House Republican critical of Biden impeachment push demands his removal via 25th Amendment

FIRST ON FOX: A House Republican who has been critical of rushing to impeach President Biden is calling for his removal over questions about his mental fitness for the job.

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., told Fox News Digital that he plans to introduce a resolution on Monday to call on Biden’s Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. 

His most-cited reason was Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report did not recommend any charges for the president but repeatedly painted him as an aging leader with a poor memory.

Buck said the report "addressed what many Americans have long witnessed with their own eyes – that President Biden is no longer fit to successfully discharge the critical duties of his office."

JAMES BIDEN SAYS HIS BROTHER 'HAS NEVER HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT' OR ANY 'FINANCIAL INTEREST' IN BUSINESS VENTURES

"Numerous instances were articulated in the report, and have played out in full public view, showing President Biden’s apparent cognitive decline and lack of mental stamina," he told Fox News Digital.

"The societal challenges and security threats our country faces are innumerable and require a chief executive with both strong mental and physical faculties. The time has come for the vice president and the Cabinet to put our country first and move forward on invoking the 25th Amendment."

DEVON ARCHER: HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA EXECS ‘CALLED DC’ TO GET UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED

In his resolution text, Buck also cited Biden’s verbal stumbles and public gaffes as evidence of mental decline. It pointed out that Biden recently confused French President Emmanuel Macron with a predecessor who died decades prior, and that he also mixed up German leaders’ names and mistakenly referred to the president of Egypt as the president of Mexico.

Biden and his allies have vigorously denied that his mental acuity is suffering.

But Buck’s resolution is a significant addition to the growing pressure for Biden officials to address scrutiny over the president’s mental fitness. 

The Colorado Republican, who is retiring at the end of this term, is one of the few House GOP lawmakers who have publicly expressed wariness over the push to impeach Biden over allegations that he and his family’s businesses profited off of his political weight.

Buck voted along with the rest of the House GOP Conference to formalize the Biden impeachment inquiry in December, but just last week he criticized the probe’s leaders for relying on allegations made by FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who was recently indicted for lying to the bureau.

BIDEN MET WITH CHAIRMAN OF CHINESE ENERGY FIRM HUNTER DID BUSINESS WITH IN 2017, EX-ASSOCIATE TESTIFIES

"We’ve always been looking for a link between what Hunter Biden received in terms of money and Joe Biden’s activities or Joe Biden receiving money. This clearly is not a credible link at this point," Buck said in a CNN interview.

He told the network in September, "I want to make sure we don’t ruin this institution over a tit-for-tat impeachment. If the evidence is there… I will absolutely vote for impeachment. I don’t see the evidence at this point."

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the White House Cabinet to declare the president unfit to perform his duties, transferring power to the vice president. 

The president is able to take those powers back by writing to Congress that he is able to serve. The Cabinet would then have four days to refute that, after which Congress would vote on whether the president could remain in power.

Buck is one of several Republican lawmakers who have called for the constitutional amendment to be invoked in the wake of Hur's report, including Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, as well as Reps. Mary Miller, R-Ill., and Mike Collins, R-Ga.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment on Buck's resolution.

Burning down the House: February has been an unmitigated disaster for Republicans

Ah… Watch out!

You might get what you’re after.

Cool babies.

Strange. But I’m not a stranger.

I’m an ordinary guy.

Burning down the house. —Talking Heads. "Burning Down the House." 1983

David Byrne’s hypnotic, octave plunge between the lyrics "watch" and "out" is a sonic caveat.

THE SPEAKER’S LOBBY: WANTS AND NEEDS, AND THE LOOMING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF BIDEN'S BORDER CHIEF

Those are the very first lines of the Talking Heads ‘80s anthem "Burning Down the House." The listener is forewarned. A tumultuous musical adventure lies ahead. The pending libretto is gnarly gibberish. Words which fit together — but don’t make any sense. A near homage to "I Am the Walrus" by the Beatles.

Like Byrne’s lyrics, what’s going on these days in the U.S. House of Representatives, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Watch out. The House is seemingly out of control right now. Political arsonists are striking matches and pouring gasoline all over the place.

Republicans hold the majority. But they’ve been burning down their own House.

"Things have not been functioning well at all and that needs to change," beseeched Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn.

Chaos grips the House.

That’s saying something, considering this is an institution which practically mastered dysfunction.

"We can’t get anything done," lamented Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.

Lawmakers are exasperated.

"My Republican friends are barely hanging onto this majority by their fingernails," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.

My house…

Is out of the ordinary.

That’s right.

Don’t want to hurt nobody.

SENATE VOTED IN FAVOR OF $95 BILLION INTERNATIONAL SPENDING BILL, THERE MAY BE ANOTHER AROUND THE CORNER

House Republicans have blocked their own bills — drawn up with the blessing of GOP leaders — from hitting the House floor a staggering six times in the past eight months. The House usually requires the lawmakers approve a "rule" to allocate debate time and dictate whether amendments are in order. Only then can legislation come to the floor. 

The majority usually votes yes, greenlighting the debate. The minority customarily opposes the rule. But Republicans have torched their own rule six times. That’s a startling figure. Previous majorities only defeated two rules in the previous 23 years.

Republicans have struggled for 13 months now with their narrow majority. It started with the 15-round Speaker’s race in January of last year — an exercise not witnessed since 1858.

"We only had a two-vote margin at the end (of our majority)," said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

But Pelosi could empathize with the contemporary struggles of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

"I don’t think people understand how hard it is," said Pelosi "Respect members on both sides of the aisle. Build consensus. Prioritize your issues. Don’t put people out on a limb on things that aren’t important."

T. S. Eliot wrote that "April is the cruelest month" in his seminal poem, "The Waste Land."

Back on Capitol Hill, Johnson, might argue with Elliot about the brutality of April.

February has been an unmitigated disaster for House Republicans. More things have gone wrong for the GOP than points scored in the NBA All-Star Game.

To wit:

Republicans torched two of their own "rules." They failed during their first attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — before impeaching him by just a solitary vote after the GOP took a mulligan. Johnson even put a bill on the floor to aid Israel — which promptly failed. That was an unforced error. Conventional wisdom is that Johnson shouldn’t have pressed on the Israel bill — especially since the defeat came moments after the failed impeachment vote. And Republicans even saw their meager majority dwindle even further. 

Former Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. won a special election in New York to succeed expelled Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. The GOP majority will shrink from 219 Republicans to 213 Democrats when the House swears-in Suozzi on Wednesday. That means Johnson can only lose two votes on any given roll call and still pass a measure — sans Democratic assistance.

On the morning after Suozzi’s victory, Ryan Schmelz of Fox News Radio asked Johnson how he’d "handle a narrow majority."

"Just as we do every day. We just do a lot of member discussion," replied Johnson.

It’s about the math. But how they’ve done things "every day" hasn’t provided a victory.

This is why some Republicans are taking aim at Johnson. They’ve regretted the House ditching former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. That’s why McCarthy allies are particularly infuriated at how bad things have been in the House of late.

"Whatever the cards were for McCarthy are the same cards that are being dealt to Speaker Johnson," said Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla. "All it did was take a crowbar to it and make it worse."

Some Republicans criticized the leadership for indecision and making late play calls.

"They’ve got to start thinking strategically over the long-term. Not just what’s in front of us," said Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.

Some lawmakers are certainly making long-term strategic decisions. They’re getting out.

So far, five committee chairs have announced their retirements: Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger, R-Tex., Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., special China committee Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn.

Green said he wouldn’t seek re-election shortly after the House impeached Mayorkas. Green will serve as the lead impeachment manager (or prosecutor) as the House presents its case to the Senate. Green saw that as an opportunity to go out on top.

"My point being, you go out for the win, right? And I’ve accomplished what I wanted to do," said Green.

A recent poll by Monmouth University found that only 17 percent of people surveyed approve of the job Congress is doing. But not everyone believes political paralysis is bad.

"Let me just tell you something about the people I represent," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex. "They don't want this body to keep passing more laws and spending more money for the sake of it."

This is the "burning down the House" problem which bedevils lawmakers. Especially as two government funding deadlines loom.

We talked about February and April earlier. So expect March to enter like a lion.

As David Byrne sang, some conservatives are "fighting fire with fire." And they’re not getting what they’re after, either.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

So not only burning down the House. But perhaps shutting down the government, too.

The Speaker’s Lobby: Wants and needs, and the looming impeachment trial of Biden’s border chief

There is a major difference between what we want – and what we need.

This is a staple of the human condition.

But especially politics

Lawmakers and politicians often make various demands of the president, Congressional leaders, the public and even the press corps. 

REPUBLICANS BLOCK THEIR OWN BILLS FROM THE FLOOR

But in politics – much like life – there is a big difference between what political figures want and what they need

Take for instance the recent process to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

House conservatives frankly needed to impeach Mayorkas for political purposes. This may be especially important now for the GOP since their efforts to impeach President Biden were long sliding sideways. The arrest of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov further undercut the Republicans’ inquiry into the President, Hunter Biden and his family.  

House Republicans promised their base a political scalp during the 2022 midterm elections. Even last summer, Republicans couldn’t agree on who they wanted to impeach – be it the president, Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Washington, DC U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves, Attorney General Merrick Garland or Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

"All of ‘em," replied Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., when I asked last summer who House Republicans endeavored to impeach.

The encompassing group have been who some Republicans wanted to impeach. But, politically, the GOP needed to impeach someone because of campaign promises. 

So, Mayorkas emerged as the "winner" of the GOP’s impeachment sweepstakes. Mayorkas is the surrogate Republicans are targeting for what they perceive as the myriad of administration’s ills, starting with the border crisis. A Senate trial for Mayorkas hits next week.

And we’re back to wants and needs.

REP MIKE TURNER FACES 'BLOWBACK' FOR SOUNDING THE ALARM OVER RUSSIA THREAT

Most Senate Republicans want a robust trial. A lengthy, bona fide trial presents GOPers with a stage to highlight what they believe are misdeeds by the White House and its handling of the border. Some conservatives have warned Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., about short-circuiting an impeachment trial. They wrote to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., demanding that the Senate "fully engage our Constitutional duty to hold a trial." They’ve also wanted U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts to preside over an impeachment tribunal. However, the Senate’s impeachment rules do not require the participation of the chief justice for anyone besides the president and vice president. And notably, former Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., even presided over the second impeachment trial of former President Trump in 2021. 

Do Republicans need a full-fledged Senate trial? Probably not. Did they need to place demands on Schumer and McConnell? Yes. But what Senate conservatives need the most is for their base to see them giving Schumer and McConnell the business about not conducting a lengthy Senate trial. In fact, the politics of the right might even dictate that conservative senators show outrage and disdain for an abbreviated trial. Such dismissiveness from the left plays into the conservative narrative that Democrats aren’t taking the trial seriously, and, vis-à-vis, the border.

Conservatives will also deploy this as what they say is another example of McConnell losing touch with the right.  

So, conservatives might achieve what they need – even if they fall short of what they want

There is another set of wants and needs emerging as the government barrels toward a potential set of government shutdowns in early March.

Some conservatives genuinely pine for a government shutdown. You can imagine why. Many would like to use that as a wedge. They argue "no government funding until the border is secure." Although no one can quite agree on what constitutes a "secure" border, let alone support a legislative plan to seal it. This is why conservatives detonated the bipartisan border package proposed a few weeks ago. Certainly many Republicans truly desire a secure border. But the politics dictate something else in conservative circles. They won’t admit it. But what conservatives may strangely need is an insecure border for political purposes. That’s how they can point to the Biden administration and portray this as a national security problem. So here, a need outweighs the want.  

But back to government funding.

Conservatives were genuinely securing some discretionary spending cuts on other spending bills. That may be what they want. But raising cane with the GOP leadership about cuts not being deep enough works better in some political circles. That’s a political need. And frankly, since Republicans have yet to force a government shutdown since they won control of the House last year, this may frankly be a GOP "need."

SENATE VOTED IN FAVOR OF $95 BILLION INTERNATIONAL SPENDING BILL, THERE MAY BE ANOTHER AROUND THE CORNER

Wants and needs are not exclusive to the Republican side of the aisle.

Democrats may not want a government shutdown. A shutdown is definitely not a Democratic "need." However, some on the left will privately tell you that a government shutdown might benefit them. Thus, this could be, in some diabolical quarters, a mild political "want."

The impeachment of Mayorkas is certainly not a Democratic "want" or "need." But Democrats guffawed when Republicans failed to impeach Mayorkas on their first try. A failed impeachment vote was definitely not a Democratic need. But Democrats basked in the schadenfreude and curated the narrative that the GOP can’t run the House. The failed impeachment vote was a Democratic "relish."

And Democrats definitely believe that Republicans overplayed their hand on impeachment. This is augmented by continued impeachment talk about President Biden – despite recent developments. Again, not a want nor need. But news like the Smirnov arrest is something Democrats welcome in small doses. 

But there are other wants and needs for Democrats, too.

Some liberals want and need to make a stand against funding for Israel because of concerns for human rights in Gaza. Again, enter politics. Progressives need to show they are standing up for Palestinians – because of political pressures emanating from the liberal base. That’s a big need for some on the left. However, the true "need" part is a little more vague for some Democrats when it comes to the complicated politics of progressives. It certainly helps some left-wing politicians to even challenge President Biden over the Middle East. That too is a need.

So do we want a pizza or need a pizza?

Do we want a Coach bag or need a Coach bag?

Air? Water? A place to sleep? Three squares a day? 

We all have wants and needs. But the things that get the most attention on Capitol Hill often land in the want category more than the need category. 

That’s why this essay will now come to an end. 

For those of you reading this, I don’t want any smart answers that you "need" me to end. 

I could go on and on. I want to. But I don’t need to. 

After all, it’s dinnertime.

I want a pizza.

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

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.

Tony Bobulinski attorney accuses Oversight Dems of ‘gaslighting,’ false smears against Hunter Biden associate

An attorney for Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate Tony Bobulinski accused House Democrats of "abusive conduct and disingenuous mischaracterizations" of his testimony on the Biden family's business dealings. 

In a letter to Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member and lead Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Bobulinski's counsel Stefan Passantino asserted that Democrats were attempting to assassinate his client's character. 

"We are watching the death throes of a political narrative that will be shattered upon the imminent public release of Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony before the House Committees on Oversight and Judiciary yesterday," Passantino wrote. 

"The facts are before Congress and will soon be before the American people. Minority assassination of Mr. Bobulinski’s character and grotesque mischaracterizations of his words will only serve to highlight the gaslighting and vilification Mr. Bobulinski has endured since he reluctantly came forward almost four years ago to share with the public the facts of his business experience with the Biden family," the letter continues. 

JOE BIDEN IS ‘THE BIG GUY,’ TONY BOBULINSKI SAID DURING ‘UNSHAKEABLE’ TESTIMONY AMID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

"As the public will see soon enough, Mr. Bobulinski has the facts and the receipts, and no amount of character assassination will change that."

Bobulinski testified behind closed doors for more than eight hours on Tuesday as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden. He is one of the Republicans' star witnesses, having worked with Hunter Biden to create the joint-venture SinoHawk Holdings with Chinese energy company CEFC. 

Behind closed doors, sources said Bobulinski told the House Overisght and Judiciary Committees that he had "personally met" with Joe Biden in May 2017 in Los Angeles on the sidelines of the Milken Conference for somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour. 

Fox News Digital first reported on that meetings between Bobulinski and Biden in October 2020.

JOE BIDEN 'ENABLED' FAMILY TO SELL ACCESS TO 'DANGEROUS ADVERSARIES,' TONY BOBULINSKI TESTIFIES

Joe Biden, on May 3, 2017, spoke at the conference, hosting "A Conversation with the 47th Vice President of the United States Joe Biden."

Just days after the May 2, 2017, meeting came the now-infamous May 13, 2017, email, which included a discussion of "remuneration packages" for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Biden as "Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC," in a reference to the now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.

The email includes a note that "Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate." A proposed equity split references "20" for "H" and "10 held by H for the big guy?" with no further details.

Bobulinski testified Tuesday that Joe Biden is "the big guy," a claim he has made since 2020. IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, who claimed that politics had influenced the yearslong federal investigation into Hunter Biden, have also said "the big guy" was known to be Joe Biden.

FLASHBACK: HUNTER BIDEN BUSINESS ASSOCIATE'S TEXT MESSAGES INDICATE MEETING WITH JOE BIDEN

Bobulinski claims that Joe Biden was "the Brand" sold by Hunter Biden and other family members as part of a "foreign influence peddling operation." 

President Biden has repeatedly denied any involvement in his son Hunter's business dealings. House Democrats have rallied behind the president, with Raskin claiming that Bobulinski "offers absolutely no testimony that indicates any criminal activity by President Biden . . . or evidence that President Biden was involved in Hunter Biden's businesses."

In the letter, Passantino said Raskin's statement is "categorically false" and pushed back against other claims made by House Democrats, insisting that a soon-to-be-released transcript of Bobulinksi's testimony will prove them wrong. 

"Equally concerning are the false allegations impugning Mr. Bobulinski’s character and statements about law enforcement. Unlike those making these accusations, Mr. Bobulinski has a proud and exemplary history of serving this country in the military and his patriotism cannot be questioned," Passantino wrote.

BOBULINSKI OFFERED TO TESTIFY AT HUNTER BIDEN GRAND JURY BUT 'NEVER HEARD BACK': SOURCE

"As the transcript will show, Mr. Bobulinski did NOT accuse the FBI of lying about his voluntary statements before them in October 2020. The transcript will show that when Mr. Bobulinski was asked by the Minority about second-hand accounts of his words rather than asking him direct questions, Mr. Bobulinski simply corrected errors in the FBI’s internal 302 report about his statements.

"As Mr. Bobulinski testified yesterday, these errors could have been corrected years ago if Mr. Bobulinski had been shown the FBI’s internal summary or if ANY government agency had reached out to us at the time," the letter states.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for House Oversight Democrats pointed to several statements from committee members questioning Bobulinski's credibility as a witness. Democrats have urged the committee to release the transcript of his testimony after Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., accused them of "witness intimidation." 

"Let’s read between the lines here: we asked questions on the very real credibility issues with your witness," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, posted on X. "If his claims can’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny, that’s on you." 

"Hey Chairman Comer. You invited a sham witness and we asked basic questions — his lack of credibility is on you! Why not release the transcript?" posted Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif. 

President BIden's brother, Jim Biden, will be the next witness to testify to the committee as part of the impeachment inquiry on February 21. Hunter Biden is expected to appear for his deposition on February 28.

Fox News Digital's Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

2 House members from Florida missed Mayorkas’ impeachment vote over massive Palm Beach flight delays

Two U.S. House members from Florida missed the vote Tuesday that secured Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' impeachment due to massive flight delays. 

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., said he would vote to impeach Mayorkas, while Rep. Lois Frankel, D-Fla., fully expected to vote against impeaching the Biden Cabinet official, yet both members of Congress failed to get back to Washington, D.C., in time due to massive delays at Palm Beach International Airport. 

Mast shared a video to X from the airport "on about hour nine of waiting for a flight with a broken circuit board." 

"Hoping to get off the ground soon, but they did just call votes in the House of Representatives as they normally do at this time, and it looks like I’m going to miss the vote to impeach Mayorkas," he said. "I was there for the first one – absolutely voted to do that – but it looks like I’m going to miss this one." 

HOUSE REPUBLICAN WHO OVERSAW MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT WON'T RUN FOR RE-ELECTION

"There’s a couple other Palm Beach reps here as well. Lois Frankel is here in the airport sitting back there behind me," Mast said, showing the seating area next to the flight gate. "A few other representatives from this area that are going to miss it as well. But that is how I would be definitely doing that had I been there – there went Lois walking behind me."   

In the post itself, Mast wrote, "Not only is Secretary Mayorkas horrible at his job, he is willfully refusing to do it. Thankfully, despite mechanical failures on my flight, we still had enough votes to impeach him tonight. He has abandoned the trust of the American people, and he deserves to be impeached."

Frankel also confirmed the flight delay in a statement of her own. 

"Unfortunately, my flight from Palm Beach to Washington was severely delayed today. I waited at the airport for eight hours, which caused me, along with a Republican colleague on the same flight, to miss the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted no, as I did last week," Frankel said. "House Republicans’ vote to impeach Secretary Mayorkas despite having no evidence of wrongdoing was a shameful political stunt that does nothing to fix our broken immigration system." 

The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to impeach Mayorkas over his handling of the border crisis – by just one vote. 

The 214-213 vote historically made Mayorkas the first ever sitting U.S. Cabinet official to be impeached. It was nearly 150 years ago that President Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, resigned before the House approved articles of impeachment against him over a kickback scheme in government contracts. The Senate acquitted Belknap that same year, 1876. 

USER’S MANUAL TO WHAT’S NEXT NOW THAT THE HOUSE IMPEACHED MAYORKAS

The charges against Mayorkas next go to the Senate for a trial, but neither Democratic nor even some Republican senators have shown interest in the matter, and it may be indefinitely shelved to a committee, according to The Associated Press. The Senate is expected to receive the articles of impeachment from the House after returning to session Feb. 26. 

It was House Republicans' second attempt to impeach Mayorkas after a vote failed last week. 

Three House Republicans who broke ranks last week over the Mayorkas impeachment – Ken Buck of Colorado, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Tom McClintock of California – all did so again Tuesday. With a 219-212 majority, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had few votes to spare. His margin got even smaller later Tuesday night when New York Democrat Thomas Suozzi won a special election to the seat once held by Republican George Santos before his expulsion from Congress.

In a dramatic development the first time around, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, left the hospital bed where he was recovering from surgery to cast his "no" vote against Mayorkas' impeachment. 

Joining the three Republican defectors, Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, switched his vote to "no" at the last minute – a procedural move to be able to bring the resolution back to the floor. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

House Republican who oversaw Mayorkas impeachment won’t run for re-election

House Homeland Security Chair, Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., announced Wednesday he will not run for re-election, citing Alejandro Mayorkas' impeachment as a reason to retire from Congress and return to his home district after serving three terms in Washington, D.C.

"At the start of the 118th Congress, I promised my constituents to pass legislation to secure our borders and to hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable. Today, with the House having passed H.R. 2 and Secretary Mayorkas impeached, it is time for me to return home," Green said in a statement. "In the last few months, in reading the writings of our Framers, I was reminded of their intent for representatives to be citizen-legislators, to serve for a season and then return home. Our country – and our Congress – is broken beyond most means of repair. I have come to realize our fight is not here within Washington, our fight is with Washington."

"As I have done my entire life, I will continue serving this country – but in a new capacity," Green continued Wednesday, not disclosing if he will run again for governor in 2026, where the seat will up for grabs because Republican Gov. Bill Lee is prohibited from running under Tennessee’s gubernatorial term limits.

"I am grateful to my wife, Camie, and my family, for standing beside me and for their service to our nation," he continued, announcing his retirement. 

MAYORKAS FIRST CABINET OFFICIAL TO BE IMPEACHED SINCE 1876, SUOZZI WINS SANTOS' SEAT AND MORE TOP HEADLINES

"During my time in the Army, they sacrificed dad and husband to multiple deployments – and as I have served here in Congress, they have supported me as I’ve been away most weeks," he said. "I also want to thank the constituents of Tennessee’s 7th District for the unbelievable honor to serve them in Congress – whose vote of confidence was not only evident in the wide margins in each election, but also without ever having a single primary opponent in my three elections. And finally, I want to thank my staff, whose unmatched hard work, dedication, and talent have resulted in our many victories and one of the lowest turnover rates in Congress."

Green is the fifth Republican committee chair to forgo re-election. The others are House Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger, R-Texas, Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick T. McHenry, R-N.C., and House Select Committee on China Chair Mike Gallagher, R-Wis. 

Gallagher was one of just three Republican House members to vote against the impeachment of Mayorkas, joining with all House Democrats and preventing an initial measure from going forward. After that bid failed, a second attempt succeeded Tuesday, making Mayorkas the first Cabinet secretary to be impeached since 1876.

As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Green spearheaded a months-long investigation of Mayorkas, his policies and his management of the department, ultimately concluding Tuesday that his conduct in office amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanors" worthy of impeachment. 

At the beginning of the 118th Congress, Green was selected as Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, becoming the only member of Congress to be selected at the start of his or her third term to chair a major legislative committee this century, his office said. 

Green previously served as an Army surgeon and in the state Senate and is from Montgomery County. 

USER’S MANUAL TO WHAT’S NEXT NOW THAT THE HOUSE IMPEACHED MAYORKAS

Green flirted with running for governor in 2017, but suspended his campaign after he was nominated by former President Trump to become the Army secretary. He later withdrew his nomination amid criticism over his remarks about Muslims and LGBTQ+ Americans, including saying that being transgender is a disease, according to the Associated Press. He also urged that a stand be taken against "the indoctrination of Islam" in public schools and referred to a "Muslim horde" that invaded Constantinople hundreds of years ago.

After winning his congressional seat in 2018, Green once again made headlines after hosting a town hall where he stated that vaccines cause autism. He later walked back his comments. 

Last April, the Trump campaign announced Green would be a part of the Trump 2024 Tennessee Federal Leadership team. 

In 2022, Green's middle Tennessee congressional seat was among seats that Republicans drastically carved up during redistricting. The 7th Congressional District was redrawn to include a significant portion of Nashville. The congressional map is now facing a federal lawsuit, but that case is not scheduled to go to trial until April 2025.

The GOP primary to replace Green is on Aug. 1, and candidates have primary ballot acces until the April 4 deadline, according to the Federal Elections Commission. So far on the Republican side, Caleb Stack has pulled petitions to run for the congressional district Green will vacate at the end of his term. 

In a brazen attempt at a political comeback, former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry, who stepped down about five years ago amid now-dismissed criminal charges linked to her using taxpayer dollars to carry on an extramarital affair with her city-employed bodyguard, announced in December that she would run for Green's U.S. House seat as a Democrat. 

"I expect candidates who agree with Mark Green or are even more extreme will announce campaigns, and I look forward to taking on whoever makes it through that primary," Barry said in a statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Democrats blast DHS Secretary Mayorkas impeachment as GOP ‘political’ stunt: ‘No evidence of wrongdoing’

House of Representatives Democrats are decrying the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as a "political" stunt.

Representative Anna Eshoo, D-C.A, said that Mayorka's historic impeachment on Tuesday was a "political stunt" and that there was "no evidence of wrongdoing."

"With no evidence of wrongdoing, House Republicans voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas today after the House rejected an identical resolution last week," Rep. Eshoo said. "This is an abuse of the solemn power of impeachment which the Constitution reserves for extraordinary circumstances when officials have engaged in serious misconduct. Secretary Mayorkas is the first cabinet secretary impeached in nearly 150 years and the first ever impeached without evidence of impropriety."

"Astonishingly, House Republicans took this drastic step while refusing to even consider the bipartisan border security bill proposed by Senate negotiators. It’s long past time for Republicans to abandon their harmful political stunts and instead work to advance real solutions to our nation’s challenges," the Representative continued.

HOUSE VOTES TO IMPEACH DHS SECRETARY MAYORKAS OVER BORDER CRISIS

Representative Pramila Jayapal, D-W.A, a member of the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee, said that the "do-nothing" Republicans continue to "waste time and resources" on "baseless, partisan attacks."

"Today, the ‘do-nothing’ Republican Party continues to waste time and resources that could be spent working for the American people on baseless, partisan attacks of Biden Administration officials as they take up this sham impeachment vote of Secretary Mayorkas for the second time in two weeks, after an embarrassing failure last week," Rep. Jayapal said in a statement.

"There is no question that the immigration system is broken – and what the American people want and deserve is an orderly and humane system that properly processes people and modernizes an outdated immigration system that has not been updated in over 30 years to reflect for the needs of our American economy, communities, and families. The situation that we’re seeing at the southern border is a direct result of this failure to address the underlying system, compounded by the extreme policies of the Trump Administration," she continued.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., previously called the case against Mayorkas a "sham impeachment" and a "new low for House Republicans."

"This sham impeachment effort is another embarrassment for House Republicans," Schumer said. "The one and only reason for this impeachment is for Speaker Johnson to further appease Donald Trump."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that the vote moved forward "without a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds."

HERE ARE THE 3 HOUSE REPUBLICANS WHO TORPEDOED MAYORKAS’ IMPEACHMENT VOTE

"House Republicans will be remembered by history for trampling on the Constitution for political gain rather than working to solve the serious challenges at our border," DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said in a statement. "While Secretary Mayorkas was helping a group of Republican and Democratic Senators develop bipartisan solutions to strengthen border security and get needed resources for enforcement, House Republicans have wasted months with this baseless, unconstitutional impeachment.

President Joe Biden blasted House Republicans immediately after the vote.

"History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games," he said.

Biden said that Republicans have pushed Mayorkas' "baseless impeachment" and rejected bipartisan plans.

"Instead of staging political stunts like this, Republicans with genuine concerns about the border should want Congress to deliver more border resources and stronger border security. Sadly, the same Republicans pushing this baseless impeachment are rejecting bipartisan plans Secretary Mayorkas and others in my administration have worked hard on to strengthen border security at this very moment — reversing from years of their own demands to pass stronger border bills," Biden continued. 

Biden said that Congress has to give his administration the tools to address the southern border and that the House GOP has to "decide whether to join us to solve the problem or keep playing politics with the border."

HOUSE FAILS TO IMPEACH DHS SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS IN MAJOR BLOW TO GOP

"Giving up on real solutions right when they are needed most in order to play politics is not what the American people expect from their leaders. Congress needs to act to give me, Secretary Mayorkas, and my administration the tools and resources needed to address the situation at the border. The House also needs to pass the Senate’s national security supplemental right away. We will continue pursuing real solutions to the challenges Americans face, and House Republicans have to decide whether to join us to solve the problem or keep playing politics with the border," Biden said.

The Democrat's statement came after Mayorkas was impeached by the House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon.

A Cabinet secretary has not been impeached by the U.S. Congress since 1876.

The 214-213 vote was always expected to be tight; Mayorkas narrowly escaped impeachment last week when every single House Democrat showed up to shield him, including Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who temporarily left the hospital where he was recovering from surgery to cast his vote.

Three Republicans also voted down the effort: Reps. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., Ken Buck, R-Colo., and Tom McClintock, R-Calif.

Reps. Anna Eshoo, Pramila Jayapal, Sen. Schumer and the Department for Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

User’s Manual to what’s next now that the House impeached Mayorkas

The House has now impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Think of impeachment as an indictment. It’s up to the Senate to act as a "court" and judge whether the accused is guilty of the charges in a trial.

The impeachment of cabinet officials is rare. The House has now impeached multiple Presidents and federal judges. But only one cabinet secretary prior to Mayorkas. That was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. 

Don’t expect anything to start until late February or early March. The House will send the articles of impeachment plus the House "managers" over to the Senate to formally begin the trial.

SENATE APPROVES $95 BILLION FOREIGN AID BILL

"Impeachment managers" are House members who serve as prosecutors. They present the findings of the House before the Senate. Senators sit as jurors.

There is a bit of a ceremony to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate from the House and for the Senate to receive the articles. In this case, Acting Clerk of the House Kevin McCumber and House Sergeant at Arms William McFarland escort the articles of impeachment and House managers across the Capitol Rotunda to the Senate. The Senate gathers, usually with all senators sitting at their desks. Senate Sergeant at Arms Karen Gibson then receives the House entourage at the Senate door and reads the following proclamation to the Senate.

"All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas."

The articles are then presented to the Senate and the managers are introduced. That is all they usually do on the first day of a Senate trial– although FOX was told the Senate might try to squeeze everything into one day.

BIDEN’S EXPORT SUSPENSION ON LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS COULD SPIKE YOUR HEAT BILL

Under Senate impeachment trial rule III, the body is supposed to wait until the next day to swear-in senators as jurors. But FOX is told that could happen on day one in this instance.

According to Senate rules, the trial must begin the day after the Senate receives the articles at 1 pm in the afternoon. Trials are supposed to run Monday through Saturday. We had Saturday sessions in both impeachment trials of former President Trump in 2020 and 2021.

It is unlikely that U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presides over a possible Mayorkas trial. Senate impeachment rule IV requires the Chief Justice to preside over cases involving the President or Vice President. In this case, it’s likely that Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D-Wash.) presides over a Mayorkas tribunal.

Now we get to perhaps the most interesting question of all. How much of a trial is there? 

The Senate cannot immediately bypass a trial. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced that Mayorkas' trial will begin later in February. The House has named its 11 impeachment managers. Senators will be sworn in as the jury.

Senators can decide to hold a full trial, or potentially, move to dismiss or actually have straight, up or down votes on convicting or exonerating Mayorkas. The Senate could also send the articles to a committee for review.

SHOOTING BLANKS: HOW REPUBLICANS MISFIRED WHEN THEY TRIED TO IMPEACH MAYORKAS

In the 1998 impeachment trial of former President Clinton, late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) made a motion to dismiss the charges.

There will eventually be either a vote to convict/exonerate Mayorkas or dismiss the charges. Senate Republicans will watch very closely if Senate Democrats engineer any vote to short-circuit the trial. The GOP will take note of how multiple vulnerable Democrats facing competitive re-election bids in battleground districts vote.

If they vote to end the trial or clear Mayorkas, Republicans will likely enroll that into their campaigns against those Democratic senators. Keep in mind that FOX polling data revealed that border security was the number one issue facing voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Republicans will examine the trial-related votes of Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) – if she runs. 

But the Senate must at least entertain the articles for a day or two – and then render some sort of judgment.

House votes to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas over border crisis

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been impeached by the House of Representatives.

A Cabinet secretary has not been impeached by the U.S. Congress since 1876.

Tuesday evening’s vote marked House Republicans’ second attempt at impeaching Mayorkas. GOP lawmakers targeted the Biden official over the ongoing migrant crisis at the U.S. border, accusing him of deliberately flaunting existing immigration law and worsening the situation. 

DENVER SCHOOLS OVERWHELMED BY MIGRANT SURGE AS MAYOR SLASHES $5M FROM PUBLIC SERVICES TO ADDRESS CRISIS

The 214-213 vote was always expected to be tight; Mayorkas narrowly escaped impeachment last week when every single House Democrat showed up to shield him, including Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who temporarily left the hospital where he was recovering from surgery to cast his vote. 

Three Republicans also voted down the effort – Reps. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., Ken Buck, R-Colo., and Tom McClintock, R-Calif. 

HOUSE FAILS TO IMPEACH DHS SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS IN MAJOR BLOW TO GOP

Each criticized Mayorkas’ handling of the border but had reservations over whether it rose to the level of impeachment. McClintock warned it could set a precedent for political impeachments that could harm GOP officials in the future.

"Swapping one leftist for another is a fantasy, solves nothing, excuses Biden’s culpability, and unconstitutionally expands impeachment that someday will bite Republicans," McClintock said last week.

However, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., dismissed any concerns about precedent in comments to reporters hours before the vote on Tuesday.

"Mayorkas is an exceptional case in U.S. history," Johnson said, accusing him of having done more "damage on the country than any Cabinet secretary that's ever been."

He also addressed the very likely scenario that the impeachment would go nowhere in the Democrat-held Senate. 

HERE ARE THE 3 HOUSE REPUBLICANS WHO TORPEDOED MAYORKAS’ IMPEACHMENT VOTE

"The House has a constitutional responsibility, as I've said many times. It's probably the heaviest next to a declaration of war. And we have to do our job regardless of what the other chamber does," Johnson said.

Two impeachment articles were approved against Mayorkas by the House Homeland Security Committee. One accused him of having "refused to comply with Federal immigration laws" and the other of having violated "public trust."

The Department of Homeland Security criticized House Republicans for holding a second Mayorkas impeachment vote on Tuesday, citing comments by GOP lawmakers who have called the effort a waste of time.

"House Republicans’ baseless push to impeach Secretary Mayorkas has already failed once, with bipartisan opposition. If Members of Congress care about our national security, they should listen to their fellow Republicans and stop wasting time on this pointless, unconstitutional impeachment – time that could be spent addressing the issue by advancing bipartisan legislation to fix our broken immigration laws and provide needed resources for border security," the department said.