Category: fox-news/person/mike-johnson

Johnson to formally hand Mayorkas impeachment articles to Senate, urges trial ‘expeditiously’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Senate is going to receive articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas next month, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday.

Johnson sent a letter to Schumer informing him that House impeachment managers will send the impeachment articles to his chamber on April 10, and urged him to hold a trial "expeditiously."

"As Speaker and impeachment managers of the U.S. House of Representatives, we write to inform you that we will present to you upon the Senate’s return, on April 10, 2024, the duly passed articles of impeachment regarding Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. We urge you to schedule a trial of the matter expeditiously," Johnson wrote alongside the 11 Republicans selected as impeachment managers.

BIDEN, TEXAS FEUD OVER ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW AS MIGRANTS RUSH BORDER: WHAT TO KNOW 

The House impeached Mayorkas last month on two counts, accusing him of failing to comply with and enforce existing law, along with a breach of public trust.

"Throughout his tenure, he has repeatedly lied to Congress and the American people about the scope of the crisis and his role in it. His unlawful actions are responsible for the historic crisis that has devastated communities throughout our country, from the smallest border town in Texas to New York City," Johnson wrote. "The constitutional grounds for Secretary Mayorkas’ conviction and removal from office are well-founded, and the historical record is clear."

Once the articles are formally handed off, the Senate must act on them swiftly. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

Schumer has not said what he would do, but his public criticism of the impeachment effort suggests it's very possible that he'll move to dismiss the trial. A simple 51-vote majority would be needed for that to occur.

Senate Republicans, on the other hand, have called for Schumer to go through with the proceedings – though it's highly unlikely it will result in a conviction.

"The Senate should conduct an impeachment trial of Secretary Mayorkas and examine the full extent of this crisis in front of the American people," Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., said publicly earlier this month.

All but three House Republicans voted to impeach Mayorkas last month over his handling of the U.S. southern border. It was the first time since 1876 that a cabinet secretary had been impeached. 

HOW EAGLE PASS BECAME THE CENTERPIECE OF ABBOTT'S EFFORTS TO SECURE THE BORDER 

House GOP leaders delayed sending the articles over to the Senate for several weeks, however, amid intense negotiations over how to fund the government for the remainder of fiscal year 2024.

Johnson confronted questions about the delay during the House GOP's annual retreat earlier this month, telling reporters, "The reason for it is because we're in the middle of funding the government in the appropriations process, and the way the procedure works is, once the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate, they have a short window within which to process them. So we didn't want to interrupt the Senate and their floor time and their deliberation on appropriations, because we would risk shutting the government down."

Marjorie Taylor Greene files motion to oust Speaker Johnson

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., told reporters on Friday that she filed a motion to vacate House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., accusing him of having "betrayed" the "confidence" of the House GOP Conference by ushering through a bipartisan $1.2 trillion federal funding bill to avoid a partial government shutdown.

Johnson won the gavel in late October after his predecessor was ousted by a motion to vacate resolution earlier that month.

"It's more of a warning and a pink slip," Greene told reporters after filing the motion. "There’s not a time limit on this, it doesn’t have to be forced... But I'm not saying that it won't happen in two weeks, or it won't happen."

HOUSE PASSES $460 BILLION GOVERNMENT FUNDING BILL BLASTED BY GOP HARDLINERS

Earlier, while the House was voting on the package, three GOP lawmakers on the House floor told Fox News Digital that Greene made the consequential move.

During the vote, Fox News Digital witnessed Greene sign a paper at the front of the chamber and pass it off to House staff. Her office has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Johnson's office told Fox News Digital in a statement, "Speaker Johnson always listens to the concerns of members, but is focused on governing. He will continue to push conservative legislation that secures our border, strengthens our national defense, and demonstrates how we'll grow our majority."

GOP HARDLINERS FURIOUS AT JOHNSON FOR PASSING ANOTHER SHORT-TERM SPENDING BILL WITH DEMS: 'USUAL C--P'

Greene filing a motion to vacate does not necessarily require a vote, as was the case with ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., being booted. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., had filed a "privileged resolution" to oust McCarthy in early October, meaning House leaders were forced to act on it within two legislative days.

Greene's motion is not privileged, so there is nothing forcing the House to take it up unless she acts. Former Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., made a similar move with ex-Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in 2015 though Boehner stepped down before the motion could be acted on.

Even so, it would likely have to wait – Congress is leaving Washington on Friday for a two-week recess.

Fox News Digital heard from a fourth GOP lawmaker on Friday morning who believed Greene would be filing the motion. When asked why they thought so, the lawmaker said Greene "went in" with McCarthy as an ally and "got burned by the base" of conservative voters. "She's trying to redeem herself," they added.

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

In her remarks to reporters on Friday, Greene blasted Johnson for the massive $1.2 trillion spending deal, calling it "a dream and a wish list for Democrats and for the White House."

"I respect our conference. I paid all my dues to my conference. I'm a member in good standing and I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference. But this is basically a warning for us to go through the process, take our time, and find a new speaker of the House that will stand with Republicans," Greene said.

Rank-and-file GOP lawmakers like Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., blasted the Georgia firebrand's move. "I think it's not only idiotic, but it actually does not do anything to advance the conservative movement. And in fact, it undermines the country and our majority," Lawler told reporters.

A vote on vacating the chair would likely occur after a motion to table the resolution or referring it to committee – procedural steps that would essentially kill the move.

If the procedural votes failed, then the House would have to vote on whether to actually oust Johnson. 

Johnson would only be able to lose two Republican lawmakers' support if all Democrats voted against him – which may not be the case.

Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told multiple outlets he would vote to save Johnson. Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., suggested similarly on X, writing, "I do not support Speaker Johnson but I will never stand by and let MTG to take over the people’s House."

Speaker Johnson tells Republicans campaigning against each other in primaries to ‘cool it’: report

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is telling Republicans who are going after sitting GOP lawmakers in contentious primaries to "knock it off," in order to tamp down on divisions within the party, according to a report. 

Johnson, R-La., attended the House Republicans’ annual member retreat at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, last week to unify the often-fractious conference as at least four sitting Republicans in South Carolina, Illinois, Texas and Virginia are going to battle against Republican challengers.

"I’ve asked them all to cool it," Johnson told CNN during the retreat. "I am vehemently opposed to member-on-member action in primaries because it’s not productive. And it causes division for obvious reasons, and we should not be engaging in that."

Johnson is trying to figure out how to guide his razor-thin majority through a series of legislative hurdles that divide Republicans, including how to provide military aid for Ukraine, finish government funding and reauthorize a federal surveillance program – all while trying to make a case that voters should re-elect a GOP House majority.

SPEAKER JOHNSON AIMS TO STAY LEADER OF HOUSE GOP IN 2025, VOWS ‘VERY AGGRESSIVE FIRST 100 DAYS’

"So I’m telling everyone who’s doing that to knock it off," Johnson told the outlet, referring to challenging incumbents within the GOP. "And both sides, they’ll say, ‘Well, we didn’t start it, they started it.’"

Johnson took the speaker's gavel late last year after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted from office in a historic move that left Republicans deeply divided and mired in dysfunction.

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

Johnson told Fox News Digital last week that he is aiming to stay at the helm of the House GOP next year regardless of whether they keep the House majority.

"I have not given a lot of thought about the next Congress, because I'm so busy with my responsibility right now," Johnson said. "My intention is to stay as speaker, stay in leadership, because we're laying a lot of important groundwork right now for the big work that we'll be doing."

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Speaker Johnson aims to stay leader of House GOP in 2025, vows ‘very aggressive first 100 days’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: WEST VIRGINIA — Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is aiming to stay at the helm of the House GOP next year, he told Fox News Digital.

In an interview at the House Republicans’ annual member retreat this year at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, Johnson suggested he’d want to stay in the conference’s top spot regardless of whether they keep the House majority.

"I have not given a lot of thought about the next Congress, because I'm so busy with my responsibility right now. My intention is to stay as speaker, stay in leadership, because we're laying a lot of important groundwork right now for the big work that we'll be doing," Johnson said.

"But each day has enough concern of its own right now. And I've got – we've got a very full, very busy agenda right now. And that's where my focus is."

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

He also gave Fox News Digital a preview of what he wants Congress to focus on in 2025, expressing confidence that the GOP would go into the new year having kept the House majority and won the Senate and White House.

"We would absolutely turn our attention to securing the border and ending the catastrophe that the Biden administration has created. Obviously, we would continue to address the China threat and increase our stature on the world stage. That's what the White House would be focused on, and we would give assistance in the House in every way possible," he said.

Johnson also listed bolstering U.S. defense capabilities, tax reform, and exploring weaponization of the federal government as other priorities, as well as legislative advances on artificial intelligence.

"We'd have a very aggressive first 100 days of the Congress agenda, and we're kind of excited about that prospect," Johnson said.

SPEAKER JOHNSON FLOATS STAND-ALONE ISRAEL AID PLAN AFTER SCHUMER’S COMMENTS MADE SITUATION ‘EVEN MORE URGENT’

Johnson won the speakership in late October via a unanimous House GOP vote, three weeks after his predecessor, ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was ousted by a group of eight Republicans and all House Democrats.

Johnson's comments to Fox News Digital come a day after he was asked at a press conference about whether he’d have the House GOP Conference change its rules on how difficult it is to kick out a speaker.

Johnson, who was optimistic that the GOP could retain and expand its razor-thin House majority in November, suggested the next Congress would also likely see a change to its motion to vacate rules – the guidelines by which a speaker is ousted from power.

JOHNSON SAYS HOUSE WILL 'APPLY EVERY AMOUNT OF PRESSURE' TO SENATE TO PASS TIKTOK BILL

McCarthy agreed to lower the threshold from a House majority to just one person being able to trigger a vote to recall the House leader as part of a deal with critics to win the gavel in January 2023.

Johnson said he never advocated for a rule change but expected that a majority of his lawmakers would want to move forward. Dozens of House Republicans criticized the eight that voted to oust McCarthy, arguing that it projected historic levels of instability under their leadership.

"The motion to vacate is something that comes up a lot amongst members in discussion, and I expect there will probably be a change to that as well. But just so you know, I've never advocated for that. I'm not one who's making it an issue, because I don't think it is one for now," he said Wednesday.

House Speaker Johnson says White House doesn’t ‘call the shots’ on when impeachment is over

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

House Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News on Friday that the White House does not get to "call the shots" on when the President Biden impeachment inquiry ends after he received a letter this morning from a White House lawyer arguing that it’s "over." 

White House Counsel Ed Siskel, in his message to the Louisiana Republican, said "it’s obviously time to move on, Mr. Speaker." 

"This impeachment is over," Siskel declared. "There is too much important work to be done for the American people to continue wasting time on this charade." 

But Johnson told Fox News’ Chad Pergram on Capitol Hill Friday that "They don’t call the shots on it" and "we’ll deliberate over that when the investigation is complete." 

HUNTER BIDEN’S FORMER BUSINESS PARTNER TONY BOBULINSKI SLAMS HIM FOR ‘RUNNING AWAY’ FROM HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE 

"We’re allowing the process to play out as the Constitution anticipates. Our committees of jurisdiction have done their duty," Johnson added. "They’ve done an extraordinary job. They’ve revealed some alarming information." 

In his letter, Siskel said "The House Majority ought to work with the President on our economy, national security, and other important priorities on behalf of the American people, not continue to waste time on political stunts like this." 

HUNTER BIDEN REFUSES TO ATTEND HOUSE HEARING WITH FORMER BUSINESS ASSOCIATES 

"The House Majority has reportedly collected more than 100,000 pages of records, interviewed dozens of witnesses, and held multiple public hearings—but none of the evidence has demonstrated that the President did anything wrong," Siskel also said, noting that "Hunter Biden testified that he never involved his father in his business dealings" and "Several witnesses have testified debunking claims related to President Biden’s handling of classified documents." 

"Instead of admitting the truth that the President did nothing wrong, the Majority is wasting even more time on abusive steps like trying to re-interview witnesses who already testified -- perhaps hoping the facts will be different the second time around," Siskel continued. "This is just the latest abusive tactic in this investigation. It has targeted the President’s children, grandchildren, siblings, and in-laws for no reason. It has intruded into private citizens’ personal records on everything from medical visits to birthday presents. Enough is enough." 

Siskel sent the letter two days after Hunter Biden’s lawyer said his client would not attend a House Oversight Committee hearing next week regarding alleged influence peddling and the Biden family’s business dealings, calling it a "carnival side show." 

Fox News’ Patrick Ward contributed to this report. 

Looming shutdowns, Hunter’s testimony, maybe an impeachment: Congress’ blockbuster week

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

There are blockbuster weeks on Capitol Hill, and then there are weeks like this one. 

Hunter Biden is testifying. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is explaining. A partial government shutdown is looming.

"Congress hasn’t even finished our deadlines from the previous fiscal year. I mean, Oct. 1 was the deadline," fumed Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, on FOX Business. "Before I was in Congress, I was in manufacturing. And if you were making bad parts, you would at least stop making bad parts."

Davidson observed that Congress continues to even make "bad parts, and we’re not even in session." 

Some conservatives say they are okay with a shutdown starting this weekend. They believe a shutdown would at least harness some spending.

"A government shutdown is not ideal. But it’s not the worst thing," said the House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Bob Good, R-Va. "The only leverage we have, when we have one branch, is to be willing to say no. To be willing to walk away."

BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE: FEBRUARY HAS BEEN AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER FOR REPUBLICANS

Conservatives are begging House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to abandon a government spending pact he crafted with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and others in early January. The accord did not fund the government — hence the funding problem lawmakers face this weekend. That agreement simply established the size of the money pie for fiscal year 2024. Leaders agreed that Congress would spend a grand total of $1.59 trillion for fiscal year 2024. But on what? And how? Those issues remain unresolved. That is why lawmakers have toiled over for nearly two months now – trying to slice $1.59 trillion into 12 separate appropriations bills. It was thought there may be an agreement over the weekend. However, matters imploded. 

Johnson told Fox News Tuesday that he is working to prevent the government spending from lapsing. 

"We're gonna prevent the shutdown. We're working on it," Johnson said.

"The problem is that Speaker Johnson is indecisive. He’s weak. He’s inexperienced and he does not have the votes. Not only because it’s a tight majority. But also because there is a far right group of House Republicans who are blocking him everywhere he wants to go," said Tom Kahn, a distinguished fellow at American University and former House Budget Committee staff director. "I think he’s afraid to make decisions because he’s afraid to lose his job. He saw what happened to his predecessor, (former House Speaker) Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif."

So, conservatives are now pushing an interim spending bill — something which was anathema to many on the right just a few months ago. They used to demand that Congress pass spending bills "by the book." One by one. Now, conservatives are okay with a stopgap plan, known as a continuing resolution (CR). Federal spending climbs year after year. A CR simply renews all the old funding — without an increase. This gambit maintains the old spending levels. It is not a cut, but there is no new funding. Thus, to conservatives, it saves money.

"This is why I support a continuing resolution, which actually is going to force a 1% cut. $100 billion savings and maybe stabilize this inflation issue" said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., on Fox.

Democrats — and some Republicans — find this thinking outrageous.

"It’s very disappointing to see that the House has been so unwilling to compromise and work together," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. "We’ve just had obstacles every step of the way."

However, most lawmakers are resigned to believing a CR may be the only way to avoid a shutdown. 

"Things are pretty uncertain right now," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex. "I think we’re heading toward a CR for some uncertain duration."

The deadline is Friday night at 11:59:59 p.m. ET. 

"It’s going to be hard enough to meet that 72-hour requirement by Friday," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "So I don’t know if a CR is possible." 

Here is what is at stake. A partial shutdown stalls transportation and housing programs. It suspends money for agriculture and military construction. A government closure holds up energy and water projects.

However, a full shutdown for the entire federal government could hit at the end of the day on March 8. 

Top bipartisan Senate leaders are trying to avert a shutdown. 

"The margin for error on any of these is razor thin. And unfortunately, the temptation to choose chaos and disorder instead of cooperation will be strong for some here in the Capitol," said Schumer. 

Schumer secured backup from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. 

"Once more, a shutdown this week is entirely, avoidable," said McConnell. "Shutting down the government is harmful to the country. And it never produces positive outcomes – on policy or politics." 

However, not all lawmakers are focused on government spending.

Hunter Biden testifies behind closed doors on Wednesday before House investigators. Austin will explain to livid lawmakers on Thursday as to why he failed to inform the president or other Pentagon officials about his medical leave. Then, we’re on to a partial government shutdown Friday. 

This is just an average winter in Congress these days.

GROWING FRUSTRATION AMONG MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ABOUT NOT STARTING A TRIAL

What about an impeachment trial for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas? The House impeached Mayorkas on Feb. 13. No one really knows the timing of a Senate trial. Eleven House members will serve as "impeachment managers" to prosecute the case before the Senate. But as to their roles and when a Senate trial might begin? The new uniform pants in Major League Baseball are more transparent. 

Several of the managers expressed frustration at the dearth of information about what roles they might play in an impeachment trial. One told Fox they had "no clear guidance" from the GOP brass as to what to expect. 

In late 2019 and early 2020, Democratic House impeachment managers held "mock trial" sessions and engaged in parliamentary calisthenics behind closed doors to prepare for the first impeachment trial of former President Trump. The Mayorkas managers have held no such sessions. That was why at least one impeachment manager worried that the Senate might demand the trial begin right away. That could make the House members appear foolish and amateurish. 

However, a senior House Republican leadership aide said that the brass had briefed all managers — adding they would be "fully prepared" when a trial starts.

It was thought that the Senate may begin its trial as early as Wednesday, but Fox is told not to expect a trial this week. In fact, the impeachment trial may be on hiatus — until lawmakers figure out how to fund the government. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

So this week is a blockbuster as it is. 

But imagine what it would have been like had there also been the impeachment trial of Mayorkas — the first impeachment trial of a cabinet secretary since the 1870s.

Senate voted in favor of $95 billion international spending bill, there may be another around the corner

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Members of the House and Senate usually like to gab.

But word of a cryptic, major national security threat against the U.S. cast a pall on Congress this week.

Loggorrheic lawmakers suddenly turned mute when they were sworn to secrecy considering the gravity of Russia potentially deploying a weapon in outer space.

"I can’t discuss this. I’m sorry," lamented Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla.

"Absolutely no comment," said Rep. Richie Torres, D-N.Y.

WARNING ABOUT 'THREAT' TO US HAS 'SOMETHING TO DO WITH OUTER SPACE': CHAD PERGRAM

"We should be concerned. It’s serious," offered. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., "That’s all I can say right now."

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was practically verbose when he chatted up reporters about the threat.

"I’m going to be very precise and I’m not going to take questions," said Johnson.

But Johnson lent little detail into the disconcerting reports.

"Steady hands are at the wheel," said Johnson. "There’s no need for alarm."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said the White House "confirmed that, in their view, the matter was ‘serious.’"

This consternation is cast against the backdrop of the Senate approving a $95 billion international security bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. In other words, if there’s a pressing threat from Russia, this could impact Ukraine.

An eye-popping 70 senators voted in favor of the bill just before daybreak Tuesday morning. Twenty-two Senate Republicans voted yes. Three senators who caucus with the Democrats voted nay.

HOUSE VOTE ON FOREIGN AID FUNDING IN LIMBO

Twenty-two GOP yeas is not quite half of the 49 member Senate Republican Conference. But that’s still a substantial showing. And 70 votes is a robust figure from the Senate. Seventy yeas would make the bill hard to ignore in the House - under other circumstances.

"I think the House will face a moment of truth. This is a historical moment," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. "You can also be sure our allies are watching, whether in NATO or East Asia, to see whether the United States surrenders, or betrays a partner." 

Democrats demanded that Johnson take up the foreign aid bill. But he immediately resisted. 

"We are not going to be forced into action by the Senate who in the latest product they sent us over does not have one word in the bill about America's border. Not one word about security," said Johnson.

Even though Johnson – and Senate Republicans – mauled a bipartisan Senate compromise for the border.

"What is he afraid of to put national security first to help our country, to push back and push back against (Russian leader Vladimir) Putin, and to make sure that our country is protected?" asked House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.

It’s not often that House members can bypass the leadership and deposit a bill on the floor. But there is a way to do it. The gambit is called a discharge petition.

Here’s how it works:

A discharge petition requires a solid number of 218 House members to sign up to go over the head of the Speaker. The number is locked in at 218, regardless of the side of the House. The House has 435 members at full population. It’s currently at 431 members. Thus, the discharge petition provision wants at least half of the body to favor sidestepping the leadership.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee said he was "absolutely" for a discharge petition.

When asked if most Democrats would sign on, Nadler replied, "yeah, I do."

But not so fast.

Many Democrats might push to advance the foreign aid package. But there are plenty of progressives who aren’t in favor of the bill at all because of concerns for Palestinians.

RUSSIAN NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES IN SPACE COULD THREATEN INTERNATIONAL SATELLITES, US MILITARY COMMS: SOURCES

"I can’t support that bill with aid to Israel," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. "There’s also a lot of concerns about the restrictions on the aid to Gaza that the Senate put into the bill, including suspending aid to UNRWA, which is the only agency that can deliver aid in Gaza."

Moreover, Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., thought it was "premature" to execute a discharge petition. He wanted the House to try to work through the issue and get it on the floor another way.

So certainly more Democrats favor of a discharge petition. But no one knows what might constitute that particular universe of votes. Therefore, a discharge petition certainly needs substantial GOP support.

A successful discharge petition will require the support of advocates for Ukraine and moderate Republicans. Someone in that wheelhouse is Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. When asked if he was open to signing a discharge petition, Bacon replied "not now." He added he wouldn’t "lean too far forward" just yet.

The Nebraska Republican said "one or two" Democrats talked to him about signing the discharge petition. But he added a caveat.

"I'm interested in finding something we could all agree on," said Bacon.

But that’s just the start.

"I’d never sign a discharge petition when we are in the majority," said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., suggested that that signatories weren’t team players for the GOP.

"A discharge petition would be a betrayal on the part of anyone signing it," said Gaetz.

This is why there have only been two successful discharge petitions in the House in the past 22 years.

One was on the House’s version of the famous "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance law, named originally after late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., in 2002. The other was on a measure to renew the Export-Import Bank.

So, this enterprise is challenging. And while it’s an intriguing parliamentary maneuver, the odds – and history – work against discharge petitions.

The House is now out of session until February 28. The Senate is done until the week after next. Another (yes, another) deadline to avert a government shutdown looms on March 1. A bigger one is barreling down the tracks for March 7. And the Senate must wrestle with an impeachment trial for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas at the end of the month.

In short, a resolution to the international aid bill isn’t coming soon – if ever.

The threats loom – be a weapon from space for Russia. Threats at the border. Threats from China. The war in Ukraine. Instability in the Middle East.

The Senate finally acted – after a months-long circumnavigation into the border talks.

But there is no viable plan right now to pass the foreign aid package in the House.

It was long said that the Senate is where the House’s hot coffee cools.

In this case, the Senate served the House hot coffee.

And in today’s environment, it’s cooling instead in the House.

From the border to impeachment to the courts, gridlock reigns in Washington

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The government of the most powerful country on earth is no longer functioning.

Every attempt to do just about anything goes down in flames.

This happens periodically in a capital built on a divided government established by the founders. But when you meld that with the hyper-partisan atmosphere that is now embedded in our culture – set against a momentous presidential election – things seem more dysfunctional than ever.

BIDEN KNEW THE BORDER BILL WAS ON LIFE SUPPORT AND WANTED TO BLAME TRUMP: HOWARD KURTZ

Neither side trusts the other. The paramount concern is the blame game, making sure the opposition party takes a hit when things fall apart.

At the same time, two major lawsuits, including one being heard by the Supreme Court today, will shape the 2024 election in ways we’ve never had to contemplate before.

The Trump team will try to convince the high court that Maine and Colorado acted illegally when they kicked the former president off the ballot. The appellate court ruling, which must be appealed to SCOTUS by Monday, says Donald Trump can’t be shielded from prosecution by unlimited immunity, especially after leaving office.

Who would ever have imagined that such battles would be fought for the first time in American history? Then again, we’ve never had an ex-president accused of criminal wrongdoing in four separate indictments–with the added twist that analysts agree the charges have boosted Trump’s campaign among the majority of Republicans who view him as being unfairly persecuted.

The long-running battle over the southern border is equally divisive. Now there’s no question that this is a major liability for President Biden, who has failed for more than three years to prevent record-setting waves of illegal migrants from flooding into the country. 

Why he hasn’t done more, on a problem that even big-city Democratic mayors say is damaging, is hard to fathom. It is, after all, the signature issue that helped Trump get elected in 2016.

WHAT BULLY PULPIT? WHY BIDEN STAYS OFF TELEVISION DURING BIG BREAKING NEWS

So both parties, at least in the Senate, made an all-out attempt to hammer out a resolution.

After four long months, they finally settled on compromise language involving asylum, parole and other thorny issues. Biden made more concessions than most thought he would–including the power to shut down the border if illegal crossings exceeded 5,000 a day (which still seems way high). The Border Patrol union backed the measure, as did the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

And more than just immigration was at stake. Foreign policy had to be baked into the cake. The president saw the measure as a tradeoff, with border security greasing the skids for long-stalled military aid to Israel and Ukraine.

But Trump, the unquestioned leader of the party, said the bill would be a death knell for Republicans and urged them to oppose it, to hold off until he took office. Trump invited them to "blame me." Biden said his likely opponent wanted the campaign issue more than a solution.

Once the bill’s text was released, Republicans started abandoning it in droves. There was little question that Trump was the motivating force. He is the party’s undisputed leader and on the verge of the nomination.

JEFFERIES DEFEND SURPRISE APPEARANCE BY TEXAS DEMOCRAT IN FAILED MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT VOTE

When Mitch McConnell, who strongly supports U.S. assistance to Ukraine, conceded the bill couldn’t pass, it was over. Ted Cruz called for McConnell to be ousted as minority leader.

Speaker Mike Johnson, just a few months into the job, does not want aid to Ukraine, but brought to the floor a stand-alone measure to provide billions to Israel. That failed by a sizable margin. Now there’s chatter that Johnson could suffer the same fate as Kevin McCarthy.

What’s more, Johnson revived an effort to impeach Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas – the first such attempt to oust a Cabinet officer in 150 years. The media and those on the Hill thought it would be a slam dunk.

But the maneuver failed by two votes, with three dissenting Republicans saying it wasn’t fair to impeach Mayorkas for carrying out Biden’s policies. So even that exercise in scapegoating was botched. Not that he would have been convicted by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

There’s a long way to go between now and November, both in Congress and the courts. But right now Washington is in a state of paralysis.

Shooting blanks: How Republicans misfired when they tried to impeach Mayorkas

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

"There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at with no result." – Winston Churchill

Late Secretary of War William Belknap can rest easy. He remains the sole U.S. cabinet official ever impeached. 

For now.

The House impeached Belknap in 1876. 

The House failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHY REP. BLAKE MOORE FLIPPED FROM YEA TO NAY ON IMPEACHING MAYORKAS

For now. 

Belknap’s ignominious status in American history is still in tact because – get this – a lawmaker required emergency surgery. Then when the infirm member unexpectedly surfaced at the Capitol, the House lacked the votes to propel Mayorkas into that elite pantheon occupied only by Belknap.

The Hippocratic Oath may read "do no harm." But it says nothing about hurting impeachment.

Republicans made impeachment of Mayorkas the touchstone of the 119th Congress. And after much braying about the border, the performance of Mayorkas and a myriad of other grievances, the House GOP stumbled when it really mattered. 

It failed to impeach Mayorkas.  

The vote was tight. Tighter than a new pair of shoes on a rainy day, as yours truly said live on the air during the vote.

215 yeas. 215 nays.

Three Republicans voted nay: Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.). 

But by rule, a tie vote loses in the House. 

Suddenly House Republican Conference Chairman Blake Moore (R-Utah), the fifth highest-ranking GOPer, switched his vote to nay.

Four Republican noes! 

The vote tally flipped to 214 yeas to 216 nays.

The gig was up. The House would not impeach Mayorkas.

SEN. RAND PAUL SLAMS GOP LEADERSHIP FOR 'DRAGGING' CAUCUS INTO 'DEAD' BIPARTISAN BORDER BILL WITH DEMOCRATS

So why would Moore, a senior member of the leadership, change his vote? A change of heart? Was this "Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" Was he turning rogue against his own party?

None of the above. 

Moore’s "nay" vote against impeaching Mayorkas deserves an asterisk compared to the votes of Gallagher, McClintock and Buck. Moore wants to impeach Mayorkas. In fact, Moore’s maneuver preserved the Republican gambit to potentially impeach Mayorkas in the future.

To wit:

House rules enable any member on the PREVAILING side of a roll call vote (in this instance, the NAYS) to "move to reconsider" a vote. In other words, demand a re-vote. 

Moore was a yea – but on the losing side. Gallagher, McClintock and Buck certainly weren’t going to move to order a re-vote. They opposed impeachment. So, someone on the GOP leadership needed to switch their vote to nay to potentially resuscitate the Mayorkas impeachment plan. 

Moore altered his vote to no. Not because he opposes impeaching Mayorkas. But now he was on the "winning" side." House Republicans could summon the Mayorkas impeachment vote again. In fact, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) probably would have changed his vote had he been present. But Scalise is out for cancer treatments and has not voted this year. Republicans might have the votes when Scalise returns. Republicans could also have reinforcements if the GOP wins the special election on Long Island next week. Republicans hope GOP nominee Mazi Melesa Pilip defeats former Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) for the vacant seat once held by expelled former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.). Then Republicans might have the votes to impeach.

Scalise will be back. But if Suozzi defeats Pilip, it’s possible Republicans may never have the votes to impeach Mayorkas. 

House Republicans badly bungled impeachment. They violated a fundamental tenet of Capitol Hill.

It’s always about the math.  

The House took two roll call votes earlier on Tuesday. A total of 425 members in the 431 member House cast ballots. After the House finished a lengthy debate on impeaching Mayorkas, it was time to hold another vote series. However, Republicans made a decision not to vote on impeachment first. The House instead voted first on the "Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission Extension Act."

That proved to be a tactical error by the GOP. It created a false sense of security about the Mayorkas vote. 

Republicans wanted the House to vote first on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal bill to get a sense of the universe of members voting. The canal bill would serve as a "test" vote to determine how many Republicans the majority could lose on impeachment.

Wise move. But it backfired. 

SENATE TO VOTE ON FUNDING FOR ISRAEL AND UKRAINE AS IMMIGRATION DEAL SET TO GO DOWN IN FLAMES

Putting the canal bill first may have sunk impeachment.

Cry me a river. 

The House approved the bill about the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 427 to 2. So the total number of members voting rose from 425 earlier in the day to a new high-water mark of 429. There were two absences. Scalise and Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) who was out for surgery.

But that’s where the problem came. 

Republicans didn’t count on Green voting. Aides and medical attendants dramatically rolled Green into the Capitol in a wheelchair. He wore a blue hospital gown and tan footies. 

The universe of members casting ballots suddenly swelled to 430 as Green cast his ballot against impeachment. 

A senior House Democratic aide confided to Fox that putting the vote on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal helped the Democrats "hide" Green. That lured Republicans into a state of illusory comfort. They thought they had the votes to impeach, unaware that Democrats were about to thwart them.

Green may have been prone on a hospital gurney earlier in the day. But that didn’t mean he couldn’t put impeachment to bed. 

"He made it clear to me that it was important for him to be present to cast a vote against this sham impeachment led by (Rep.) Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), targeting a hard-working public servant like Secretary Mayorkas," said House Minority Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). 

Jeffries noted that he did not request that Green swoop in to short-circuit the impeachment vote. This was all on Green.

And so Republicans had a choice. Either let the vote fail 215-215. Or safeguard their options for later.

The GOP chose the latter.

Of course, impeachment resolutions are "privileged." That means any member could just put forth an impeachment plan again and the House would have to take it up. But by maintaining the current articles, the GOP also conserves the current investigation, committee report and other documents. This also gives Republicans more credibility if and when they present their impeachment articles to the Senate during a possible trial.

The House has only defeated articles of impeachment once before. The House only adopted two of the articles of impeachment leveled against former President Clinton in December 1997.

So Republicans may try impeachment again in the future. Maybe Scalise is here. Maybe Pilip wins. But you can never know exactly how many people are going to show up in the House.

You try to get 431 people in the same room at the same time. Members are always away for random reasons. Illness. Family commitments. Funerals. Events in the district. You name it. 

So Republicans took a shot at Mayorkas. And missed.

For now.

As Churchill said, that must be an exhilarating feeling for Mayorkas. 

Republicans took their shot. And got no result.

Foiled by a man in a hospital gown.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to why Rep. Blake Moore flipped from Yea to Nay on impeaching Mayorkas

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

There were four Republicans who voted no tonight against impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and House Vice Conference Chairman Blake Moore (R-Utah) – a member of the Republican leadership.

But Moore’s "nay" vote against impeaching Mayorkas deserves an asterisk. He’s not really against impeaching Mayorkas. Moore voted no so the Republican effort to impeach Mayorkas could live to fight another day.

FOUR HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOTE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT OF ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS

To wit: 

Moore was on the board as a yea in favor of impeaching Mayorkas. But the GOP miscalculated how many yea votes that they had – as well as how many Democrats present and available to vote no.

The current breakdown in the 431 member House is 219 Republicans to 212 Democrats with four vacancies.

Republicans can only lose three votes. But that’s if all of their members are present. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) has not voted all year due to cancer treatments. Scalise tells FOX he will be back soon.

So as soon as the Mayorkas impeachment vote went to 215-215, the gig was up for impeaching Mayorkas.

At least on Tuesday night.

By rule, a tie vote loses in the House. So the Mayorkas impeachment effort was going down to defeat.

Only on one occasion before has the House ever defeated articles of impeachment. In December 1997, the House only adopted two of the articles of impeachment leveled against former President Clinton.

WHY DID THE HOUSE FAIL TO IMPEACH MAYORKAS?

So what were Republicans to do in order to salvage their impeachment gambit?

House rules enable any member on the PREVAILING side of a roll call vote (in this instance, the NAYS) to "move to reconsider" a vote. In other words, demand a re-vote.

Moore was a yea – but on the losing side. Gallagher, McClintock and Buck certainly weren’t going to move to order a re-vote. So, it fell to a member of the House GOP brass.

Moore changed his vote to no. Not because he opposes impeaching Mayorkas. But now he was on the "winning" side." This preserved the option for House Republicans to summon the vote again. Perhaps when Scalise is back. Or if Republicans win the special election on Long Island next week. The GOP hopes that Republican nominee Mazi Melesa Pilip defeats former Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) for the seat vacated by expelled former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.). Then Republicans might have some reinforcements to impeach…

Of course, that presumes that other Republicans aren’t absent that day.

As I always say, YOU try to get more than 400 people in the same room at the same time. Members are always away for random reasons. Illness. Family commitments. Funerals. Events in the district. You name it. 

TOP REPUBLICAN SAYS DEMS 'WILL ANSWER' AT BALLOT BOX FOR NOT BACKING MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT

Of course, impeachment resolutions are "privileged." That means any member could just put forth an impeachment plan again right away and the House would have to take it up. But by preserving the impeachment investigation, committee report and other documents, the maneuver by Moore enables the Republican leadership to preserve the impeachment gambit launched by the Homeland Security Committee – and try again. Maintaining that more exhaustive impeachment plan will also give the GOP more credibility if and when they present their impeachment articles to the Senate for a possible trial.

Moreover, having a key member change their vote to potentially order a re-vote in the House is rare. It happens with some degree of regularity in the Senate. Over the years Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would often be compelled to change their votes from yes to no – in order to call for a re-vote on a failed issue. 

Moore’s effort was not unprecedented in the House. But something seen more often across the Capitol dome in the Senate.