Month: April 2024

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Mayorkas’s impeachment trial

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

We’ve seen impeachment trials a lot on Capitol Hill in recent years. The Senate conducted two impeachment trials of former President Trump in early 2020 and early 2021.

But no living American has ever witnessed the impeachment trial which is about to begin in the United States Senate.

Blink and you might miss it.

The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in February. The House accuses Mayorkas of not following the law when it comes to securing the border and lying to Congress. Mayorkas became only the second cabinet secretary ever impeached. The first was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., hasn’t tipped his hand yet on how he’ll handle the articles, but Schumer is expected to move to dismiss or table the articles. The Senate must vote to do that. If all 51 senators who caucus with the Democrats vote to punt, they can extinguish the trial quickly.

ABBOTT SENDS BIDEN MESSAGE AS TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD REINFORCES BORDER RAZOR FENCING

But don’t expect Republicans to go quietly.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says the Senate is obligated to conduct a full trial of Mayorkas and render judgment. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and other Republicans may try to elongate the trial. They argue that senators have a constitutional obligation to listen to arguments for and against impeachment. So expect them to make points of order – possibly forcing the Senate to vote – to consider the articles. However, Senate Democrats can euthanize each of those points of order – if they stick together and table each of the GOP motions.

Still, the trial might not last long. But here’s the minimum which must unfold on the Senate floor over the coming days.

Expect the following:

The House voted to impeach Mayorkas by a solitary vote in February. The House failed in its first effort to impeach after Rep. Al Green, D-Tex., materialized unexpectedly (directly from the hospital) and foiled the GOP’s plans. After a second vote to impeach, the House then appointed 11 impeachment "managers." They serve as de facto "prosecutors," presenting the House’s case to the Senate. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., serves as the lead impeachment manager. All 100 senators will sit as "jurors" when the trial begins. Mayorkas does not appear at the trial nor is he required to attend.

On Wednesday, House Sergeant at Arms Bill McFarland and Acting Clerk of the House Kevin McCumber will escort the managers and the articles of impeachment themselves from the House, across the Capitol Rotunda, to the Senate wing of the Capitol. That’s where the Senate will "receive" the articles of impeachment. Senate Sergeant at Arms Karen Gibson will greet the House entourage in the Senate wing of the Capitol and escort everyone to the Senate chamber.

All 100 senators will await the coterie from the House. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate – the most senior member of the majority party. She will preside over the impeachment trial – not Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts. The Chief Justice typically only presides over impeachment trials involving the President or Vice President. Roberts was in charge for former President Trump’s first trial in 2020. But then-Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., presided over the second impeachment trial in 2021. Leahy was the Senate’s President Pro Tempore back then.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE'S RED LINE ON SPEAKER JOHNSON

The impeachment articles are then read to the Senate.

It’s possible Lee and company could try to offer their motions then. But Murray could rule him out of order. The Senate hasn’t even sworn-in senators yet to adjudicate the trial. Moreover, the Senate could find itself either in legislative session (working on a bill) or executive session (working on a nomination) when the Senate stops its action to receive the articles. Therefore, motions by senators pertaining to the trial aren’t applicable at that moment.

Under Senate impeachment rules, things really get started the next day at 1 pm ET. That’s when the Senate swears in the senators. Gibson will announce that everyone should remain quiet "on pain of imprisonment." At that point, we are technically "in trial." Thus, motions are in order. In the past, the Senate could consider a resolution to establish parameters for how to handle the trial. Schumer could possibly move immediately to dismiss or table the articles. Or Lee and company could make their motions as well.

But here’s the problem for Republicans:

Schumer is the Senate Majority Leader. As Majority Leader, Schumer is recognized first by Murray, the presiding officer. Schumer could potentially short-circuit anything Republicans want to do by jumping ahead and making a motion to table or dismiss. The Senate would then vote on whether to halt proceedings right there. Republicans may never get a shot.

It is important to note that senators don’t "debate" during an impeachment trial. However, they could agree to debate in closed session – not out in the open.

I WANT MY MTV (MOTION TO VACATE): SPEAKER JOHNSON FACES POTENTIAL THREAT WHEN CONGRESS RETURNS

However, a vote to dismiss the articles – or on anything Republicans cook up – carries political consequences for Democrats facing competitive re-election bids this fall. Think Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Jon Tester, D-Mont., Bob Casey, D-Mich., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., and Jacky Rosen, D-Nev. Republicans will likely weaponize any roll call vote Democrats to truncate the impeachment trial. Republicans will try to portray these vulnerable Democrats as not taking the border or the charges leveled at Mayorkas seriously.

In short, the trial is likely to be short. Not the impeachment trials of former President Trump. The Senate spread out the first one over a period of 19 days. The second one consumed five days.

In fact, the model for a quick dismissal is an impeachment you probably haven’t heard of: Former federal judge Samuel Kent in 2009.

The House impeached Kent in June 2009. But Kent stepped down before the Senate trial began. The House then adopted a resolution to halt its "prosecution" of Kent. The Senate then voted to dispense with the articles before conducting a trial.

So Kent’s circumstances are not exactly what will go down with Mayorkas. But Kent’s scenario of a quick dismissal is closer to what could unfold in the next few days compared to the more robust trials of former President Trump.

‘It’s crap. Pure crap’: Senators look to quickly dismiss Mayorkas impeachment

Posted on by Joan McCarter

House Republicans are ready to take their sham impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate this week, where they’ll likely find a hostile jury. That’s if the Senate decides to even have a trial.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made it clear in February, after the House voted to impeach, that he views the whole fiasco a waste of time. 

“This sham impeachment effort is another embarrassment for House Republicans,” he said in a statement.  “House Republicans failed to produce any evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has committed any crime. House Republicans failed to show he has violated the Constitution. House Republicans failed to present any evidence of anything resembling an impeachable offense.” 

Last month, he called the whole thing “absurd.”

The House impeachment managers—including extremists Andy Biggs of Arizona and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia—will likely present their case on Wednesday, with senators sworn in as jurors on Thursday. Then it will just be a matter of how fast the Senate dispenses with it.

Schumer wrote to Democrats Friday, giving them a preview of the next few weeks of work, including impeachment, and hinted that his likely course of action will be to move to dismiss the charges. 

“I remind Senators that your presence next week is essential,” he wrote. That’s because he needs all Democrats present to vote on that motion to dismiss. 

He’ll have them. Even West Virginia’s Joe Manchin has trashed the impeachment. 

“It’s crap. Pure crap,” he told reporters in February. “No trial at all, it’s ridiculous. The trial will be in November. No. You start that craziness and play games and that stuff?” He added that Cabinet officials “work for the president. You got a problem, go to the polls.” 

He also said he believes there are sufficient votes to dismiss the impeachment. “I just want to get rid of it as quick as possible. You go down that path, that’s a slippery slope, you’ll never stop,” he said in February. 

There are at least three Republican senators—Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah—who have been skeptical enough about the whole thing to help Democrats dispense with this quickly. Romney even suggested in February that he’d vote to dismiss. 

“If there is a policy difference, it’s with the president, not the secretary that reports to him,” he said.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell paid lip service to conducting a trial in remarks last week, but didn’t show much enthusiasm for it. "[T]he Democrats have a majority, so it may not go on very long," McConnell told reporters. "But my preference would be to actually have a trial. But I think the majority is likely to prevent that."

Officially, Senate Republicans will make noises about having that trial. Republican Whip John Thune said at a recent leadership press conference that the House “has determined that Secretary Mayorkas has committed impeachable offenses” and that he thinks “the Senate needs to hold a trial.” How strenuously they’ll try to make that happen is another question—particularly considering who they’ll be teaming up with in the House. After all, Biggs and Greene will be among those coming to the Senate floor with this bullshit. How many GOP senators are going to want to ally with those guys?

RELATED STORIES:

Yes, the House GOP really will try to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas

House GOP’s unprecedented stunt to impeach Mayorkas fails

Speaker demands House stop 'political posturing' hours after impeachment stunt

Campaign Action

Top GOP lawmaker believes he can ‘fix’ Social Security

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A top House Republican wants to raise the retirement age for social security benefits to save the program from a projected 2033 insolvency deadline.

Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Kevin Hern, R-Okla., released a budget last month that included conservative proposals to cut federal spending and extend the life of social security. If nothing is done, the critical program will face a roughly 20% cut in 2034.

One option Hern argued for is raising the full retirement benefits eligibility age from 67 to 69 – a politically fraught idea that mainstream leaders in both parties have been hesitant to touch.

"If you look at it, there’s only three options you can do to fix Social Security… one is you adjust the age, the second thing is you adjust what gets paid out of the program, and the third thing is… there's more people working that pay into the program," Hern said.

HOUSE PASSES $1.2 TRILLION GOVERNMENT SPENDING BILL TO AVERT GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

On the subject of age specifically, Hern pointed out that the average life expectancy in the U.S. was in the early 60s when Social Security began. Today, the average life expectancy is in the late 70s.

"So you’re living [more] years on a program that was never designed to… be that way," Hern said.

The RSC is a large bloc of conservative House Republicans, accounting for roughly 80% of the conference.

The White House seized on the group’s budget proposal as a political cudgel, accusing Republicans of wanting to gut Social Security.

TERM LIMITS, PREVENTING LEADER ‘MONARCHY’ BECOME TOP CONCERNS IN POST-MCCONNELL GOP

"This is just another failed attempt by Joe Biden to push aside an issue that's very important to retirees out there," Hern told Fox News Digital of the backlash. "Our budget doesn't touch anyone that's in retirement, or near retirement."

He added: "If I told you today, at your age, just as it affected me when I was 21 years old, you're going to move my retirement age two years, I’d think – so what, it’s not going to be there anyway. All we can look at is the budget window up to 10 years. So our path forward is what's going to make it solid for the next 10 years. Joe Biden has no plan."

Biden’s own fiscal year 2025 budget proposal called for extending Social Security solvency by raising taxes on the highest-income earners. But Hern argued that the "best estimates are, that would extend it by one year."

HOUSE SPEAKER JOHNSON SAYS WHITE HOUSE DOESN'T 'CALL THE SHOTS' ON WHEN IMPEACHMENT IS OVER

Publicly, the president has largely shied away from discussing solutions for how to prevent Social Security from reaching insolvency. Former President Trump, Biden’s likely GOP challenger in the 2024 presidential election, also has been unclear about his stance on the program.

Conversations around reforming retirement benefits are usually politically dangerous, particularly in an election year.

Hern insisted that any change would likely need to be bipartisan – and he said he’s been having discussions with Trump about what to do if he wins back the White House.

"The reality is, is President Trump's no different than us," Hern said. "We've talked about this, he and I and his team. We have no desire, no desire to cut back on any benefits [for anybody who is] in retirement or near retirement, but he understands, his team understands, that we have to make sure it's solid."

When asked for comment, Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital: "As President Trump has repeatedly stated, he does not support cuts to Social Security nor does he support raising the retirement age. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security and Medicare in his second term."

Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for defying subpoenas after prosecuting Trump advisor

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A President Biden-appointed judge slammed the Justice Department’s apparent hypocrisy on Friday for allowing attorneys involved in the Biden family investigation to defy subpoenas — even though former Trump advisor Peter Navarro is sitting in prison for doing the same thing.

District Judge Ana Reyes ripped the DOJ at a status conference for not letting DOJ lawyers Mark Daly and Jack Morgan provide testimony as part of the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into the Biden family and the impeachment inquiry into the president. 

"There’s a person in jail right now because you all brought a criminal lawsuit against him because he did not appear for a House subpoena," Reyes said during a hearing on the Judiciary Committee’s lawsuit, according to Politico, seemingly referring to Navarro. 

HUNTER BIDEN CLAIMED HE DIDN'T 'STAND TO GAIN ANYTHING' IN CONTROVERSIAL BURISMA ROLE DESPITE MAKING MILLIONS

Navarro was sent to prison in March for four months, charged and convicted with contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with a congressional subpoena demanding his testimony and documents relating to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro said he could not cooperate with the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack because Trump had invoked executive privilege, an argument that lower courts have rejected.

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon also received a four-month sentence for similar contempt of Congress charges but was allowed to stay free pending appeal.

"I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up," but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, Reyes blasted. "You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant."

"And now you guys are flouting those subpoenas. . . . And you don’t have to show up?" Reyes continued. 

She said that the DOJ’s position would delight defense attorneys up and down the country.

"I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands of defense attorneys . . . who would be happy to hear that DOJ’s position is, if you don’t agree with a subpoena, if you believe it’s unconstitutional or unlawful, you can unilaterally not show up," Reyes said. 

HUNTER BIDEN ATTORNEY SLAMS 'ABNORMAL WAY' SPECIAL COUNSEL WEISS HANDLED CASE AFTER JUDGE DENIES DISMISSAL

Daly and Morgan, two attorneys with the Justice Department’s tax division, were subpoenaed for their "firsthand knowledge of the irregularities in DOJ’s investigation that appear to have benefited Hunter Biden," according to Courthouse News Service. 

The committee says the pair were members of a team that recommended what charges to bring against Hunter Biden for suspected tax crimes in 2014 and 2015 when he served on the board of Ukrainian company Burisma. 

That team initially agreed Hunter Biden should be charged but then reversed course and suggested he should not be charged.

Following the reversal, the Justice Department allowed the statute of limitations for those charges to lapse. The committee argues looking into this timeline is crucial to its investigation.  

Justice Department attorney James Gilligan tried to argue that the decision to defy the subpoena came after lengthy deliberations "at a high level."

He also argued that Daly and Morgan are current government employees, whereas Navarro and Bannon were no longer part of the government when their testimony was demanded, but Reyes seemed unimpressed by that reasoning. 

But her criticism wasn’t all directed at Biden’s DOJ.

Reyes scoffed at a Trump-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion contending that executive branch employees could defy such subpoenas if Justice Department lawyers were not allowed to be present.

She was also astonished that Gilligan wouldn't commit to instructing Daly and Morgan to testify if the committee were to drop its insistence that government counsel not be in the room for their depositions.

"I cannot answer that now," he said. To which Reyes responded, "Are you kidding me?"

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.  

Federal judge accuses the DOJ of hypocrisy for ‘flouting’ Biden impeachment inquiry subpoenas 

Posted on (Updated by Victor Nava
A federal judge scolded the Justice Department on Friday for refusing to allow attorneys involved in the Hunter Biden investigation to comply with subpoenas issued by House Republicans.  The House Judiciary Committee filed a lawsuit last month in the federal District Court in Washington seeking to force DOJ lawyers Mark Daly and Jack Morgan to...
Posted in Uncategorized

CIA denies whistleblower allegation that agency ‘stonewalled’ IRS interview with Hunter Biden ‘sugar brother’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Central Intelligence Agency is denying whistleblower claims that it "stonewalled" an IRS interview with Hunter Biden’s "sugar brother" Kevin Morris, saying the agency "did not prevent or seek to prevent IRS or DOJ from conducting any such interview." 

A whistleblower approached House Republicans last month claiming that the CIA blocked an interview with Morris conducted by the IRS as part of the federal investigation into Hunter Biden. 

WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS CIA 'STONEWALLED' IRS INTERVIEW WITH HUNTER BIDEN 'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS: HOUSE GOP

According to the whistleblower, in August 2021, when IRS investigators on the Hunter Biden federal investigation were preparing to interview Morris, the CIA "intervened to stop the interview." 

The whistleblower alleged that the CIA summoned two Justice Department officials to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for a briefing regarding Morris. 

The whistleblower claimed that Morris "could not be a witness in the investigation." 

The allegations were laid out in a letter sent to CIA Director Bill Burns last month by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.

But the CIA this week said the allegation is "false." 

"Without confirming or denying the existence of any associations or communications, CIA did not prevent or seek to prevent IRS or DOJ from conducting any such interview," James Catella, the CIA’s director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, wrote in a letter to Jordan and Comer. "The allegation is false." 

The CIA said that, as a general matter, and "without specific reference to the issue about which you have inquired, CIA facilitates the Department of Justice's access to national security information in the context of investigations and prosecutions in a variety of circumstances." 

'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS LOANED HUNTER BIDEN $6.5M FOR DEBTS AND BACK TAXES, MORE THAN PREVIOUS ESTIMATE

"For example, CIA engages with DOJ to enable prosecutors to understand national security information that may arise in the course of an investigation and to assess their discovery obligations," Catella wrote. 

"CIA cooperates with law enforcement partners and does not obstruct U.S. law enforcement investigations or prosecutions," he continued. "To the extent your letter seeks information about any ongoing federal law enforcement investigation or prosecution, the Department of Justice is the responsible agency." 

Morris loaned Hunter Biden approximately $6.5 million — over $1 million more than originally estimated and discussed — his attorney revealed in a letter earlier this year. 

Morris, who was subpoenaed to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, testified that he loaned Hunter Biden at least $5 million and began paying his tax liability. Morris and his attorney were estimating during the interview, a source told Fox News, and promised to follow-up with exact figures loaned to the first son. The attorney followed up to note Morris had given an additional $1.6 million to Hunter Biden. 

KEVIN MORRIS GAVE 'MASSIVE' FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO HUNTER BIDEN, RAISING CAMPAIGN FINANCE CONCERNS: COMER

Morris, on Oct. 13, 2021, gave Hunter Biden a loan for approximately $1.4 million. According to the letter, Hunter Biden was to repay the loan, with $500,000 paid by Oct. 1, 2026 and the remaining $417,634 by Oct. 1, 2027, plus interest.

A few days later, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $2.6 million, with directions to repay the loan by Oct. 1, 2029. That loan, according to Morris’ lawyer, "was used to pay, among other debts, Mr. Biden’s tax debt to the IRS."

On Oct. 17, 2022, Morris loaned Hunter Biden $640,355 to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027. In December 2022, Morris loaned Hunter $685,813.99, to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2027.

A year later, Dec. 29, 2023, Morris loaned Hunter approximately $1.2 million to be repaid by Oct. 15, 2028, with all interest paid by October 2029.

Special Counsel David Weiss charged Hunter Biden with nine federal tax charges, which break down to three felonies and six misdemeanors for $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid. 

Weiss charged Hunter in December, alleging a "four-year scheme" in which the president's son did not pay his federal income taxes from January 2017 to October 2020 while also filing false tax reports.

Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Weiss also indicted the first son on federal gun charges in Delaware last year. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to those charges as well. His attorneys are attempting to have that case dismissed.