Category: fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/democrats

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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.

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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.

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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.

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.

‘Squad’ Democrats Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib vote against bill to ban Hamas terrorists from US

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

"Squad" Democrats Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo. and  Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. were the only two representatives who voted against a bill barring Hamas terrorists from entering the United States.

The bill, HR 6679, which was also called the "No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act," expanded a U.S. ban on Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) officers to include all PLO members.

The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Penn., also barred Hamas members and other participants in the Oct. 7 attack from the U.S.

The legislation states that any person who "participated in, planned, financed, afforded material support to, or otherwise facilitated" the October 7 attack on Israel or attacks after that, "shall be ineligible for any relief under the immigration laws."

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS SHRUG OFF RAPIDLY RISING US ANTISEMITISM WHILE MANY WATCH IN DISBELIEF

"Any alien who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, afforded material support to, or otherwise facilitated any of the attacks against Israel initiated by Hamas beginning on October 7, 2023, is inadmissible," the bill states.

While 422 members of the House voted to pass the bill, three far-left members voted either against the bill or voted present.

Bush and Tlaib voted against the bill while Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., voted present.

In a press release, Tlaib said that the bill was "just another" Republican bill used to "incite" hatred.

"H.R. 6679 is unnecessary because it is redundant with already existing federal law," Tlaib said. 

ANTISEMITISM IS GETTING WORSE AS MORE 'SHOCKING' AND 'SCARY' INCIDENTS ARE EXPOSED, DC RESIDENTS SAY

"It’s just another GOP messaging bill being used to incite anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim hatred that makes communities like ours unsafe," the Democrat representative said.

Rep. Ramirez said that she voted present because she is "done with political games."

"I voted present  because I am done with political games," Ramirez said. "The majority is wasting time bringing a bill that is already current law. There are already no immigration benefits for Hamas terrorists. 

"After participating for 15 hours of a sham impeachment, I could not stomach another bill only introduced to score cheap political points, politicize immigration, and divide our communities. Like the Republican’s sham impeachment, this bill does not meaningfully address border security nor further protect our communities. H.R.6679 is unnecessary," Ramirez said. "It’s a waste of resources and time. And I’m not playing along."

Tlaib and Bush are among a small but vocal minority of Democrats critical of Israel in the ongoing conflict.

Tlaib was among the first to condemn Israel for the now-discredited claim that it struck a hospital in Gaza with an airstrike and killed some 500 people. 

U.S. intelligence said that the blast originated from a rocket fired by militants in Gaza that fell short.

Tlaib, Bush, and Ramirez did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee criticized for saying impeachment is not meant to be used for revenge

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, was criticized after standing up for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday, saying on social media that impeachment should not be used for revenge.

The House Homeland Security Committee met Tuesday to advance two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, accusing him of refusing to follow immigration law and of breaching the public’s trust. A vote is expected to take place later in the day, and will likely fall on party lines, moving the articles to a House vote at a future date.

While Republican committee members continued their assault against Mayorkas, Jackson Lee turned to social media to express her stance on the matter.

"Impeachment is not meant as a tool to be used for revenge. #RevengeImpeachment," Jackson Lee posted to X.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE PREDICTS MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES WILL PASS HOUSE WITHOUT ANY DEM SUPPORT

The tweet was in response to a video of her during the impeachment hearing, where she said they were "being fooled" in regards to the accusations against Mayorkas.

"Today, we are being fooled that work is being done against an individual for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The American people understand that that is not the actions that we are here for today," Jackson Lee said. "Revenge, vengefulness is why we are here. Otherwise, they would understand that Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is an individual whose family fled the Nazis and then Cuba before arriving here in the U.S.

"He is the first immigrant to serve as head of the Department of Homeland Security, and yet, this committee seeks to suggest that he is violating the Constitution, when in essence, his freedom is based upon our Constitution," she added.

WHITE HOUSE DEMANDS SPEAKER JOHNSON GIVE BIDEN ‘AUTHORITY AND FUNDING’ TO ‘SECURE THE BORDER’

Jackson Lee faced harsh criticism for her comments from some people, though, including Aaron Ray Hermes, a Texas Republican candidate gunning for the congresswoman’s seat.

"Oh so wanting to protect the country is just ‘revenge’ now?" Hermes tweeted. "Then why did you impeach Trump for making a perfectly valid phone call in 2019? Keep lying and we’ll keep showing up with receipts. Can’t wait to take your seat."

Others attempted to remind Jackson Lee that the Democratic Party used impeachment as revenge against former President Trump.

MIGRANT CRISIS BROKE NEW RECORD IN DECEMBER WITH 302K ENCOUNTERS, OFFICIALS CONFIRM 

"Did you post this comment when you all did the revenge impeachment of Trump," one user wrote, while another posted, "Haha! Says the Impeachment Democratic Party."

Still, House Democrats, including Jackson Lee, have backed Mayorkas on the matter of impeachment, and on Monday, they released a lengthy report that accused the Republican majority of abusing the impeachment process and running a "sham" process while sabotaging Mayorkas’ efforts to manage the border crisis.

Fox News Digital's Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

Democrat Cuellar warns Biden: Border crisis will ‘absolutely’ be election issue in 2024

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

MCALLEN, Texas — Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, is warning fellow Democrats, including President Biden, to prepare for border security to be a top election issue in the 2024 cycle.

Standing along the Rio Grande in Hidalgo, Texas, Saturday, Cuellar emphatically told Fox News Digital the situation at the southern border will "absolutely" be on voters’ minds this year.

He traveled to the border this weekend as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation that also included Reps. Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas; Randy Weber, R-Texas; and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

'SENSE OF HOPELESSNESS': MICHAEL MCCAUL SOUNDS ALARM ON BORDER PATROL MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS

"If they're looking at the same polls I've been looking at, the American public doesn't like what's happening," Cuellar said of fellow Democrats.

"I represent an area where it's almost 80% Hispanic, a lot of Democrats," he said. "So, yeah, the polls are showing that it's an important issue."

Speaking of Biden, he said, "It’s in the president’s best interest politically to come up with a solution on border security."

WATCH: MIGRANTS CLAIM ASYLUM ON COLD JANUARY NIGHT AS CBP UNION LEADER TALKS BORDER CRISIS

A Fox News poll from last month found that eight in 10 voters think the situation at the southern border is either an emergency (34%) or a major problem (45%). 

The group of lawmakers toured sections of the border Saturday and met with border and immigration officials. White House and Senate negotiators are working to cobble together a deal on border reform in exchange for GOP support for Biden’s $106 billion supplemental funding request for Ukraine, Israel and other issues.

KEY REPUBLICAN COMES OUT IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHING MAYORKAS, SAYS HE SHOULD BE 'TRIED FOR TREASON'

Cuellar insisted a show of bipartisanship like their trip was a move in the right direction.

"It's important that if the negotiations go well, and they work something out, that some of us are able to [be] bipartisan," Cuellar said.

He suggested reforms on what constitutes legal asylum was something Democrats were coming around to.

"For example, on the asylum when people come in, I support making changes. There's a lot of Democrats that don't," Cuellar explained. "Now, Democrats are saying, ‘Maybe we need to look at that.’ So, I think we're seeing now a shift where people are willing to get out of their comfort zones. If we have enough Democrats and Republicans, we can get it done."

House Dem tells mother of fentanyl victim she lacks ‘background to understand’ border chief’s impeachment

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., told a mother who lost her daughter to fentanyl that she was being "used" by Republicans during a House Homeland Security hearing on Thursday.

Goldman's remarks to Josephine Dunn, whose 26-year-old daughter Ashley lost her life to fentanyl-laced pills, came during the committee's hearing titled "Voices for the Victims: The Heartbreaking Reality of the Mayorkas Border Crisis."

Dunn had been invited by Republicans to take part in the hearing and share the story of how she lost her daughter to fentanyl as Congress continues on with the impeachment proceedings against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Expressing his "sincere condolences" to Dunn for the loss of her daughter, Goldman said that he wanted to "apologize in some ways" to Dunn because she was "being used as a fact witness for an impeachment investigation."

BORDER PATROL SEIZED ENOUGH FENTANYL TO KILL ENTIRE US POPULATION THIS FISCAL YEAR

"Obviously, given what your experience has been, you don't have the background to understand what a high crime and misdemeanor is and how it relates to this," he added in his remarks to Dunn.

Goldman's remarks drew the ire of Dunn, who told the Daily Caller News Foundation on Friday that the lawmaker is "unaware about what my understanding, about what my education, what my experience is in any of those areas when it comes to misdemeanors or high crimes."

"I have my opinions, and for him to assume that I want to just put more money into a system that has had plenty of money placed into it and is still broken is incorrect. Please don’t think for me. I have a brain, I can think and speak for myself," she told the outlet.

During the hearing, Dunn grew visibly frustrated with Goldman as he attempted to question her.

"You would agree, would you not, that it would help to stop the fentanyl trade and fentanyl trafficking from coming into this country if we had more law enforcement officers at the border and more resources and technology to stop the fentanyl from coming in?" he asked Dunn. "Do you agree with that?"

Dunn rejected Goldman's premise, saying "Border Patrol is now being used to make sandwiches and to screen people and let them into our country. So I disagree with you."

Moments later, Dunn added: "I would like the border patrol to be able to do the job that they were hired to do. Every border patrol officer that I have spoken to has told me that their hands are tied by this administration and Mr. Mayorkas. I’ve been to the border, sir, have you?"

Goldman responded that he was the one asking the questions at the hearing.

TEEN DRUG OVERDOSES HIT RECORD HIGH, DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY FENTANYL POISONING, SAYS NEW REPORT

Further highlighting the moment in a post to Facebook, Dunn wrote, "Pardon me sir, but you know nothing of my experience, my background or my understanding. Also, in all of my research, you have yet to travel once to the Southern Border of the United States. Is that why you avoided my question?"

"Are you unable to return to your constituency and explain your lack of understanding of the border, lack of experience at the border or was it something else? I would think you could have heard what I actually said. Not what you wanted me to say," she added.

Last September, Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens announced that agents had seized over 2,700 lbs. of fentanyl as part of the more than 69,000 lbs of narcotics seized between ports of entry. The seizures also included 40,000 lbs. of marijuana, 13,000 lbs. of methamphetamine and 11,000 lbs. of cocaine. 

That amount of fentanyl, which does not include the amount seized at ports of entry, is more than enough lethal doses to kill the entire population of the United States. While significantly more is caught at ports of entry – with over 22,000 lbs caught at the ports of entry at the southern border this fiscal year – the stat highlights the danger of fentanyl moving between the ports and potentially past overwhelmed agents in the field.

Opioids were involved in more than 100,000 overdose deaths in 2022. Fentanyl is the most prominent opioid, which is produced primarily in Mexico, using Chinese precursors, and then trafficked across the southern border. The drug is 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine and is often cut with other drugs, meaning that the user doesn’t know that they are ingesting fentanyl.

While opioid deaths have risen sharply in recent years, the Biden administration has pointed to data suggesting that overdose numbers are slowing and has tied that flattening to its drug strategy, which involves going after smugglers, increasing technology at ports of entry and providing additional funding for treatment and prevention within the U.S.

But the administration has faced criticism from Republicans over its handling of the fentanyl crisis, particularly at the southern border, which they say has exacerbated the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. Some Republicans, including those on the 2024 trail, have called for military action in Mexico to take out drug labs run by the cartels.

Fox News' Adam Shaw contributed to this report.