Month: June 2023

Military holds enter fifth month as Republicans struggle to appease Tuberville

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

The chance that Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) will lift his hold on military promotions over the Pentagon's abortion policy anytime soon has dimmed drastically as Senate Republicans struggle to make a deal with him to end the months-long saga. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee this week failed to advance a bill that would have overturned the Pentagon's policy that covers some expenses for service members who must travel for an abortion. That, coupled with a bitter back-and-forth between Tuberville and the Biden administration and lack of progress in talks with Republicans, means the holds are set to enter their fifth month with no end in sight. 

"Either side could make a move and right now neither side seems to think that these nominations are important enough to override the position that they find themselves in," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told The Hill. "So we're at a stalemate."

As of this week, Tuberville is holding up 250 promotions for general and flag officers that are normally approved on the Senate floor via unanimous consent, and the anger among Democrats has not dissipated. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) on Tuesday made the 10th attempt by Senate Democrats to advance the military promotions, only to be blocked by the Alabama Republican. 

President Biden and the Pentagon also heaped more pressure on Tuberville this week. The president referred to the “former football coach from Alabama” during a fundraiser in Los Gatos, Calif., earlier this week, calling his hold “bizarre.” 

“I don’t remember it happening before,” Biden said. “I know I don’t look like I’ve been around, but I’ve been around a long time.”

The Pentagon also slammed at Tuberville earlier this week; Sabrina Singh, the Department of Defense’s deputy press secretary, criticized him for setting a “dangerous precedent” with his actions. 

Tuberville remains unmoved. 

He told The Hill earlier this week that there has not been internal pressure from Republicans to release his holds and that he has not heard directly from anyone in the administration or the Democratic side in recent weeks, outside of public missives. 

“We’ve probably gone backwards on that. Everyone’s gotten a closed mouth on this whole deal,” Tuberville told The Hill. 

But what it would take to move him off of his hold remains unclear to many. 

Tuberville told reporters that three things could get him to lift the hold on military promotions: A reversal of Pentagon policy, a successful vote to codify the policy or a failed vote to do so, with the latter two options coming both via a bill proposed by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Tuberville’s staff clarified his comments, saying that a failed vote would not do the trick unless the Department of Defense dropped the policy ahead of a hypothetical vote on the Shaheen bill. 

None of the three options are likely, and no one has been willing to budge, meaning stalemate will likely go on for the foreseeable future. 

“It seems like everyone’s confused,” one Senate GOP aide said of the Tuberville situation. “I don’t know how we get to a solution here. I’m not sure there’s anyone on this planet that can talk him off of this. Plenty have tried.” 

Multiple Senate Republicans in recent weeks have talked to Tuberville about just that, but all have been stymied. Sen Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) brought up an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would rescind the Pentagon’s abortion policy that was put into place late last year, but it was blocked during the markup on the bill this week. 

On top of that, Tuberville had indicated already that a committee level vote on the item would not move him off of his hold, even though he voted for it.

“I’m not going for a committee vote,” Tuberville said.

Even those supportive of his push have tried to find a resolution. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told The Hill that he has talked with the Alabama Republican about the situation and was hopeful something could be done to rectify things via the annual defense authorization bill. 

“I don’t disagree with Sen. Tuberville’s point. But … there needs to be a means to accomplish that,” Cornyn said. “I believe in counting the votes, as opposed to depending on my optimism, and I’m not sure they’re there yet. I’m not sure they’re not there, but I think that’s the way to go.” 

Others, however, indicated they are tired of discussing the prolonged back-and-forth.

“I’ve answered a lot of questions about [this],” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), an Armed Services Committee member, said when asked if she’s sensed any movement on the holds. Fischer initially said that she was not supportive of Tuberville’s tactics before telling reporters that she supports his efforts.  

Lawmakers are starting to ask whether they could move certain nominees one by one, burning floor time. The situation will be especially acute next month as five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Chairman Mark Milley, will start to be replaced. 

Senate Democrats indicated this week that they are not prepared to do that and are leaning on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said he does not back Tuberville’s hold, and other Senate GOP members to pressure their colleague from Alabama. 

“I don’t know what we’ll do if we have to explore other options,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said. “Right now, the most feasible and readily available and timely way to solve it is for him to back down and for his colleagues to persuade him that’s the wise course.” 

Senate, House Republicans on collision course over defense spending 

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Senate Republicans are looking for a way to get around the caps on defense spending set by the debt limit deal that President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) negotiated last month, putting them on a collision course with House Republicans.

Republican defense hawks on the Senate Appropriations Committee vented their frustration with the allocations for the Defense Department set by Senate Democrats and House Republicans, which represents an increase of more than 3 percent over current spending levels. 

“If you’re looking at China’s navy and you think now’s the time to shrink our Navy, you sure as hell shouldn’t be in the Navy. We go from 298 ships under this budget deal to eventually 291. ... You sunk the Navy. The Congress has sunk eight ships. How many fighter squadrons have we parked because of this deal?” fumed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) at a committee hearing Thursday morning. 

“GDP to defense spending is going to be at a historic low under this deal,” he said, arguing that the defense spending cap will also hurt Ukraine in its war against Russia. “There’s not a penny in this deal to help them keep fighting. Do you really want to be judged in history as having, at a moment of consequence to defeat Putin, to pull all the money for Ukraine?” 

Graham suggested Thursday afternoon that Senate Republicans may attempt to renegotiate the defense spending cap set by the debt limit law later this year. 

“There will be conversation among senators and hopefully the House to increase our spending to deter China. Reducing the size of the U.S. Navy doesn’t deter China,” he said. 

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the top-ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said she was concerned that "the new debt limit law caps regular defense funding in fiscal year 2024 at the inadequate level requested by the president" and that it "fails to meet the security challenges facing our nation.”

House Republicans have proposed $826 billion for the annual defense appropriations bill, while Senate Democrats have proposed $823 billion for the defense spending bill, keeping in line with the spending caps McCarthy negotiated with Biden.  

Those numbers don’t include defense spending spread across other departments, including the Department of Energy, which oversees the nation’s nuclear arsenal; the Department of Homeland Security; and money allocated for military construction and veterans affairs. 

Graham and Collins are hoping to increase defense spending levels later in the year — possibly by passing a supplemental defense spending bill that includes money for Ukraine — but McCarthy has already poured cold water on the deal.  

“I’m not going to prejudge what some of them [in the Senate] do, but if they think they’re writing a supplemental because they want to go around an agreement we just made, it’s not going anywhere,” he told Punchbowl News earlier this month. 

Adding fuel to the fire, House Republicans have proposed cutting an additional $119 billion from discretionary spending by setting spending targets for the annual spending bills that cumulatively fall well below the caps that Biden and McCarthy agreed to for those programs — $886 billion for defense and $703.7 for nondefense programs.  

House Republicans are proposing finding those additional savings by cutting from nondefense discretionary spending programs, which will likely put pressure on the Department of Homeland Security. 

Meeting the House Republican targets for nondefense programs could entail spending cuts ranging between 15 percent to 30 percent for the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.  

Such a showdown over spending levels heightens the chances of Senate Democrats and House Republicans failing to agree, and then not passing the regular spending bills, which means they would have to resort to a stopgap spending measure. If they fail to pass all 12 appropriations bills by Dec. 31, that would trigger an across-the-board, 1-percent rescission for all defense and nondefense discretionary spending.  

Senate Republicans warn the 1-percent spending sequester would hit defense programs harder than nondefense programs. 

Graham and Collins also spoke out Thursday against the spending allocations Senate Democrats set for homeland security. 

Homeland Security Department funding is under pressure because of the spending cap Biden and McCarthy agreed to as part of the debt limit deal.  

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said the debt limit deal squeezed federal funding priorities across the board.  

“We were given a top-line [spending number] that was extremely challenging and difficult,” she said. “I would dare say no one on this committee, certainly Sen. Collins or I, would have negotiated that agreement. We were not in the room but we have been given that order.” 

Graham said that under the spending caps agreed to last month, the Homeland Security Department would not have enough money to stem the flow of fentanyl and other drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border. 

“If you’ve looked at the border and you feel like we can spend less on homeland security, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive. This place is falling apart. and fentanyl is killing Americans. We need more, not less, to address that,” he said.  

Graham suggested that the consequences of the spending caps would be severe if kept in place over the long-term. 

“We’re in a tough spot. I like the idea we’re not going to be perpetually bound by this,” he said. 

Collins raised similar concerns.  

“Due to the inadequacy of funding for Homeland Security and the need for additional defense funding, unfortunately I cannot support the 302(b) allocations,” Collins said of the money proposed for the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. 

“Our crisis at the southern border continues. We are on pace for another 2.2 million encounters with migrants this fiscal year,” she added. “Despite this ongoing calamity, the proposed 302(b) allocation would actually reduce funding for the Department of Homeland Security, limiting our ability to have sufficient personnel and technology at the southern border.” 

Graham and Collins made their comments in reaction to the $56.9 billion in budget authority that Senate Democrats proposed for the annual Homeland Security appropriations bill.  

The Republican-controlled House Appropriations panel has approved $63.9 billion in budget authority for homeland security appropriations. 

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, told colleagues at the hearing Thursday morning that he agrees with Graham and Collins that the defense funding levels set forth by the Senate and House are “inadequate.”  

“Am I happy with the defense number? No. I think it’s inadequate, quite frankly,” he said. 

He later told The Hill that he found it ironic that Republicans, who usually like to bill themselves as fiscal hawks, are the ones now looking to get around the spending caps. 

“I just felt like we had flipped positions today. Democrats were able to take the conservative [debt limit] number, and Republicans wanted the more liberal number,” he said.  

The Memo: Boebert’s ‘frankly stupid’ impeachment push leads to GOP groans, Dem glee

Posted on (Updated by Niall Stanage

A quixotic push by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to impeach President Biden was placed on the back burner Thursday. But even some Republican insiders fear the damage might already have been done.

Boebert, one of the fiercest among the GOP’s right-wing firebrands, surprised many of her colleagues by introducing an impeachment resolution earlier this week. The move caused disarray in the House Republican conference, and the furor was only defused with a deal to send the resolution for consideration by committees.

The move, passed in a 219-208 vote Thursday, places no obligation on the committees to do anything to advance Boebert’s proposal. But she is insistent that, if it becomes clear the gambit is solely about delay, she will bring up her resolution “every day for the rest of my time here in Congress.”

Meanwhile, more moderate Republicans are wincing at what they consider an unforced political error that will give Democrats ammunition to attack the GOP as extreme and out of touch.

Republican strategist Dan Judy described the move as “frankly stupid,” adding, “the party needs to be focused on the problems facing Americans rather than this sideshow.”

Most polls, to be sure, show American voters' main concerns are the economy and inflation, as well as a host of other matters barely related to the effort to impeach the president.

But that doesn’t mean there will be an end to impeachment efforts, given that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga) has her own efforts to impeach not only Biden, but Attorney General Merrick Garland, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. district attorney for the District of Columbia.

Adding to this week’s spectacle, Boebert and Greene got into a heated verbal exchange on the House floor Wednesday. Several observers contended Greene called Boebert a “little bitch.” Greene also reportedly accused Boebert of copying her on impeachment. 

Boebert, for her part, has shot back that she doesn’t want to get involved in “middle school” antics.

Democrats are agog at disputes like that one — but also convinced that the politics of the matter will play to their advantage.

Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh declared himself amazed at “the degree to which the Republicans will figure out a way to self-destruct.”

He argued the specific danger was that performative efforts such as a push to impeach Biden would turn off independent and moderate voters. 

While he acknowledged such voters have become fewer as the United States has become more polarized, he contended that they "still are a decisive part of winning any general election. And it’s very, very clear that those moderate, swing voters are just not interested in all these Republican shenanigans.”

Some Republicans shoot back that Democrats twice impeached then-President Trump — and they note that, separate from those moves, some Democratic members made solo runs aimed at the same goal.

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) tried at least three times to impeach Trump, for example. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) introduced five articles of impeachment against Trump in November 2017, before the 45th president had even rung up a full year in office.

But Democrats note that such measures died swiftly, and further contend that the MAGA wing of the GOP has a firmer grip on today’s Republican Party than the progressive left has on congressional Democrats.

They point not only to Boebert’s impeachment effort but to the mini-uprising that stalled normal business in the House recently, after hard-right members including Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) balked at issues including the compromises Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had made on spending in order to win a debt ceiling deal with Biden.

There is still the possibility that ultraconservative unhappiness over those compromises could result in a government shutdown closer to the end of the year.

“It’s not just the impeachment, but this whole pattern of things,” said Democratic strategist Robert Shrum. 

He included allegations of “Deep State” malfeasance, as well as attacks even on some judges and investigators appointed by former Trump, as evidence of this pattern.

Shrum added that any government shutdown would be “catastrophic for the Republican Party.”

Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), speaking in the House on Thursday, accused Republicans involved in bringing the impeachment resolution to the floor of “dishonoring this House and dishonoring themselves.”

According to The Associated Press, McGovern added that the House had "become a place where extreme, outlandish and nutty issues get debated passionately, and important ones not at all.”

Even some Republicans who are uneasy with Boebert’s actions argue that the political impact should not be exaggerated. They contend the episode might fade from voters’ minds fast enough.

But it’s notable that the effort was seen as causing severe discomfort for the 18 House Republicans who represent districts won by Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

And Boebert’s push also gives more fuel to the president’s argument about the supposed extremism of “ultra-MAGA Republicans” — a label that was effective during last year’s midterms.

Still, there seems no chance of Boebert backing down. 

“Last Congress, I watched my impeachment articles collect dust in Pelosi’s office,” she tweeted Thursday afternoon. “This Congress, action had to be taken!”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Crenshaw: Outcome of Titan sub would be different ‘if leadership had just acted sooner’

Posted on (Updated by Nick Robertson

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) criticized the U.S. Coast Guard’s emergency operations for their attempts to save a tourist submersible bound for the wreck of the Titanic, calling efforts an “epic failure of leadership.”

Debris from OceanGate's Titan submersible was found near the region of Titanic wreckage site Thursday, bringing an end to the days-long frenzy to find the craft and its crew before oxygen reserves were expected to run out.

Crenshaw claimed the Coast Guard and Navy delayed deploying deep-sea sonar-capable crafts which could have been able to find the submarine more quickly.

“Now, it’s important to note, that if you had just deployed those assets, they would have arrived on scene by Wednesday morning at the latest,” Crenshaw said in a Fox News interview Thursday.

“They finally deploy that 6K ROV, the only thing capable of actually going to that depth and seeing what’s down there, [Thursday] morning. It deploys down there, and the wreckage was exactly where they thought it would be," he added. "So, where’s the failure here? The failure is to not put all your options on the table."

Rescue ships heard noises similar to banging coming from the ocean Wednesday, but Coast Guard officials later said they did not know if they were related to the missing submarine.

The discovered debris consisted of five parts strewn about 1,600 feet from the bow of the Titanic wreck. It included the nose cap of the submarine and parts of the pressure chamber, indicating that there was a “catastrophic event,” Coast Guard Rear Admiral John Mauger said in a press conference Thursday. 

The location of the debris was consistent with the craft imploding while it was in the water column on the descent to the Titanic wreck, he said.

After debris was recovered, the Navy also announced that its under-sea listening posts heard what is believed to be an implosion of the craft shortly after it lost contact with the surface on Sunday. An implosion would have resulted in the instant death of the five people on board.

“It begs the question — could this have been resolved differently if leadership had just acted sooner and actually put options on the table instead of just assuming, ‘Well it doesn’t matter because they’re dead,’” Crenshaw said Thursday evening.

A road to impeachment: House Republicans may yet impeach Biden

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Republican-led House of Representatives may yet impeach President Biden.

But House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., had to intervene to halt a snap impeachment this week by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo. 

"Privileged" resolutions are a special commodity in the House. They are used in only special circumstances pertaining to the Constitution. That includes discipline of Members or impeachment. Such resolutions head to the front of the legislative line. The House must entertain such privileged matters almost immediately. 

Boebert grew tired of what she thought was dithering by House Republicans on potentially impeaching President Biden over the southern border. That’s to say nothing of questions many GOPers hold about the ethics of the President, alleged or perceived crimes and the misdeeds of Hunter Biden. But despite robust inquires into all of those matters by the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways & Means Committees, Boebert had enough. She would go it alone and try to impeach Mr. Biden with her own privileged resolution. 

ADAM SCHIFF VOWS TO WEAR HOUSE GOP CENSURE LIKE ‘BADGE OF HONOR’

"I was tired of politicians telling us something that we wanted to hear back home, getting to where we send them and trust them to be our voice and doing something completely different. This isn't a talking point for me. This is an action item," said Boebert in an interview.

Any member may bring up a privileged resolution. But they’re usually the province of the minority party since they don’t control the floor. Still, Boebert and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., recently deployed privileged resolutions to go around House leaders and force action on their pet initiatives. 

Luna tried twice with a privileged resolution to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. The first measure failed. But the second one succeeded. 

MCCARTHY SIDELINES LAUREN BOEBERT'S PUSH FOR QUICK VOTE ON BIDEN IMPEACHMENT

This is ironic because Republicans long touted a return to "regular order" in their quest to run the House. In his effort to secure the Speakership, McCarthy promised that he wouldn’t just hand down bills from on high. He wanted legislation to gurgle up through subcommittees and committees before hitting the floor. Leaders wouldn’t drop legislation on lawmakers in the dead of night.

An attempt to punish a lawmaker with censure – the second most serious form of official discipline in the House – customarily goes through committee. The same with articles of impeachment. The Ethics Committee would usually spend months investigating the alleged misdeeds of a Member before sending a censure citation to the floor. Impeachment of the President could consume months of closed door depositions, public hearings and floor debate. That was the process for impeaching former President Trump in late 2019. However, the House was much more hasty in impeaching Mr. Trump the second time after the Capitol riot. 

But nothing says a member can’t introduce a privileged resolution to censure a fellow lawmaker or even impeach the President without going through the additional machinations. If the House votes to censure or impeach, you are censured or impeached. The mechanics aren’t required. 

Even if that’s the "regular order." Or, the "regular order" 

BOEBERT FORCING VOTE ON BIDEN IMPEACHMENT HITS NERVE WITH HER OWN PARTY: ‘PLAYGROUND GAMES'

"Maybe we’re redefining regular order," said Luna in an interview. "Maybe we’re redefining what the typical process would be and that Members have more of a voice."

Allowing his rank-and-file to have a "voice" is key to McCarthy’s political success as Speaker. He promised to give Members more say in the legislative process. The Speaker certainly agreed with censuring his Golden State nemesis Schiff for his role in the Russia probe. And even though McCarthy is no fan of President Biden, he knows that impeachments of Presidents come at tremendous political cost.

As Speaker, McCarthy must protect the integrity of the institution, the Speakership and the seriousness of impeachment. That’s to say nothing of guarding vulnerable Republicans from battleground districts who look askance at impeachment.

Lots of Congressional Republicans hint at impeachment to keep them in the good graces of conservative voters back home. But they know that impeachments are rare, and they may never have to vote on such a proposal, despite the feisty rhetoric. So to Boebert, talk was cheap.

That’s why she circumvented the customary committee process for impeachment, depositing a privileged resolution on the floor without the typical volutions. 

"Bringing up this privileged motion to impeach Joe Biden absolutely forces members to put their money where their mouth is. If most of the Republicans (governed) as they (campaigned), then we would be a lot better off," said Boebert.

But Boebert’s approach failed to impress some of her GOP colleagues.

"We can't turn impeachment into the equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the British Parliament," said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn. "When we do that we cheapen what impeachment is. It's supposed to be a tool of last resort. Not a first resort."

Boebert failed to appear at a meeting of all House Republicans Wednesday morning to present her impeachment resolution and gain support for it.

"I don’t think that one minute of speaking time at (the Republican) Conference was going to persuade anyone," said Boebert. "I don’t think that is something that took precedence for my busy schedule."

For the record, nearly every House Republican also attends those same meetings and somehow finds a way to wedge those weekly conclaves into their schedules.

"I believe in team sports you should work together. And this was an individual who was undermining the team," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., about Boebert. "Impeachment shouldn’t be something that is frivolous and treated in that way."

McCarthy needed to thread the needle on Boebert’s resolution. But he too was unimpressed with the gambit by the Colorado Republican.

"You just don’t flippantly put something on the floor," said McCarthy. "You follow the investigation wherever it takes you."

McCarthy then met with Boebert.

"I don’t think that my actions are flippant," Boebert said afterward. "I believe they are very intentional."

THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO CENSURING SCHIFF THIS WEEK

But McCarthy wasn’t going to let Boebert’s impeachment resolution on the floor. He also wasn’t going to expose vulnerable Republicans to a scenario where they voted to table the impeachment resolution and then caught flak from arch conservatives in their districts. However, McCarthy wanted to block Democrats from tabling the resolution, too.

So McCarthy crafted a special provision to handle Boebert’s impeachment resolution. The House would vote on a "rule" to send the impeachment measure to the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. How much those committees investigated is then up to them. But McCarthy’s plan made sure to keep Boebert’s resolution alive. And it simultaneously inoculated anti-impeachment Republican lawmakers so they couldn’t face criticism for dismissing Boebert’s effort. 

In addition, lawmakers like Fitzpatrick and Bacon got their wishes, too. Committees could now continue to investigate the President – with the possibility of impeachment.

"The timeline of our investigation is pretty much in our heads," said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn. "We kind of know the pathway." 

Boebert said she’d like to see the House impeach President Biden by the end of the year.

"If there’s ever a hesitation that the articles are not coming to the floor, then we’ll make sure that happens," said Boebert, noting she’d dial up another privileged resolution.

"We have to be ready to vote for any number of fanciful ideas that the House Republican Conference comes up with," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. "They are trying to out-MAGA and out-extreme each other."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., intends to impeach Mr. Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Washington, DC, U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves. But on Wednesday afternoon. Greene and Boebert engaged in an animated conversation on the House floor. Greene accused Boebert of stealing her impeachment idea. It was reported Greene called Boebert "a little b*tch." 

"They had a discussion," said McCarthy, trying to downplay the rhubarb between Greene and Boebert. 

Yours truly pressed McCarthy on if the confrontation was truly a "discussion." 

"I think it’s healthy that people have discussions," replied McCarthy.

When asked for her side of the story, Boebert simply walked away from a pack of reporters gathered on the Capitol steps.

"Thank you all so much. Have a great day," said Boebert. 

House GOP seeking to expunge ‘sham’ Trump impeachments

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans are seeking to formally expunge the impeachments of former President Donald Trump, Fox News Digital has learned.

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced resolutions Thursday to expunge Trump’s first impeachment from December 2019 and his second from January 2021. Those resolutions would expunge what the lawmakers are calling "unconstitutional" impeachments and make it legally as if the articles "had never passed the full House of Representatives."

"The American people know Democrats weaponized the power of impeachment against President Donald Trump to advance their own extreme political agenda," Stefanik told Fox News Digital.

Reflecting on the "sham" process, Stefanik said she "stood up against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff’s blatant attempt to shred the Constitution as House Democrats ignored the Constitution and failed to follow the legislative process."

HUNTER BIDEN AGREES TO PLEAD GUILTY TO FEDERAL TAX CHARGES

"President Donald Trump was rightfully acquitted, and it is past time to expunge Democrats’ sham smear against not only President Trump’s name, but against millions of patriots across the country," she said.

Stefanik’s resolution focuses on Trump’s January 2021 impeachment, and says that the "facts and circumstances" of that action did not meet the burden of proving Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and did not establish that Trump engaged in "insurrection of rebellion against the United States."

Stefanik also highlighted the "various issues surrounding the impeachment processes" related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, including "the omission of discussion of circumstances and unusual voting patterns leading up to the 2021 Presidential election, the lack of consideration for the vote numbers and breakdowns, the whimsical changing of the legislative process for impeachment, and much more."

The House of Representatives drafted articles of impeachment against Trump and ultimately voted to impeach him on a charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

GRASSLEY: BURISMA EXECUTIVE WHO ALLEGEDLY PAID BIDEN HAS AUDIO RECORDINGS OF CONVERSATIONS WITH JOE, HUNTER

The Senate voted to acquit Trump both times he was impeached. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever again, preventing a 2024 White House run.

Greene’s resolution would expunge Trump’s first impeachment in December 2019.

In 2019, Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s actions and business dealings in Ukraine —specifically Hunter Biden’s ventures with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings and Joe Biden’s successful effort to have Ukraininan prosecutor Viktor Shokin ousted while serving as vice president.

Greene says the impeachment against Trump was a "sham" because information revealed in an FD-1023 FBI document indicates that the Bidens were trying to influence policy in Ukraine.

"The first impeachment of President Trump was a politically motivated sham," Greene said. "The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, weaponized a perfect phone call with Ukraine to interfere with the 2020 election."

Trump's request was regarded by Democrats as a quid pro quo for millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine that had been frozen. Democrats also claimed Trump was meddling in the 2020 presidential election by asking a foreign leader to look into a Democratic political opponent.

EXCLUSIVE: JOE BIDEN ALLEGEDLY PAID $5M BY BURISMA EXECUTIVE AS PART OF A BRIBERY SCHEME, ACCORDING TO FBI DOCUMENT

Trump was later impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, all stemming from the phone call and the question about the Bidens' dealings. The Senate voted for acquittal in February 2020.

But Greene on Thursday pointed to the FBI's "credible evidence of Joe and Hunter Biden's corrupt dealings, confirming their involvement in a foreign bribery pay-to-play scheme and receipt of over $5 million each. All of this information was revealed to Congress by the FD-1023 form from the FBI’s most credible informant."

Greene was referring to the FBI-generated FD-1023 form. The form, dated June 30, 2020, reflects the FBI's interview with a "highly credible" confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with a top executive of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings over the course of several years, starting in 2015.

The document shows the Burisma executive explained to the confidential source that Burisma had to "pay the Bidens" because Shokin was investigating Burisma, and explained how difficult it would be to enter the U.S. market in the midst of that investigation.

Sources familiar told Fox News Digital that the confidential human source believes that the $5 million payment to Joe Biden and the $5 million payment to Hunter Biden occurred, based on his or her conversations with the Burisma executive.

TRUMP TARGETED: A LOOK AT PROBES INVOLVING THE FORMER PRESIDENT; FROM STORMY DANIELS TO RUSSIA TO MAR-A-LAGO

"The form vindicates President Trump and exposes the crimes of the Biden family," Greene said. "It's clear that President Trump's impeachment was a nothing more than a witch hunt that needs to be expunged from our history."

She added, "I'm proud to work with Chairwoman Elise Stefanik on our joint resolutions to correct the record and clear President Trump’s good name."

List of Democrats boycotting Modi’s address to Congress grows

Posted on (Updated by Sarakshi Rai

The list of Democratic lawmakers boycotting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's joint address to Congress on Thursday is growing.

Progressive Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Summer Lee (D-Pa.) on Thursday said they wouldn't attend the event. They join fellow progressive Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

“When it comes to standing up for human rights, actions speak louder than words," Bush and Bowman said in a joint statement with Tlaib and Omar.

The statement blasted the decision to invite the Indian leader adding that "by bestowing Prime Minister Modi with the rare honor of a joint address, Congress undermines its ability to be a credible advocate for the rights of religious minorities and journalists around the world."

The lawmakers added that they "stand in solidarity with the communities that have been harmed by Modi and his policies."

"We must never sacrifice human rights at the altar of political expediency and we urge all Members of Congress who profess to stand for freedom and democracy to join us in boycotting this embarrassing spectacle.”

Lee, in a separate statement, said Modi's government "has targeted journalists, emboldened violent Hindu nationalist groups, and jailed political opponents."

"We are not true allies if we cannot push them to uphold basic human rights and religious freedoms," she added.

The statements come just hours before the Indian prime minister was set to arrive at the Capitol. 

Modi's speech to the joint session of Congress comes hours after he met with President Biden and announced a slew of military, tech and health deals between the U.S. and India. 

During the joint press conference at the White House, Modi brushed aside a question about human rights abuses and democratic backsliding in his country.

While Democrats in both the House and the Senate have urged Biden to address the issue of human rights in his meetings with Modi, the historic address is set to be a widely attended event.