pressure on the white house to cooperate but could also gain them an advantage in potential court battles now the house judiciary committee released a five minute rather slick in well -produced video on Tuesday, previewing this inquiry.
[62] What did we learn from that teaser?
[63] I think the first thing we learned is that they almost certainly have the votes.
[64] You wouldn't put this out otherwise.
[65] It would be like releasing a trailer for Barbie 2 and then there's no movie.
[66] I mean, you'd look pretty foolish.
[67] But they did also lay out the four essential questions that they want answered.
[68] Those are one.
[69] Did Joe Biden change any policies because of benefits received by him or his family.
[70] Two, did Biden allow foreign interest access to him for payments to him or his family?
[71] Three, did Biden participate in a scheme to create the impression, or as Representative Dan Goldman once put it, the illusion of access?
[72] And finally, four, did Joe Biden impede or obstruct the investigation into Hunter Biden?
[73] So that list roughly goes from most serious to least serious allegation, but they're all certainly impeachable offenses.
[74] Here's a soundbite from that video.
[75] Politician takes action.
[76] Family gets money and politician takes steps to hide it, a tale as old as time.
[77] And that's the tale we face today with President Joe Biden.
[78] Now, the preview video also referenced a lot of information that the House has uncovered over the past 11 months.
[79] Is this an attempt to push back on claims that there's nothing connecting Joe Biden to Hunter?
[80] Oh, it sure is.
[81] Democrats keep saying that, there's no evidence as evidence keeps rolling out like the ribbon of a broken cassette tape back in the 90s.
[82] It just keeps coming.
[83] There's Devin Archer's testimony saying that Joe did interact with Hunter's business partners.
[84] More recently, direct payments from Hunter to Joe, which Biden World claims were loan repayments.
[85] There's the threatening text message to a Chinese company in which Hunter said he was in the room with Joe and still real questions about Ukraine and Burisma, or as Republicans put it, the four facts that haven't changed.
[86] Hunter worked for Burisma.
[87] He wasn't qualified to work for Burisma.
[88] Burisma asked him for help with an investigation into them, and Joe Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor of that investigation fired.
[89] Here's what Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan had to say about that.
[90] Joe Biden's changed his story multiple times.
[91] The Justice Department's changed their story multiple times.
[92] We have the actions that took place in Burisma that is supported by what the confidential human source can for.
[93] So the mainstream press always says, oh, there's nothing that gets you to Joe Biden.
[94] all kinds of evidence against Joe Biden, not to mention the bank records and everything else that Chairman Comer and his committee have unveiled.
[95] And then finally, of course, with the filings and the charges by the special counsel Weiss against Hunter Biden, I think that confirms what the whistleblowers have been telling us all along also.
[96] Finally, how have the White House and Democrats reacted to this next step in what could be an impeachment?
[97] Something between a nothing to see here and a move along.
[98] They are steadfast, even in the face of serious questions that this is just a circus being held by the Republicans.
[99] Whether that starts to change and Biden and his allies are forced to address the allegations more directly will depend on what the inquiry is able to discover.
[100] One thing that we will see is Democrats using the formal impeachment vote as an example of so -called mega extremism.
[101] One of the consistent themes that we've heard from Democrats in the oversight committee hearings is that this whole impeachment effort is really coming from Mar -a -Lago and is at the behest of Donald Trump.
[102] We almost got through without mentioning Trump.
[103] Almost.
[104] Dave, thanks for joining us.
[105] Thanks for having me. This is a moral failure of Harvard's leadership and higher education leadership at the highest levels.
[106] That was New York Congresswoman Elise Stefonic reacting Tuesday to news that Harvard President Claudine Gay will remain in her position.
[107] Gay had been facing widespread demands to resign over her controversial.
[108] response to campus anti -Semitism and for allegations of plagiarism.
[109] Daily Wire Culture reporter, Megan Basham, is here now with more.
[110] So, Megan, after U -Pen President Liz McGill's resignation, I think a lot of people expected that Gay could be next, but Harvard's board says they're keeping her.
[111] What reason did they give?
[112] Well, to be honest, the statement they released didn't provide a lot of answers to critics.
[113] They simply said that they affirm their confidence that President Gay is the right leader to quoting here, help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we're facing.
[114] They did acknowledge that Gay should have condemned calls for Jewish genocide in her congressional testimony, but they said they're standing beside her because they're committed to, quote -unquote, academic freedom.
[115] Harvard student Shabos Kestenbaum was one of thousands of students and alums calling on Gay to resign.
[116] Here's what he told Fox News he would say to Harvard's board.
[117] What if this was a different minority?
[118] What if Claudia and Gay had said it's the black people about gay people, about Asian Americans.
[119] Would you be as defensive as you would be now?
[120] So I'm confused as to white people ask me why I think that she should resign, as opposed to me asking them, why should she stay?
[121] Of course, a lot of people are pointing out the fact that gay is a black woman and UPenn President McGill is white.
[122] So the question is whether Harvard may have made this decision to avoid angering diversity and inclusion activists who very much consider gay one of them.
[123] Now, what about the financial facts?
[124] We had hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman.
[125] He's been leading the charge against gay, and he said he had personal knowledge that the school lost a billion dollars in donations because of her.
[126] Can Harvard afford that kind of loss?
[127] I'm sure that Harvard's board is concerned about that, but the reality is that when it comes to university endowments, Harvard is at the very top of the list with $51 billion, so they may think that they can afford to weather some bad PR here.
[128] But journalists at Tablet, which is a Jewish magazine, looked into the money flow at Harvard at nine other elite schools.
[129] And what they found is that between 2018 and 2022, they collected $45 billion in taxpayer subsidies and other federal payments.
[130] They said that these schools collected $33 billion in federal contracts and grants alone, with federal payments exceeding undergraduate student tuition.
[131] So it does seem somewhat likely that we could see Republican lawmakers going after some of that funding.
[132] Right.
[133] What about the plagiarism accusations?
[134] So the allegations are that she plagiarized nearly 20 authors in four of the only 11 papers that she's published over the course of 20 years, and that included her doctoral dissertation.
[135] And in several instances, she lifted full sentences and paragraphs, only altering a couple of words.
[136] So the board said that they looked into those allegations in October, and they found a, quote, few instances of inadequate citation, but they said they found no violation of Harvard standards for research misconduct.
[137] But Dr. Carol Swain, who is one of the authors that gay allegedly plagiarized, said that she is furious about Harvard's response.
[138] Swain is also black, and she posted on X that this is a racial double standard.
[139] And she said, and I'm quoting, white progressives created gay and white progressives are protecting her.
[140] The rest of us have had to work our rear ends off to achieve success.
[141] Well, it seems like MIT's president, Sally Cornbluth, is still flying under the radar.
[142] We're going to have to see if attention turns to her now.
[143] Megan, thanks for reporting.
[144] Anytime.
[145] That's all the time we've got this morning.
[146] Thanks for waking up with us.
[147] We'll be back this afternoon with more of the news you need to know.