Joe Biden laughs, ignores questions about potential impeachment by House Republicans

Posted on July 25, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Biden brushed off and smiled at reporters who peppered him with questions Tuesday evening about a potential impeachment by Republicans in the House.

Following a speech in the East Room of the White House about expanding access to mental health care, Biden made his way to the exit where a group of reporters eagerly asked for his thoughts about the growing discussion by Republicans to impeach him.

Amid numerous questions, one reporter asked, "Mr. President, McCarthy says he may [consider] an impeachment inquiry to get to the bottom of —"

Smiling from ear to ear in one clip shared to social media, Biden quickly passed by the noisy group of reporters.

MCCARTHY: BIDEN CASE WILL 'RISE TO IMPEACHMENT' AS 16 ROMANIAN PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY WENT TO 'SHELL COMPANIES'

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., says Republican lawmakers may consider an impeachment inquiry of Biden over claims of financial misconduct.

Speaking Tuesday at the Capitol, McCarthy said the questions House Republicans are raising about the Biden family finances need to be investigated. He said an impeachment inquiry "allows Congress to get the information to be able to know the truth" about whether Biden committed any wrongdoing.

An impeachment inquiry by the House would be a first step toward bringing articles of impeachment. Such a probe could be as lengthy or swift as the House determines, potentially stretching into campaign season.

Other Republicans also appear to be on board with the idea of impeachment, specifically House Freedom Caucus members.

"When he does speak to … impeachment, it carries a tremendous amount of weight. And that's why I think the ground shifted on that a little bit when he opened up the door," Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., said after a Freedom Caucus press conference on Tuesday. "I don't think there's any question that him speaking to that has caused a paradigm shift."

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., suggested there would be "an uprising" against Biden if the House did not move forward with trying to remove him.

"Look, the evidence is mounting against this guy. Look at what he’s done," Norman said. "What Donald Trump’s done with papers pales in comparison."

Norman said there was a "difference of opinion" on whether to take such a severe step but dismissed the idea of risking an impeachment vote that fails.

"Some people think that what he’s done isn’t that bad. A lot of us in general — the public, it’s gonna be an uprising against this guy, I think, at the end of the day."

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES HUNGRY FOR BIDEN IMPEACHMENT AFTER MCCARTHY’S COMMENTS: ‘GROUND SHIFTED’

McCarthy predicted Monday that Republicans will gather enough evidence soon to mount an impeachment inquiry against Biden, as the corruption scandal enveloping him and his son Hunter continues to grow.

McCarthy made reference to a relatively new revelation from the House Oversight Committee that — while Joe was vice president — Hunter Biden "capitalized" on a financial relationship with a Romanian national later convicted on corruption charges.

According to prepared remarks from House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., in June, the Bidens received more than $1 million in 17 increments.

McCarthy, during an appearance on Fox News, said that 16 of those 17 payments went to what he described as "Biden shell companies" while President Biden was vice president. According to Comer's prepared remarks, the elder Biden had been "lecturing Romania on anti-corruption policies" while instead being a "walking billboard for his … family to collect money."

"When President Biden was running for office, he told the American public that he's never talked about [Hunter's] business. He said his family has never received a dollar from China, which we now prove is not true," McCarthy said on "Hannity."

He said evidence and legitimacy of their caucus' probes are mounting, as he described the two IRS investigators who testified before Congress last week as "some of the most credible" to come forward.

McCarthy cited the FBI 1023 form wherein a confidential human source told the bureau that Biden was paid $5 million by a Burisma executive while he was vice president and while Hunter was on the board.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Biden has long denied discussion or involvement in Hunter's business deals, recently rebuffing a New York Post reporter who asked why he is reportedly referred to as the "big guy" in the FBI form — which is the same nickname purportedly used as a pseudonym in a message gleaned from previously released documentation connected to Hunter.

McCarthy on Tuesday gave no timeline for launching an impeachment inquiry into Biden.

Fox News' Charles Creitz and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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.

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."

Choosing your opponent: Why Democrats are bashing the Supreme Court now

Posted on July 5, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Biden can’t choose his direct opponent next year. But Mr. Biden and Democrats can certainly manufacture one.

The Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024.

Liberals are incensed at the latest spate of Supreme Court opinions. Several of the decisions went against causes important to the left.

The High Court undid the President’s plan to cancel $400 billion in student loans. LBGTQ groups are infuriated that the Court ruled that a Colorado web designer doesn’t have to make sites for same-sex weddings. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action requirements in higher education.

IMPEACHMENT ONCE AGAIN LOOMS LARGE IN CONGRESS

Expect Democrats to resort to a page in their playbook which likely helped the party gain a seat in the Senate and nearly cling to control in the House in 2022. The Dobbs opinion on abortion last year emerged as a game changer. It energized progressives and pro-choice Democrats and independents. The ruling infused the polls with a stream of voters, serving as a political life preserver to the party.

Democrats have a lot more to campaign on in 2024 when it comes to the Supreme Court. Questions about the ethics of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas abound. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to take part in a hearing called in the spring by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., about the conduct of the justices. The panel is prepping another clash with the Court as Senate Democrats write a bill about the ethics of justices.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told CNN the justices are "destroying the legitimacy of the Court." She endorses issuing subpoenas for justices.

"They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on the danger of this court and the abuse of power in this Court, particularly as it is related to the entanglements around conflicts of interest as well," said Ocasio-Cortez.

This is why left-wing Members hope to expand and potentially "pack" the Court with jurists who may do the bidding of progressives.

"Expanding the court is constitutional. Congress has done it before and Congress must do it again," said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

Markey is right. The composition of the Supreme Court has bounced around for decades. The size of the Court is not established by the Constitution. Congress set the makeup of the Court via statute. Congress would periodically increase or decrease the number of seats on the Court for political reasons.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a Supreme Court comprised of six justices. But in 1801, Congress reduced the size of the Court to five justices. That was an effort to undercut President Thomas Jefferson from filling the Supreme Court with one of his nominees. Don’t forget that the House of Representatives elected Jefferson as president in what is known as a "contingent election" following a dispute over the Electoral College.

MUST-DO: WHAT CONGRESS HAS LEFT ON ITS PLATE AT YEAR'S HALFWAY MARK

Because of the burgeoning size of the federal judiciary, Congress added a seventh justice to help oversee lower courts in 1807. The Court grew to nine justices in 1837.

In 1863, Congress added a 10th seat to the Supreme Court for President Lincoln. This came right after the pro-slavery Dred Scott decision in the late 1850s. There was hope that Lincoln could retool the Court following the Dred Scott case by appointing a jurist aligned with the Union who opposed slavery. However, Lincoln never filled that seat. But after Lincoln’s assassination, there was fear that President Andrew Johnson may alter the court. So in 1866, Congress shrunk the size of the Supreme Court to seven justices. That prevented Johnson from nominating anyone to the Supreme Court as the nation was in the midst of Reconstruction.

Once Johnson was out of office Congress switched the number back to nine for President Ulysses S. Grant. It’s remained at nine ever since.

But there have been efforts to change the Court’s composition since then.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to "pack" the Court in 1937. He hoped to add justices for every member of the Supreme Court who was over the age of 70.

In a radio "Fireside Chat" on March 9, 1937, FDR squarely challenged the High Court.

"The Courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions," said Roosevelt.

FDR accused the Supreme Court of an "arbitrary exercise of judicial power" when it came to opinions about banks and railroads. So the president hoped to change the Court by adding more youthful members who might align more closely with his political agenda.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS LIKELY TO INTENSIFY CALLS FROM THE LEFT TO 'PACK' THE COURT

"There is nothing novel or radical about this idea," said FDR, noting that Congress also changed the Court’s membership in 1869. "It seeks to restore the Court to its rightful and historic place in our Constitutional government."

But FDR failed to marshal enough support for the plan with his Fireside Chats. The public opposed the idea and the Senate Judiciary Committee emphatically torpedoed the plan.

It’s doubtful that the Democrats efforts to increase the size of the Supreme Court will go anywhere. It’s unclear that the proposal has anywhere close to 51 votes to pass in the Senate. Commandeering 60 votes to overcome a filibuster is even more daunting.

However, this gives liberals another chance to rail against Senate procedures and call for an end to the filibuster. It energizes the base and helps Democratic candidates raise money.

That’s why this effort is more about the ballot box in 2024.

"If you want to motivate American voters, you need to scare them," said Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer.

Bitzer says that Democrats used last year’s abortion opinion "as a weapon in the campaign." It helped Democrats mitigate losses in the midterms.

Bitzer believes Democrats now have the opportunity to lean on three key voting blocs to help them in 2024. Democrats will lean on younger voters upset about student loans. There are minority voters upset about the Affirmative Action decision. Finally, Democrats will rely on the LBGTQ+ community.

However, the closing argument could be the composition of the Supreme Court itself.

"Democrats will look at the Court and argue there are individuals that should not be on the Court and that they are on the Court and we have to play hardball," said Bitzer.

Dial back to February 2016.

Late Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly. Former President Obama nominated current Attorney General Merrick Garland to fill his seat. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is the Majority Leader at the time. He refuses to grant Garland a hearing. McConnell says the next president should fill that seat.

So former President Trump prevails in the 2016 presidential election and nominates Justice Neil Gorsuch. McConnell then shepherds Gorsuch’s nomination to confirmation after Democrats threatened a filibuster.

Upset by filibusters, Senate Democrats established a new precedent in the Senate in 2013 to short-circuit most filibusters of executive branch nominees, known as the "nuclear option." But they left in place the potential to filibuster a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate had never filibustered a Supreme Court nomination. However, the Senate did filibuster the promotion of late Justice Abe Fortas from Associate Justice to U.S. Chief Justice in the late 1960s.

Facing a filibuster, McConnell deployed the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. McConnell again relied on the nuclear option to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the fall of 2018.

After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, McConnell ignored what he said in 2016 about confirming justices in a presidential election year. The GOP-controlled Senate rammed through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett days before the 2020 presidential election.

This is why liberals are apoplectic about the Supreme Court.

"Republicans have been very willing to change the rules of the game," said Bitzer. "Democrats are slowly coming to the realization that if (Republicans) are going to play that game by their rules, then (they) need to be playing that game by (their) own set of rules."

You can’t always pick your opponent in politics.

NBA teams often pine to secure a certain matchup in the playoffs. Team A pairs up really well against Team B. Then team A is often disappointed it didn’t get the opponent it "wanted."

You can’t manufacture a potential adversary in sports. But you can in politics.

President Biden can’t choose his direct opponent in 2024. But Mr. Biden and Democrats can certainly aim to put the Supreme Court on the ballot in 2024.

Hunter’s lawyers team up with Jan 6 committee investigator to discredit laptop

Posted on July 5, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former Republican Rep. Denver Riggleman has maneuvered his way into Hunter Biden's circle and is working with the first son's legal team to conduct digital forensics on the infamous laptop, as well as joining festivities at the White House.

Riggleman has reportedly aided President Biden's son since late 2022, analyzing whether any of the data on the lost laptop was fabricated — as Hunter Biden faces intensifying investigations from House Republicans.

"When I took this job, I wasn’t pro-Hunter or anti-Hunter. I am pro-data and facts," Riggleman wrote on Twitter Wednesday. "Forensics make clear that considerable information linked to Hunter Biden is questionable."

"What ‘data’ is being used? A laptop and data saying it’s a laptop are two different things," Riggleman said in a separate post, apparently attempting to question the validity of the Hunter Biden laptop. Data from hard drive from the laptop has been verified by multiple news outlets, and an IRS whistleblower recently revealed that federal investigators knew in December 2019 that the laptop was "not manipulated in any way" and contained "reliable evidence."

HUNTER BIDEN DRIVING 170 MHP IN PROSCHE AMONG NEW LAPTOP PHOTOS POSTED ONLINE

Individuals close to Hunter Biden's legal team reportedly told CBS News that Riggleman was also feeding first son information on the investigation methods of House Republicans.

A laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was reportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop and turned over to the FBI in December 2019. The contents of the laptop, including 10,000 shocking photos recently made public online, "likely contained evidence of tax crimes," according to the IRS whistleblower.

IT'S APPALLING THE WAY THE BIDEN FAMILY IS TREATING HUNTER'S DAUGHTER: JONATHAN FAHEY

The emails and text messages found on the laptop also sparked concerns over President Biden's involvement with son Hunter's overseas business dealings.

Kevin Morris, a Malibu-based lawyer working with Hunter Biden, said Riggleman is "an invaluable resource" to the first son's legal team.

"Denver has been assisting us with data analysis since late last year," Morris told CBS News. "He is an invaluable resource, and we have made tremendous strides in untangling the massive amount of corruption and disinformation involved in this story. There will be much more coming to the public."

Riggleman also reportedly spent the Fourth of July at the White House with the Hunter's legal team.

After getting ousted in a Virginia 2020 Republican primary, outspoken Trump-critic Riggleman served as an advisor on the January 6 Committee.

The news of Riggleman's involvement with Hunter and analysis of laptop contents comes after the Daily Mail reported on new footage of younger Biden filming himself and appearing to smoke crack while driving through Arlington, Virginia, in June 2018.

Another set of photos from the president's son recently surfaced of him driving 172 miles per hour in his Porsche to Las Vegas in August 2018.

Hunter Biden recently agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax and a separate charge for possessing a firearm while acting as an unlawful user and addict of a controlled substance.

Following the plea deal, IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley Jr. claimed that there was intentional federal interference in the investigation, leading to calls for further GOP investigations and the impeachment of President Biden.

Fox News' Houston Keene and Brooke Singeman contributed to this report.

GOP presidential candidates spar over calls to impeach Biden for alleged meddling in Hunter investigation

Posted on June 30, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

Presidential candidate Nikki Haley faced criticism from a fellow GOP presidential candidate after calling for the impeachment of President Biden over whistleblower claims there was intentional federal interference in the probe targeting his son Hunter.

"Somebody needs to do it," Haley told Fox News' Greg Gutfeld when asked about Congress potentially seeking to impeach Biden over the allegations as he ramps up his campaign for re-election next cycle. "If the Justice Department’s not going to do it, Congress should do it. But somebody needs to do it. It smells bad all day long.

"You’re not talking about just some guy that showed up and decided to say something," Haley added, suggesting the whistleblower was a credible source.

While the presidential candidate believes immediate action should be taken against Biden, GOP candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, also in the running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, said "impeachment should not be used as a political weapon."

IRS WHISTLEBLOWER SAYS ‘MOST SUBSTANTIVE FELONY CHARGES WERE LEFT OFF THE TABLE’ IN HUNTER BIDEN PROBE

IRS Special Agent Gary Shapley Jr., supervisor of the Hunter Biden investigation at the IRS, revealed that during the investigation into the president's son, "we weren’t allowed to ask about ‘the big guy,'" referring to a prohibition on asking witnesses questions.

Numerous reports suggest Hunter Biden referred to his father as "the big guy" in communications.

Shapley also conveyed the information in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee, where he noted Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors purposely chose not to obtain search warrants related to Hunter Biden.

NIKKI HALEY: BIDEN'S LOVE FOR HUNTER APPEARS TO BE GREATER THAN HIS LOVE FOR AMERICA

"While the whistleblower allegations are serious and must be investigated, impeachment should not be an option until the investigation shows corrupt action by the president," Hutchinson said in a press release Friday reacting to Haley's statement.

The Republican argued a "thorough investigation" should be conducted before there are calls for impeachment.

"Impeachment should not be used as a political weapon but reserved for serious wrongdoing," Hutchinson said. "The facts should determine what action, if any, Congress should take, and impeachment should not precede a thorough investigation."

A spokesman for Haley's campaign reiterated the former U.N. ambassador's position.

"Nikki believes Congress needs to get to the bottom of whether Joe Biden committed crimes or other impeachable offenses since the Justice Department refuses to do it. That process starts with a congressional oversight investigation," said Haley spokesman Ken Farnaso.

Wyn Hornbuckle, deputy director of the Justice Department Office of Public Affairs, immediately denied Shapley's shocking claims regarding the investigation.

"As both the attorney general and U.S. Attorney David Weiss have said, U.S. Attorney Weiss has full authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges as he deems appropriate," Hornbuckle said in a statement. "He needs no further approval to do so."

The whistleblower came out after Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax and a separate charge for possessing a firearm while acting as an unlawful user and addict of a controlled substance.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Impeachment once again looms large in Congress

Posted on June 30, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., don’t get along.

But if House Republicans try to impeach President Biden or a roster of other Biden cabinet officials in the coming months, a look at how Pelosi handled impeachment questions deserves attention.

Rewind the calendar to 2007. Democrats flipped control of the House in the 2006 midterms. Pelosi faced a wall of pressure from liberal Democrats to impeach President George W. Bush over the war in Iraq.

Pelosi resisted those calls. "Impeachment is off the table," Pelosi said at the time.

TED CRUZ CALLS ON HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE IMPEACHING BIDEN OVER HUNTER ALLEGATIONS: ‘DIRECT EVIDENCE’

But Pelosi had a plan to wind down the U.S. commitment overseas. Pelosi instructed then-Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisc., to start diminishing spending available for the war effort. Control of the purse strings is the ultimate power in Congress. Pelosi and Obey didn’t want to cut off troops in the field. But the plan was to dial back funding so the U.S. would leave Iraq sooner rather than later.

Fast forward to the summer of 2019.

BIDEN DENIES INVOLVEMENT IN SON HUNTER'S CHINESE BUSINESS DEALINGS AFTER NEW MESSAGE EMERGES

Pelosi had resisted calls to impeach former President Donald Trump for years over a host of transgressions. Pelosi often reminded House Democrats and her members she supported an investigation of alleged misdeeds and would "follow the facts" wherever they may lead.

Democrats were disappointed in information provided at a summer 2019 hearing with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller was coy during his testimony and failed to produce a smoking gun. But some lawmakers observed that Mueller may have left a breadcrumb of clues in his report investigating Trump: impeachment may be an option.

Still, Democrats were reluctant to go there — even though many wanted to do so.

In fact, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, regularly launched efforts to try to impeach former President Trump. While many Democrats admired Green’s gusto, they viewed his effort as an unserious sideshow.

Pelosi wouldn’t let the House be a part of such a carnival.

That was until word came of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Information surfaced that Mr. Trump may have delayed sending previously-approved assistance to Ukraine. But he first pressured Zelenskyy to launch investigations of President Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

No love was lost between the former president and Pelosi. But Pelosi was often a master of understanding where the votes might be on a given issue. She was also mindful of protecting her members from taking a tough vote. Pelosi didn’t appear ready for impeachment yet. Certainly after Mueller’s appearance. But the Trump/Zelenskyy phone call was another matter.

In mid-September 2019, a coalition of seven Democratic freshmen House members penned an op-ed in The Washington Post. They wrote that if the allegations against Trump were true, they would consider it "an impeachable offense."

WHAT A BIDEN IMPEACHMENT FIGHT WOULD DO TO REPUBLICANS, AND THE COUNTRY

All seven authors flipped districts from Republican to Democratic control in the 2018 midterms. The seven had serious national security credentials. Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., served in the Army. Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., worked for the CIA. Three served in the Navy: Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., along with former Reps. Elaine Luria, D-Va., and Gil Cisneros, D-Calif. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., was in the Air Force.

The op-ed signaled to Pelosi that centrist, Democratic freshmen from battleground districts were willing to potentially impeach the president. The speaker had protected them and others from what could become a career-defining vote. Pelosi greenlighted a formal impeachment inquiry a few days after the op-ed. The House voted on Halloween to design the ground rules for an impeachment inquiry. And just before Christmas, the House voted to impeach Trump again.

The Pelosi-led House moved to impeach Trump just hours after the Capitol riot in January, 2021.

The measure went to the floor swiftly — lacking the weeks and months of hearings which were a feature of the former president's first impeachment. In fact, the House impeached Trump days before his term expired.

Pelosi didn’t hold back on impeaching Trump that time because she had the votes. She also wanted to impeach him while he was still in office.

What is past is prologue.

McCarthy may have temporarily circumvented an immediate push by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., to impeach President Biden before the House abandoned Washington for the July Fourth recess. But this is far from the last time we will see or hear about this debate.

A ROAD TO IMPEACHMENT: HOUSE REPUBLICANS MAY YET IMPEACH BIDEN

And the stark reality is that it may very well wind up in an eventual impeachment of President Biden.

Here are several scenarios which could unfold over the next few months:

The Judiciary and Homeland Security committees are already probing alleged misdeeds of Biden. Boebert’s resolution specifically calls for impeachment of the president because of how he’s dealt with the border. The House voted to send Boebert’s resolution to those panels, preventing an immediate up/down vote on impeachment on the floor.

Watch to see how these committees move. If they amp things up, the House could be headed toward a true impeachment inquiry. That ultimately could result in an impeachment vote later this year. However, it is unclear if the House actually has the votes to impeach Biden.

By contrast, the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees could do nothing with the referral of Boebert’s impeachment resolution. Boebert indicated she’d force the issue on the floor again. This is a little like Al Green’s repeated efforts to impeach Trump. But if Boebert presses the issue, McCarthy could lack the ammo to again sidestep a direct confrontation over impeachment.

That likely means Boebert reintroduces her special resolution to impeach Biden. Either the House votes on that or tables it. A straight vote on impeachment causes big problems among Republicans. Some conservatives truly want to impeach the president. Others like to talk about impeachment but don’t really want to tangle with it. Still, other GOPers see impeachment as political kryptonite and want to stay as far away from it as possible. Forcing a vote actually on an issue as explosive as impeachment ignites a GOP firestorm. Of course, voting to table it triggers a political maelstrom among a different set of GOP factions.

Here's another possibility: The committees actually shelve the impeachment effort. The committees might address the impeachment question and conduct investigations. But some Republicans already view the move to send the Boebert plan to committee as an effort to euthanize the enterprise. Some Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief. Others will go nuclear — perhaps against the speaker.

The bottom line: While not yet a formal "impeachment inquiry," the committees have wide latitude to truly investigate allegations which could be potentially worthy of impeachment. The vote to send the Boebert impeachment resolution to committee may have been a fig leaf. But chances are that the House must address impeachment for President of the United States in some form later this year.

As we speak, there are various Republicans who hope to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves.

In an interview with Fox about impeaching Garland, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., noted that "Kevin McCarthy is not against impeachment at all." Greene observed that "if we’re going to do it, it needs to be successful."

In other words, just don’t deposit a privileged impeachment resolution on the floor and expect members to vote on it, al a Boebert or Al Green.

"The speaker of the House, whether it’s Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy or anyone … they want to make sure that they have the votes to pass it," said Greene.

That’s a calculus McCarthy may need to figure in the coming months — be it for Biden or the host of other figures listed above.

Pelosi moved the impeachments for Trump once she was confident she had the votes. But McCarthy only has a four-seat majority. It’s far from clear how he’ll handle similar impeachment calls on his watch.

Ted Cruz calls on House to investigate impeaching Biden over Hunter allegations: ‘Direct evidence’

Posted on June 24, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz is urging the House to look into impeaching President Biden after an IRS whistleblower on the Hunter Biden probe told Congress that the president's son invoked his father to pressure a Chinese business partner through WhatsApp and claimed the elder Biden was in the room while he was making deals.

Asked at what point the investigation and problems pertaining to Hunter Biden turn into an issue for the president, which could lead to impeachment efforts by Republicans, Cruz said: "It is right now."

"Look, this WhatsApp is direct evidence of Joe Biden abusing his government power to enrich his son, and, assuming 10% for the big guy, to enrich himself," Cruz continued. "Remember, this WhatsApp says ‘we want to know.’ This is not just me, Hunter, just mooching off my dad. . . . Of course the House needs to investigate it, but the stunning thing is what the IRS whistleblower says is [Department of Justice], Merrick Garland prevented an investigation even into this message." l

Garland has denied that there was any interference in the Hunter Biden probe.

Cruz's remarks came during a new episode of the senator's podcast, which is called Verdict with Ted Cruz.

HUNTER BIDEN-LINKED ACCOUNT RECEIVED $5 MILLION DAYS AFTER THREATENING MESSAGES: 'SITTING HERE WITH MY FATHER'

Cruz discussed allegations from an IRS whistleblower released by House Republicans this week, where an investigator on the Hunter Biden probe claimed there had been unprecedented efforts to prevent investigations into Joe Biden during the 2020 campaign and into his presidency.

Whistleblower Gary Shapley Jr. — who oversaw the IRS probe into the president's son — said the IRS had obtained a WhatsApp message dated July 30, 2017, from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, CEO of Harvest Fund Management, in which Hunter alleged that he was with his father and named him to put pressure on Zhao to fulfill a commitment.

"And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction."

"I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father," Hunter Biden reportedly said.

"This WhatsApp directly ties Joe Biden to the millions of dollars coming from communist China," Cruz said. "Now, it is possible Hunter Biden was lying, it's possible Joe Biden wasn't next to him. It's possible Joe Biden was not going to inflict official damage on the Chinese if they didn't pay him and his son millions of dollars. That's possible, but you know what, we don't know if it's true or not. Why? Because, according to the whistleblower, they didn't investigate, and they were prohibited from investigating. They were prevented from even asking the question."

"Let me be clear: This, on the face of it, is obstruction of justice," he said. "And if Merrick Garland issued that order, he is the one blocking the investigation, and I think there's real evidence of Merrick Garland being guilty of obstruction of justice."

Cruz, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has served in the Senate since 2013, said, "If you had a single Democrat who gave a flying flip about the rule of law, we would have a hearing right now with Merrick Garland in front of us, under oath, asking about this WhatsApp," he said. "We would ask to see every document, we would ask to see every email, we'd ask to see every communication between DOJ and the investigators. We would put the IRS whistleblowers on the stand, under oath to testify about it, and we would confront Merrick Garland with that."

KIRBY ARGUES WITH REPORTER ABOUT PURPORTED HUNTER BIDEN TEXT MESSAGE: 'NOT GOING TO COMMENT FURTHER'

"The chances of the Senate Judiciary Committee doing that are zero, because [chairman] Dick Durbin doesn't care," he added. "No Senate Democrat cares, but the House does, so that is the only hope for investigating this."

If the claims made in the WhatsApp message are accurate, they starkly contradict President Biden's repeated insistence that he had no knowledge of son Hunter's business dealings.

Asked Friday by a reporter whether the WhatsApp message undermines the president's claims that he had no knowledge of his son's overseas activities, National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby replied, "No, and I'm not going to comment further on this."

A Hunter Biden attorney said in a statement Friday, "Any verifiable words or actions of my client, in the midst of a horrible addiction, are solely his own and have no connection to anyone in his family."

White House Counsel's Office spokesman Ian Sams said, "As we have said many times before, the President was not in business with his son."

"As we have also said many times before, the Justice Department makes decisions in its criminal investigations independently, and in this case, the White House has not been involved," Sams continued. "As the President has said, he loves his son and is proud of him accepting responsibility for his actions and is proud of what he is doing to rebuild his life."

A road to impeachment: House Republicans may yet impeach Biden

Posted on June 22, 2023 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.

McCarthy sidelines Lauren Boebert’s push for quick vote on Biden impeachment

Posted on June 22, 2023 by Latest Political News on Fox News

The House voted Thursday to send an impeachment resolution against President Biden back to two House committees, a move that allowed GOP leaders to sidestep a push from Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., to hold an immediate vote on impeachment.

Lawmakers voted 219-208 in favor of shipping the issue back to committee – every "yes" vote came from Republicans.

Boebert filed a privileged resolution on the House floor Tuesday evening aimed at impeaching Biden over the border crisis, and it appeared to catch members of her own party off guard. A privileged resolution allows lawmakers to force a vote on the House floor without going through the committee, a move that key Republicans opposed because it skirts the regular process.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy called the move "flippant" in comments to reporters on Wednesday. Oversight Committee Chair James Comer told Fox News Digital, "I wish she’d gone about it a different way."

EXCLUSIVE: BOEBERT INTRODUCES NEW IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AGAINST BIDEN OVER BORDER CRISIS

But Boebert and McCarthy managed to strike a deal and the House Rules Committee, which sets procedural guardrails for every bill, drafted a rule to put the question of impeachment into the hands of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees.

The last-minute workaround reflects the continued tensions between House GOP leadership and a small group of hardliners who have managed to use McCarthy’s slim majority to advance their agenda and throw regular floor proceedings into chaos when their demands are not met.

The speaker can only afford to lose four Republicans to pass legislation assuming all Democrats oppose it.

Boebert called the resulting compromise with McCarthy to advance impeachment procedurally "historic" during remarks on the House floor before the vote.

GOP REP. OGLES INTRODUCES IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AGAINST BIDEN, HARRIS

"For the first time in 24 years, a House Republican-led majority is moving forward with impeachment proceedings against a current president. This bill allows impeachment proceedings to proceed through the traditional institutional channels by building a body of evidence at the committee level, through the Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary," she said.

"Biden's lawless disregard for our federal laws has incentivized more than 5.5 illegal aliens to attempt to cross the border, overwhelming Border Patrol and allowing an invasion to take place that is causing real harm to the American people," Boebert added. "The Biden border crisis and massive wave of illegal immigration has fueled a record breaking fentanyl crisis since President Biden has taken office."

IT'S TIME TO BRING IMPEACHMENT CHARGES AGAINST JOE BIDEN

Democrats accused Republicans of weaponizing the impeachment process against the president. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., said the move "should disturb every patriotic American."

"I cannot overstate the solemness and sadness that I feel right now, to see the House so debased by the invocation of our most grave constitutional duty, impeachment of a president," she said. "Common sense is revolted by the political grandstanding and petty stunts allowed by the House majority. Days on end, wasted catering to the whims of an extremist minority."

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said on the House floor, "They have a policy disagreement with President Biden. And their first impulse isn't, ‘Let's pass an immigration bill.’ Their first impulse is to impeach him. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves."