Republican calls to impeach Biden grow following release of FBI document detailing bribery allegations

Posted on July 21, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

Republicans immediately began lashing out at President Biden Thursday following the release of an unclassified FBI document detailing his alleged involvement in an international bribery scheme, with a number rallying for his impeachment.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released the FD-1023 form earlier in the day which detailed how Biden, along with his son, Hunter Biden, allegedly "coerced" Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky to pay them millions of dollars in exchange for their help in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired.

"Most corrupt family to ever live in the White House! Impeach!" Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., wrote on Twitter, while Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., wrote, "Read and understand just how deep the corruption goes. Biden should be thrown out of office. Impeach!"

Former Arizona gubernatorial candidate and conservative firebrand Kari Lake suggested the president was guilty of "extortion" and "treason" in addition to bribery, and claimed former President Donald Trump was impeached for Biden's "crimes."

BIDENS ALLEGEDLY ‘COERCED’ BURISMA CEO TO PAY THEM MILLIONS TO HELP GET UKRAINE PROSECUTOR FIRED: FBI FORM

"Is this why Biden has America involved in the war in Ukraine??? Joe Biden is a criminal and is compromised! And he is leading us into WW3 [because Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy has proof of more Biden crimes," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., tweeted. "Republicans can no longer delay, but we need 218 Republican votes to do it. I’ve been there since day one and so are the American people. IMPEACH BIDEN!!!"

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., also called for Biden's impeachment prior to the release of the document, writing that he "NEEDS to be impeached" because of the "evidence and testimony" she had seen as a member of the House Oversight Committee investigating the Biden family finances. "He is compromised and his son is selling access to him," she added.

"This is damning evidence that Biden is compromised. Remember when Democrats and their pals in the media went as far as to question whether this document even exists?" Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, tweeted, while Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., declared, "The Biden family corruption saga continues."

Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., vowed the House Oversight Committee would hold Biden accountable, while Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., told Fox News, "It causes some great concerns that our president could be compromised to a foreign government."

WHISTLEBLOWER CONFIRMS ATTORNEY WHO DONATED TO BIDEN'S 2020 CAMPAIGN ‘REFUSED TO BRING CHARGES’ AGAINST HUNTER

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment, however White House spokesman for oversight and investigations Ian Sams wrote on Twitter, "The far right machine is in overdrive to spread long-disproven lies about President Biden promulgated by Congressional Republicans This time disguised by the facade of a ‘new FBI form.’ But an old debunked lie is still an old debunked lie, even if it put on a new pair of shoes."

Grassley said he released the document so that the American people can "read this document for themselves without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats." The document in question is an FBI-generated FD-1023 form, which Grassley acquired via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers, according to the senator's office.

That FD-1023 — a confidential human source (CHS) reporting document — 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. Hunter Biden, at the time, sat on the board of Burisma.

Fox News Digital has reviewed the document, which includes new information, including the identity of the business executive — Burisma CEO Zlochevsky — and the allegations that he was "coerced" into paying Joe Biden and Hunter Biden millions of dollars to get a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his firm fired.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Republicans release FBI form with unverified Biden-Burisma allegations

Posted on July 20, 2023 (Updated July 20, 2023) by Emily Brooks

Republicans Thursday released a copy of an unverified tip to the FBI alleging a scheme to bribe President Biden — a tip that has not been corroborated but is nonetheless fueling GOP investigations into the Biden family.

The information, memorialized in an FD-1023 form documenting interactions with a confidential informant, was released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Oversight Republicans who threatened to hold the FBI director in contempt of Congress amid efforts to review and obtain the document.

The tip revolves around an allegation long pushed by former President Donald Trump involving then-Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian prosecutor.

While carrying out Obama administration policy that had been coordinated with European allies, then-Vice President Biden argued that Ukrainian prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was corrupt and threatened to withhold $1 billion in funding to Ukraine unless Shokin was fired.

Others in the international community likewise pushed for Shokin’s dismissal.

Hunter Biden at that time was on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which was the subject of an investigation under the prosecutor's office.

There has never been hard evidence that now-President Biden called for Shokin’s ouster in order to help his son. Some reports have said that the investigation was, in fact, dormant by the time Biden called for Shokin’s ouster. But Trump’s insistence that Ukraine investigate the matter or risk the loss of U.S. aid led to his first impeachment in 2019.

The FD-1023 form released Thursday details secondhand allegations that Burisma’s CEO and founder Mykola Zlochevsky thought having Hunter Biden on the board could help insulate the company from its problems with the prosecutor, that Zlochevsky sent millions of dollars to President Biden as well as Hunter Biden and that two recordings about the matter exist that involve President Biden.

Those key details in the form are not verified or corroborated.

It all comes from a confidential FBI source — previously described by both Republicans and Democrats briefed on the matter as credible — who had spoken to Zlochevsky and other Burisma executives over a few occasions. The source could not give an opinion on the veracity of Zlochevsky’s statements about Hunter Biden.

Democrats have also released information collected during the first impeachment effort that included a conversation purported to be with Zlochevsky that contradicts the information relayed in the FD-1023 form.

The White House has vigorously denied any wrongdoing stemming from the matter.

“It is remarkable that congressional Republicans, in their eagerness to go after President Biden regardless of the truth, continue to push claims that have been debunked for years and that they themselves have cautioned to take ‘with a grain of salt’ because they could be ‘made up,’” Ian Sams, White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said in a statement.

“These claims have reportedly been scrutinized by the Trump Justice Department, a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, and a full impeachment trial of the former President that centered on these very issues, and over and over again, they have been found to lack credibility,” Sams continued.

“It’s clear that congressional Republicans are dead set on playing shameless, dishonest politics and refuse to let truth get in the way. It is well past time for news organizations to hold them to basic levels of factual accountability for their repeated and increasingly desperate efforts to mislead both the public and the press.”

The FBI also admonished the lawmakers for sharing the letter.

“We have repeatedly explained to Congress, in correspondence and in briefings, how critical it is to keep this source information confidential,” the FBI said in a statement.

“Today’s release of the 1023 — at a minimum — unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source.”

In a June letter obtained by The Hill, the FBI warned Comer and the Oversight Committee about releasing the file publicly as they chose to do Thursday.

“Consistent with our agreement, Committee Members were provided an admonishment prior to reviewing the document that the information contained within the subpoenaed FD-1023 could not be disseminated outside of the House sensitive compartmented information facility. The Committee and its Members were specifically told that ‘wider distribution could pose a risk of physical harm to FBI sources or others,’" the FBI wrote in the letter to Comer.

“We are concerned that Members disregarded the Committee’s agreement that information from the document should not be further disclosed.”

But House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said that the form backs up his committee’s investigation of the Biden family’s business dealings.

“In the FBI’s record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn’t pay the ‘big guy’ directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money,” Comer said in a statement.

The FBI’s confidential human source — identified as "CHS" in the document — reported that during a meeting at Burisma’s offices in late 2015 or early 2016, Burisma Chief Financial Officer Vadim Porjarskii said that Hunter Biden was hired to be on the board in order to “protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems.”

Porjarskii provided no further or specific details about what that meant.

About two months later, the FBI source attended another meeting in Vienna, Austria, in 2016 with Burisma executives to talk about acquiring a U.S.-based oil and gas company.

“CHS told Zlochevsky that due to Shokin’s investigation into Burisma, which was made public at the time, it would have a substantial negative impact on Burisma’s prospective [initial public offering (IPO)] in the United States. Zlochevsky replied something to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, Hunter will take care of all those issues through his dad,’” the form said. “CHS did not ask any further questions about what that specifically meant.”

McCarthy denies he promised Trump vote on expunging impeachments

Posted on July 20, 2023 (Updated July 20, 2023) by Mychael Schnell

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Thursday denied making a promise to former President Trump that the House would vote to expunge his impeachments, shooting down a report that said the GOP leader pledged the vote as a way to temper tensions with the former president.

“There’s no deal,” McCarthy told reporters Thursday, “but I’ve been very clear from long before when I voted against impeachments, that they did it for purely political purposes.”

“I support expungement, but there’s no deal out there,” he added.

His comments contradict a Thursday morning report from Politico Playbook that McCarthy assured Trump that the House would vote to erase his impeachments, citing a source close to Trump and familiar with the conversation.

In the report, the vow was characterized as part of the Speaker's effort to reconcile with Trump in the wake of an interview late last month that landed him in hot water with the former president; McCarthy had said he was unsure if Trump was the “strongest” person to beat President Biden in 2024.

McCarthy launched a cleanup effort within the same day as the initial comment, telling the conservative Breitbart News in a subsequent interview that Trump is “Biden’s strongest political opponent,” sending out a fundraising blast with the same message and, according to The New York Times, calling the former president for a conversation that two sources characterized as an apology.

According to Politico, though, Trump wanted an endorsement from McCarthy following the squabble, which the Speaker was not willing to offer, as he seeks to stay neutral in the primary. Instead, a source told the outlet, McCarthy promised that the House would vote to expunge his impeachments.

McCarthy later communicated, through aides, that he would hold the vote before August recess — which is set to begin next Friday — according to Politico, but he recently told the former president's team that the vote will happen by the end of September, the outlet noted.

Either of those deadlines, however, would be difficult for McCarthy to meet. The House from now through September is working on spending bills for the annual appropriations process, with a Sept. 30 deadline looming. The process is already the source of disagreements within the GOP conference.

Even if McCarthy were to bring the expungement resolutions to the floor for a vote, it is unlikely that they would garner enough support to pass. The vote would push purple-district Republicans into a tough spot politically, and likely turn off others who are unsure if expungement is constitutionally possible.

A number of GOP lawmakers Thursday signaled hesitance to expunge the impeachments, with one House Republican — who said their views “represent a fair number of principled conservatives” — saying they would likely oppose any effort to erase the punishments.

“I have every expectation I’ll vote against expungement, and I have every expectation that I will work to bring others with me,” the lawmaker said, noting that they communicated that position with leadership.

More from The Hill

McCarthy voiced support for expunging both of Trump’s impeachments last month, telling reporters that one of the rebukes “was not based on true facts” and the other was “on the basis of no due process.” He said it was “appropriate” to expunge them “because it never should have gone through.”

The House — led by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — voted to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in late 2019, in response to his threat to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine unless leaders in Kyiv launched an investigation into Joe Biden, his political opponent. No Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the punishment.

Then, in early 2021, the House impeached Trump for a second time following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, penalizing him for “incitement of insurrection.” That time around, 10 Republicans voted to impeach. Just two — Reps. Dan Newhouse (Wash.) and David Valadao (Calif.) — are still in Congress.

In both cases, Republicans in the Senate acquitted Trump.

Immediately after the Capitol riot, McCarthy took to the House floor and declared that Trump bore “responsibility” for the violence.

But when it became apparent that the Republican Party was remaining loyal to Trump, he reversed his stance, meeting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida a few weeks later. He later claimed that Trump did not “provoke” the attack.

The renewed discourse over the expulsion resolutions came the same week that Trump disclosed that he was informed that he is a target in the Justice Department’s investigation into his efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election, including the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He said he received a “target letter” Sunday night, which is often a sign that someone could soon be charged.

House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) are leading the effort to expunge Trump’s impeachments; Greene sponsored the resolution relating to the first impeachment, relating to Ukraine, and Stefanik is taking the lead on the second, pertaining to Jan. 6.

This story was updated at 6:18 p.m.

Mayorkas gets new chief of staff with political battle skills

Posted on July 20, 2023 by By Eli Stokols and Myah Ward

Jonathan Davidson, who has served as the assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the Department of Treasury for more than two years, is moving to another high-profile perch within the Biden administration.

Davidson will serve as chief of staff to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who informed DHS staffers of the move in an email Thursday, POLITICO has learned. He’ll replace former chief of staff Kristie Canegallo, who was tapped last month as Mayorkas’ acting deputy secretary after John Tien announced his retirement.

“In a career spanning 25 years in both the Executive and Legislative branches, Jonathan has been a trusted advisor and proven leader at the highest levels of government,” Mayorkas wrote in the email to staff.

A long time Senate aide, Davidson served as chief of staff to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) prior to joining the Biden administration in 2021. With the prime legislative window for Biden and Democrats having essentially closed after Republicans took back control of the House last November, Davidson’s Hill experience is being redirected, possibly to defend oversight by House Republicans, some of whom have called to impeach Mayorkas.

Republicans have blamed Mayorkas for the administration’s border policies, but they currently lack the votes necessary to bring articles of impeachment against him to the floor. That could change as conservatives continue lobbying their colleagues in hopes of fulfilling a promise to the party’s base.

At Treasury, Davidson oversaw a historic period of legislative accomplishments and the implementation of landmark laws — the distribution of Covid relief checks in 2021 following the passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and, following the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, the creation of tax incentives for green energy projects. Additionally, Mayorkas noted, Davidson “worked on a range of national security issues, including the Administration’s efforts in response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its push to diversify global supply chains.”

“Jonathan’s political judgment has helped us navigate some of our department’s biggest priorities,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement. “From debt limit impasses to Inflation Reduction Act implementation, Jonathan has been a trusted advisor and he will be sorely missed.”

Beyond Mayorkas’ inner circle, DHS has had multiple senior officials retire in recent months. In early June, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Tae Johnson announced his retirement, just a week after Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said he was stepping down.

Kevin McCarthy made another stupid promise that’s coming back to bite him

Posted on July 20, 2023 by Laura Clawson

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is bad at this. The frantic bargaining he did to squeak into the speakership after 15 rounds of voting set the stage for how he would perform in the role he wanted so badly, and the answer is … badly. This is a man so weak that anytime anyone gets mad at him, he offers up a major concession that will just cause him more problems down the road. And he’s done it again.

Politico reports that after McCarthy dared to suggest Donald Trump might not be the strongest Republican presidential candidate, not only did McCarthy grovel publicly for Trump’s forgiveness, he made another of his foolish promises. McCarthy promised Trump a House vote on expunging his two impeachments, and Trump plans to hold him to it, reminding him of the promise every time the two men talk.

Trump is already angry that McCarthy has refused to endorse him so far. Add to that his anger at McCarthy’s late-June comment—“[t]he question is, is he the strongest to win the election; I don’t know that answer”—and McCarthy is on thin ice. If he doesn’t give Trump that impeachment expungement vote before August recess, as he reportedly promised, all bets are off.

Trump apparently thinks having his two impeachments expunged would in some way counterbalance the dozens of criminal charges he faces, with more expected soon. This is about as ridiculous a thing as Trump has ever thought, which is saying something.

But there are significant dangers to holding such a vote—dangers like losing the vote. “I’m for Trump,” an unnamed “senior GOP member” told Politico. “The problem is: If you have an expungement, and it goes to the floor and fails—which it probably will—then the media will treat it like it’s a third impeachment, and it will show disunity among Republican ranks. It’s a huge strategic risk.”

Republicans have a mere five-seat majority in the House, and two current Republican members voted to impeach Trump the second time. There are a total of 18 House Republicans representing districts that voted for President Joe Biden. While the pattern is for those people to complain loudly to the media about what a terrible position they’re being put into by being forced to take votes on unpopular things like impeaching Biden, they usually fall right in line when it’s time to vote. But it wouldn’t take many of them to sink the vote.

Additionally, Politico reports, “there’s the clutch of constitutionally minded conservatives—who, we are told, have privately voiced skepticism that the House has the constitutional authority to erase a president’s impeachments.” Again, however many of these people actually exist, most of them will fall in line. But with such a small majority, it doesn’t take many defections to turn the vote Trump is demanding into yet another disaster for him.

McCarthy, meanwhile, has once again put his pathetic failure of leadership on display. If he holds the vote, he puts many of his most vulnerable members in a difficult position and risks embarrassing himself and Trump if the vote fails. If he doesn’t hold the vote, Trump is going to put him on blast or extract another equally or more damaging promise from him.

Senate Judiciary panel advances Supreme Court ethics reform bill

Posted on July 20, 2023 (Updated July 20, 2023) by Alexander Bolton

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines after a more-than-three-hour markup Thursday to advance a Supreme Court ethics reform bill in the wake of media reports that conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepted tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts and perks from wealthy Republican donors.

The committee voted 11 to 10 to approve the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which would require justices to adopt a code of conduct and create a transparent process for members of the public to submit ethics complaints against members of the court.

Every Democratic member of the committee voted for the reforms while every Republican voted no.

The bill would also require the Supreme Court to adopt disclosure rules for gifts, travel and income received by justices and law clerks that are as rigorous as Senate and House disclosure rules.

It would establish a panel of chief judges from the lower courts to investigate and make recommendations in response to complaints and require greater disclosure of funding behind amicus curiae briefs to the court.

Senate Republicans filed 61 amendments to the legislation to drag out the Judiciary Committee’s markup for several hours. The panel ended up voting on fewer than a dozen of them.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the ranking member of the panel, accused Democrats of trying to “destroy” the court in retaliation for recent landmark decisions by the court’s conservative majority to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, to reject the affirmative action policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina and invalidate President Biden’s student loan relief program.

“What you’re trying to do is not improve the court, you’re trying to destroy it as it exists,” he told his Democratic colleagues on the panel.

“You have to look at this in terms of what’s been going on for a couple years,” he said, pointing to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) warning to conservative Supreme Court justices in a rally held outside the court in March of 2020 that they would “pay the price” for ruling in favor of abortion restrictions.

Schumer later clarified that he never intended to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court if it restricted abortion rights.

Graham also accused Democrats of wanting to expand the Supreme Court to dilute the influence of conservative justices.

“You have done just about everything there is to do to delegitimize this court,” he said. “Members of the Democratic leadership went to the steps of the Supreme Court and literally threatened people.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) rejected that accusation.

“Some have suggested that Democrats are pursuing Supreme Court ethics reform to target the court’s current right-wing majority. Far from it. The reforms we are proposing would apply in equal force to all justices,” he said.

Durbin noted that he first urged Chief Justice John Roberts 11 years ago, when the composition of the court was much different, to adopt a binding code of conduct.

“Unfortunately, he did not accept my suggestion. Since then as more and more stories have emerged of justices’ ethical lapses, the American people’s confidence in the Supreme Court has dropped to an all-time low,” Durbin said.

ProPublica reported in April that Thomas accepted gifts of private plane travel and luxury vacations from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow over two decades without disclosing them publicly.

More from The Hill

The outlet also reported that Thomas didn’t disclose that one of Crow’s companies bought a property in Savannah, Ga., where Thomas’s mother lives and in which the justice owned a third interest.

Another ProPublica report revealed that Crow paid for the private school tuition for Thomas’s teenage grandnephew, whom Thomas said he was raising “as a son.”

ProPublica reported last month that Alito accepted a vacation at a luxury fishing lodge in Alaska in 2008 paid for by conservative donors and didn’t disclose it publicly.

Alito traveled to the lodge aboard a private jet owned by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer and six years later ruled in a case, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, that resulted in Singer’s hedge fund recouping a $2.4 billion payout.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), a member of the panel, argued Thursday that Thomas’s wife, Ginni, a conservative activist, accepted payments from groups with business before the court that were not properly disclosed.

“How is it that you can have a Supreme Court justice who does not recuse himself when his wife is involved in the very issue that is before him?” she said. “Those kinds of examples really raise the question of why the Supreme Court shouldn’t have a code of ethics.”

More recently, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor came under criticism after The Associated Press reported that the her staff pushed colleges and a library to purchase copies of her book when she was scheduled to speak at their sponsored events.

Democrats voted along party lines to defeat Republican amendments to the bill, including one sponsored by Graham to empower the Supreme Court’s police force to investigate threats to justices and another by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to allow judges to carry guns for self-protection without restriction by state and local laws.

Durbin argued that the Department of Justice and FBI already has the job of investigating threats against justices and voiced concerns that expanding the mission of the Supreme Court’s relatively small police force would overtax it and require additional resources.

Durbin and other Democrats argued that Cornyn’s gun proposal wasn’t relevant to Supreme Court ethics reform. Cornyn argued that arming justices would protect them from potential attackers motivated by criticism of their decisions and ideology.

Democrats also defeated an amendment sponsored by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to delay the implementation of the Supreme Court ethics reform bill until Congress learns who leaked a draft of the court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion.

Durbin said Blackburn’s proposal wouldn’t do anything to address the “crisis of confidence” in the court.

The committee adopted an amendment sponsored by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) to condemn denigrating rhetoric used against Thomas or any justice. Republicans who supported the amendment cited several examples of Democratic officials using such rhetoric to criticize Thomas.

—Updated at 4:50 p.m.

GOP centrists pan Trump impeachment erasure as McCarthy denies any deal

Posted on July 20, 2023 by By Jordain Carney, Sarah Ferris and Olivia Beavers

Kevin McCarthy denies he made any deal with Donald Trump to expunge his impeachment record. Even if the speaker did call for such a vote, a bloc of House GOP centrists would likely defeat it.

Roughly a half-dozen swing district Republicans said Thursday they were skeptical — or even downright opposed — to any vote designed to symbolically rescind one or both of Trump’s impeachments. Two of Trump’s strongest supporters in the House, Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have repeatedly pushed the idea as Trump’s legal woes pile up in his 2024 presidential bid.

POLITICO's Playbook reported Thursday that McCarthy had promised the former president he would look to expunge the impeachments, seeking to dispel Trump's pressure to endorse him for president in 2024. That promise, though unlikely to happen anytime soon, renewed Greene's vow that she would get a full House vote on her effort: “I think we’ll get it done.”

But a slew of Republicans in battleground districts questioned the purpose of a vote motivated solely to help Trump that could hurt them back home.

“It doesn't make sense to me. Because if you're found not guilty, what do we expunge?” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said in an interview, referring to the findings of the Senate trials in both impeachments. “I think it's silly. We should be moving forward, not backwards.”

It’s the latest Trump-driven headache for McCarthy as he tries to manage an unruly conference that has tied itself closely to the former president. On one hand, failing to hold the vote risks antagonizing Trump and drawing blowback from McCarthy’s right flank, a number of whom feel more loyal to the former president than the California Republican.

On the other hand, forcing the issue puts purple-district Republicans back into one of their least favorite positions: having to defend, or break with, the former president.

Bacon is not alone among purple-district Republicans, many of whom are questioning the purpose of voting to appease the scandal-plagued frontrunner of their 2024 primary. Some even doubted whether such an expungement was legally possible.

“What is there to expunge? He was acquitted at trial. I don't really see the purpose of it,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) told reporters. Asked whether he’d support it, he scoffed: “We’ll see if it even comes to the floor.”

“Probably not,” added Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) in an interview, when asked whether he'd vote for such a measure. “In regards to both? What? Weren’t there multiple?”

One House Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, described personally urging leadership not to bring it to the floor for a vote.

“That’d kill me,” the GOP lawmaker said of the political implications. Besides that, the lawmaker described it as a legally dubious tactic: “He was found not guilty. What are we expunging? How do you take a public thing and expunge? It’s not a criminal record.”

Another House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, questioned the timing. This member said the issue felt largely dormant until just after Trump said this week that he got a target letter from the grand jury investigation into his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, signaling a likelihood he’d be indicted.

And the GOP lawmaker further wondered whether the entire purpose of the new expungement push was to help Trump argue in court that his impeachment was erased as special counsel Jack Smith inches closer to an investigative conclusion.

“It’s already on record. It’s done,” said Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), a swing-district Republican who faces a steeper uphill climb than most due to his own indictment. He added that he wouldn’t support it, and “it’s not going to make us forget it happened.”

Those skeptical members have some comfort, however: Republicans from across the conference’s ideological spectrum said on Thursday that they had not heard from leadership about the resolutions coming up for a vote, or heard much about the measures at all.

Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), a McCarthy ally, said he had “never heard anything about it.” Bacon echoed that, saying “no one’s ever brought it up in conference” and that he had “heard zero” about it except “20 or 30 buddies who said, ‘did you read this?’” referring to the POLITICO report.

Underscoring the tricky political calculus, the top two House Republicans — McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) — downplayed the possibility of the two resolutions coming up for a quick vote. McCarthy said Thursday he supported expunging the impeachments but denied he had made a deal on holding a vote, telling reporters there was “no deal.”

Asked whether he promised Trump an expungement vote,” McCarthy told reporters: "No."

“The process, whatever we do, goes through committee, like anything else,” he said.

Scalise, meanwhile, punted a question about voting on the resolutions to Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, where the measures from Stefanik and Greene were technically referred. He also stressed that Republicans have a busy schedule already as they try to avoid a government shutdown with a Sept. 30 deadline.

“We’re doing the appropriations bills next week and then of course when we return in September. We have a lot of other appropriations bills teed up, so each one of those takes days," Scalise said.

Greene and Stefanik introduced their resolutions in June, amid a concerted conservative push for floor action advantageous to Trump, including articles of impeachment against Biden and another measure to rebuke one of the former president's harshest critics, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

And some Trump allies say they’re determined to keep pushing.

“It should come to the floor,” said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a major Trump supporter. “With what we unveiled yesterday in Oversight — if a phone call to [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy is going to be grounds for impeachment, it should definitely come to the floor and be expunged.”

Brittany Gibson contributed to this report.

Bidens allegedly ‘coerced’ Burisma CEO to pay them millions to help get Ukraine prosecutor fired: FBI form

Posted on July 20, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

Joe Biden and Hunter Biden allegedly "coerced" Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky to pay them millions of dollars in exchange for their help in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired, according to allegations contained in an unclassified FBI document released Thursday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Grassley said he released the document, which describes an alleged criminal bribery scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a Ukrainian business executive, so that the American people can "read this document for themselves without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats."

The document in question is an FBI-generated FD-1023 form, which Grassley acquired via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers, according to the senator's office.

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

In the form, Zlochevsky tells the source he has "many text messages and ‘recordings’ that show he was coerced to make such payments" to the Bidens.

Biden has acknowledged that when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, and at the time, Hunter had a highly lucrative role on the board receiving thousands of dollars per month. The then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion of critical U.S. aid if Shokin was not fired.

Biden allies maintain the then-vice president pushed for Shokin's firing due to concerns the Ukrainian prosecutor went easy on corruption, and say that his firing, at the time, was the policy position of the U.S. and international community.

The unclassified document is dated June 30, 2020, and says the contact with the source was "telephonic."

The source reported to the FBI that "in late 2015 or 2016, during the Obama/Biden Administration, CHS was first introduced to officials at Ukraine natural gas business Burisma Holdings through [redacted] Oleksandr Ostapenko." The form reflects that there is an additional FD-1023 detailing information brought by the source dated Jan. 2, 2018.

HOUSE GOP DEMAND TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEWS FROM HUNTER BIDEN PROSECUTOR, DOJ, IRS, SECRET SERVICE OFFICIALS

"CHS and Ostapenko traveled to Ukraine and went to Burisma’s office…the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Burisma’s interest in purchasing a US-based oil and gas business, for purposes of merging it with Burisma for purposes of conducting an IPO in the US," the form states. "Burisma was willing to purchase a US-based entity for $20-$30 million."

The form states that the CHS attended that meeting, as well as Burisma’s CFO Vadim Pojarski and Karina Zlochevsky, the daughter of CEO and founder Mykola Zlochevsky.

Fox News Digital has previously reported that Hunter Biden and his business associates had much contact with Pojarskii [Pozharsky] about his role on the board of the company.

"During the meeting Pojarskii asked CHS whether CHS was aware of Burisma’s Board of Directors. CHS replied ‘no,’ and Pojarski advised the board members included: 1) the former president or prime minister of Poland; and 2) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.

"Pojarskii said Burisma hired the former president or prime minister of Poland to leverage his contacts in Europe for prospective oil and gas deals," the form states.

Burisma said they "hired Hunter Biden ‘to protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems.’"

The source asked why Burisma needed his assistance regarding the merger of the U.S.-based company when Biden was on their board, to which Pojarskii replied: "Hunter Biden was not smart, and they wanted to get additional counsel."

EXCLUSIVE: PERSON ALLEGING BIDEN CRIMINAL BRIBERY SCHEME IS 'HIGHLY CREDIBLE' FBI SOURCE USED SINCE OBAMA ADMIN: SOURCE

The form jumps to a meeting the source detailed that took place two months later. The source met with Mykola Zlochevsky in Vienna, Austria, outside a coffee shop, along with Ostapenko.

"CHS recalled this meeting took place around the time Joe Biden made a public statement about (former) Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin being corrupt, and that he should be fired/removed from office," the form states. "CHS told Zlochevsky that due to Shokin’s investigation into Burisma, which was made public at this time, it would have a substantial negative impact on Burisma’s prospective IPO in the United States."

"Zlochevsky replied something to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry Hunter will take care of those issues through his dad," the form states, adding that the source "did not ask any further questions about what that specifically meant."

Zlochevsky went on to say, "Hunter Biden advised Burisma it could raise much more capital if Burisma purchased a larger US-based business that already had a history in the US oil and gas sector." The source said Zlochevsky mentioned a business in Texas.

"CHS advised Zlochevsky it would be problematic to raise capital in the US given Shokin’s investigation into Burisma as nobody in the US would invest in a company that was the subject of a criminal investigation," the form states.

DOJ KNEW HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP WAS 'NOT MANIPULATED,' CONTAINED 'RELIABLE EVIDENCE' IN 2019: WHISTLEBLOWER

"CHS suggested it would be best if Burisma simply litigate the matter in Ukraine, and pay some attorney $50,000," the form states, but Zlochevsky said Burisma "would likely lose the trial because he could not show that Burisma was innocent."

"Zlochevsky also laughed at CHS’s number of $50,000 (not because of the small amounts but because the number contained a ‘5’) and said that ‘it costs 5 (million) to pay one Biden, and 5 (million) to another Biden."

"CHS noted that at this time, it was unclear to CHS whether these alleged payments were already made," the form states.

But the form states that the source told Zlochevsky that "any such payments to the Bidens would complicate matters, and Burisma should hire ‘some normal US oil and gas advisors’ because the Bidens have no experience with the business sector."

"Zlochevsky made some comment that although Hunter Biden ‘was stupid, and his [Zlochevsky’s] dog was smarter,’ Zlochevsky needed to keep Hunter Biden [on the board] ‘so everything will be okay,’" the form states.

The source went on to ask "whether Hunter Biden or Joe Biden told Zlochevsky he should retain Hunter."

"Zlochevsky replied: ‘They both did.’"

The source retired that this was a "mistake," and that Zlochevsky "should fire Hunter Biden and deal with Shokin’s investigation directly so that the matter" stayed an issue in Ukraine and so that it did not "turn into some international matter," to which Zlochevsky stressed not to worry and "this thing will go away anyway."

"CHS replied that, notwithstanding Shokin’s investigation, it was still a bad decision for Burisma to spend $20-30 million to buy a US business, and that CHS didn’t want to be involved with the Biden matter," the form states.

"Zlochevsky responded that he appreciated CHS’s advice, but that ‘it’s too late to change his decision.’"

"CHS understood this to mean that Zlochevsky had already paid the Bidens, presumably to ‘deal with Shokin,’" the form states.

"It is remarkable that congressional Republicans, in their eagerness to go after President Biden regardless of the truth, continue to push claims that have been debunked for years and that they themselves have cautioned to take ‘with a grain of salt’ because they could be ‘made up,’" said White House spokesman Ian Sams. "These claims have reportedly been scrutinized by the Trump Justice Department, a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, and a full impeachment trial of the former President that centered on these very issues, and over and over again, they have been found to lack credibility. It’s clear that congressional Republicans are dead-set on playing shameless, dishonest politics and refuse to let truth get in the way. It is well past time for news organizations to hold them to basic levels of factual accountability for their repeated and increasingly desperate efforts to mislead both the public and the press."

The FBI said in a statement that the release of the 1023 risked the safety of a confidential source:

"Throughout the FBI’s engagements with Congress, we have been guided by our obligation to protect the physical safety of confidential human sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations. We have repeatedly explained to Congress, in correspondence and in briefings, how critical it is to keep this source information confidential. In the face of these significant concerns, the FBI negotiated a resolution with Chairman Comer to provide the information requested in a manner that protects the safety of confidential sources and integrity of investigations."

Meanwhile, the form jumps to a "2016/2017 telephone call" the source had with Zlochevsky after the 2016 presidential election. Zlochevsky said he was "not happy Trump won the election."

"CHS asked Zlochevsky whether he was concerned about Burisma’s involvement with the Bidens," the form states. "Zlochevsky stated he didn't want to pay the Bidens and he was ‘pushed to pay’ them."

The source explained to the FBI agent taking notes of his conversation that the Russian term Zlochevsky used to explain the payments was "poluchili." The form states that "literally translates to; 'got it’ or ‘received it’ but is also used in "Russian criminal slang for being ‘forced or coerced to pay.’"

HUNTER DEMANDED $10M FROM CHINESE ENERGY FIRM BECAUSE 'BIDENS ARE THE BEST,' HAVE 'CONNECTIONS'

At this point, Shokin had already been fired. Zlochevsky said "nobody would find out about his financial dealings with the Bidens."

"CHS then stated, ‘I hope you have some back-up (proof) for your words (namely, that Zlochevsky was ‘forced’ to pay the Bidens)."

"Zlochevsky replied he has many text messages and ‘recordings’ that show that he was coerced to make such payments," the form states. "CHS told Zlochevsky he should make certain that he should retain those recordings."

The form then jumps to a 2019 telephone call between the source and Ostapenko, in which they discussed "various business matters" unrelated to Burisma.

"During the call, Zlochevsky asked CHS and/or Ostapenko if they read the recent news reports about the investigations into the Bidens and Burisma, and Zlochevsky jokingly asked if the CHS was an ‘oracle’ (due to CHS’s prior advice that Zlochevsky should not pay the Bidens and instead to hire an attorney to litigate the allegations concerning Shokin’s investigation)," the form states.

"CHS mentioned Zlochevsky might have difficulty explaining suspicious wire transfers that may evidence any (illicit) payments to the Bidens," the form states. "Zlochevsky responded he did not send any funds directly to the ‘Big Guy’ (which CHS understood was a reference to Joe Biden)."

The form says CHS asked Zlochevsky how many companies and bank accounts he controlled, to which he responded it would "take them (investigators) 10 years to find the records (i.e. illicit payments to Joe Biden)."

While the source detailed the conversations with Zlochevsky, he also told the FBI that "it is very common for business men in post-Soviet countries to brag or show-off" and said it is "extremely common for businesses in Russia and Ukraine to make ‘bribe’ payments to various government officials."

As for recordings and text messages of conversations with the Bidens, the source said that Zlochevsky said he had "a total of 17 recordings" involving the Bidens; "two of the recordings included Joe Biden, and the remaining 15 recordings only included Hunter Biden."

The source said those recordings "evidence Zlochevsky was somehow coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure" Shokin was fired.

The source said Zlochevsky also had "two documents (which CHS understood to be wire transfer statements, bank records, etc.), that evidence some payment(s) to the Bidens were made, presumably in exchange for Shokin’s firing."

"For the better part of a year, I’ve been pushing the Justice Department and FBI to provide details on its handling of very significant allegations from a trusted FBI informant implicating then-Vice President Biden in a criminal bribery scheme," Grassley said. "While the FBI sought to obfuscate and redact, the American people can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats, thanks to brave and heroic whistleblowers. What did the Justice Department and FBI do with the detailed information in the document? And why have they tried to conceal it from Congress and the American people for so long?"

Grassley added: "The Justice Department and FBI have failed to come clean, but Chairman Comer and I intend to find out."

Comer subpoenaed the FBI to turn over the unredacted document to Congress. The FBI did not comply, but instead, made accommodations to allow lawmakers to review the document in a secure setting last month.

"The FBI’s Biden Bribery Record tracks closely with the evidence uncovered by the Oversight Committee’s Biden family influence peddling investigation," House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer said. "In the FBI’s record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn’t pay the ‘big guy’ directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money."

Comer added: "At our hearing with IRS whistleblowers, they testified that they had never seen or heard of this record during the Biden criminal investigation, despite having potentially corroborating evidence. Given the misconduct and politicization at the Department of Justice, the American people must be able to read this record for themselves. I thank Senator Grassley for providing much needed transparency to the American people."

She helped Michigan adopt fair districts. Now she’s running for one of them

Posted on July 20, 2023 by Jeff Singer

Attorney Jessica Swartz on Wednesday became the first notable Democrat to announce a campaign to unseat Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga in Michigan's 4th District, a historically red constituency around Kalamazoo that Donald Trump would have taken by a small 51-47 margin in 2020. Swartz, though, said that Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer carried it last year, and new numbers from Daily Kos Elections find the governor did indeed prevail by a tight 50-49 as she was pulling off a 54-44 statewide landslide.

The Democrat is a first-time candidate, though she's not quite a political novice. Swartz previously volunteered for Voters Not Politicians, a nonpartisan organization that successfully promoted a 2018 referendum to create Michigan's independent redistricting commission. That body ended up drawing a map for the 2022 elections that led Huizenga, who'd previously represented the reliably red 2nd District along the western Michigan coast, to run for the more competitive 4th even though he only represented about a quarter of the new seat.

For months it looked like there would be an incumbent vs. incumbent primary clash between the Trump-backed Huizenga and longtime Rep. Fred Upton, who'd voted to impeach the GOP's leader after the Jan. 6 attack, but Upton ended up retiring ahead of what would have been a challenging race. Swartz, in an interview with the Holland Sentinel, argued the district needed someone more like Upton, whom she praised for working across party lines and providing for his constituents, than the hard-right Huizenga.

Huizenga, who won his last race 54-42 against an underfunded Democrat, finished June with $630,000 in the bank, though it's possible he won't use it on this contest. The congressman has expressed interest a few times this year in running for Michigan's open Senate seat, with his most recent public comments coming from a May interview with the conservative site The Dispatch. Huizenga acknowledged the state presents a "tough environment" for his party, but while he said he was "hoping to have a decision probably this quarter," June 30 came and went without any word about his plans.

US House Speaker McCarthy denies deal with Trump to expunge impeachments

Posted on July 20, 2023 by Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines