User’s Manual to Devon Archer’s closed door interview tomorrow

Former Burisma Board member Devon Archer appears tomorrow morning before the House Oversight Committee for a closed-door, transcribed interview. 

Fox is told that Archer is expected to appear this time - even though he ducked the committee three times before and is under subpoena. 

Moreover, one senior Republican close to the investigation believes the DOJ tried "an intimidation tactic" Saturday, asking a judge to set a date for Archer to report to begin serving jail time. 

Archer was found guilty of defrauding Native American tribes in 2022. 

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO HOW HUNTER BIDEN'S LEGAL WOES COULD ACCELERATE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Fox is told investigators intend to ask Archer about previously undisclosed bank records and the purpose of those transactions. In particular, the committee wants to know what role if any the President had in those transactions. 

'IMPEACHMENT WEEK'

There are also questions as to whether legal counsel for the Bidens contacted Archer. 

The committee believes Archer will tell investigators about meetings or phone calls he had with President Biden regarding potential business deals. 

IMPEACH BIDEN OR MAYORKAS? WHAT IT TAKES FOR 'IMPEACHMENT' PROCEEDINGS TO SUCCEED IN THE HOUSE

Archer is slated to appear at 10 am ET. The discussion is scheduled to go for four hours, total. Two hours per side. 

The Republicans will go for an hour. The Democrats for an hour. And so on. 

With breaks, this likely does not conclude until 3 pm ET or so. 

Fox is told to expect maybe a couple of lawmakers there. Fox is told that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio will likely attend. 

Fox is also told that the committee intends to release the transcript of the transcribed interview "in three or four days."

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to how Hunter Biden’s legal woes could accelerate an impeachment inquiry

The legal woes of Hunter Biden and today’s dropped plea deal likely accelerates the possibility of a formal impeachment inquiry by House Republicans.

Some Republicans were skeptical of launching any sort of inquiry – let alone impeaching the President.

HUNTER BIDEN PLEADS 'NOT GUILTY' AS PLEA DEAL FALLS APART DURING DELAWARE COURT APPEARANCE

But issues with the plea deal did nothing but pose more questions from Republicans. 

That’s why this likely spurs more serious conversation about impeachment inquiry.

HUNTER BIDEN TO APPEAR IN FEDERAL COURT, ENTER GUILTY PLEA OUT OF YEARS-LONG FEDERAL PROBE

This will be about the math.

The full House must vote to formally begin an impeachment inquiry. It’s fair to say that the House is a little closer to that now than it was before the Hunter Biden deal blew up. 

LONGTIME BIDEN ALLY WAS PROSECUTOR IN US ATTORNEY WEISS' OFFICE DURING HUNTER PROBE, CALLED HIM 'A BROTHER'

Moreover, voting to ESTABLISH an impeachment inquiry gives the House WIDE LATITUDE to go after more documents, information and conduct depositions. The Hunter Biden deal situation poses more questions than answers. So more Republicans may be inclined to pursue such a plan. 

Meantime, Democrats seem to be caught off guard by the change with Hunter Biden’s deal. They were prepared to just dismiss this and move on. But they can’t anymore. So far, Democrats have presented little cohesive strategy about how to deal with this turn events – and protect the president. 

We could hear more about this Thursday and Friday as this is the last time until mid-September that the House will be in town. 

Expect lawmakers to pepper House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about the next steps. And also, pose questions to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) about the defense Democrats may need to mount on behalf of the president.

Speaker McCarthy promised Trump a House vote to expunge impeachments, report says

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy promised former President Trump that the House would vote on expunging Trump's two impeachments this month, according to a new report.

McCarthy made the promise last month to quell Trump's anger after the speaker said he was not sure whether Trump was the best candidate to win the 2024 election, Politico reported Thursday. McCarthy's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Trump allies in the House pushed to expunge Trump's impeachment votes in late June, with House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., proposing the measure. McCarthy did not back the move, however, and it never came up for a vote.

Many Republican members have opposed the idea, arguing that dredging up Trump's impeachments would only serve to hurt Republicans in vulnerable seats.

HERE'S WHAT THE LATEST FOX NEWS NATIONAL POLLS SHOW

SEN. VANCE BLOCKS BIDEN'S DOJ NOMINEES IN RESPONSE TO TRUMP INDICTMENT: 'THIS MUST STOP'

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., pushed back on plans to expunge Trump's impeachments last month, saying, "It sounds a little bit weird to me. It is what it is, it happened."

Should he plan to, McCarthy has just one week to bring up the issue before August recess begins and members return to their home districts until September.

MARCO RUBIO WARNS US WILL PAY 'TERRIBLE PRICE' FOR TRUMP INDICTMENT: 'YOU THINK THIS ENDS HERE?'

Expunging his impeachment charges would be a largely symbolic victory for Trump, however, who faces a slew of very real criminal charges relating to his business dealings and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Trump maintains a dominant lead over his Republican primary opponents despite the charges. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis trails him by dozens of points in second. Other candidates like former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and former Vice President Mike Pence remain in the single digits.

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

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

The Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024.

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

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

IMPEACHMENT ONCE AGAIN LOOMS LARGE IN CONGRESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dial back to February 2016. 

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

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

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

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

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

This is why liberals are apoplectic about the Supreme Court.

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

You can’t always pick your opponent in politics. 

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

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

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

A road to impeachment: House Republicans may yet impeach Biden

The Republican-led House of Representatives may yet impeach President Biden.

But House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., had to intervene to halt a snap impeachment this week by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo. 

"Privileged" resolutions are a special commodity in the House. They are used in only special circumstances pertaining to the Constitution. That includes discipline of Members or impeachment. Such resolutions head to the front of the legislative line. The House must entertain such privileged matters almost immediately. 

Boebert grew tired of what she thought was dithering by House Republicans on potentially impeaching President Biden over the southern border. That’s to say nothing of questions many GOPers hold about the ethics of the President, alleged or perceived crimes and the misdeeds of Hunter Biden. But despite robust inquires into all of those matters by the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways & Means Committees, Boebert had enough. She would go it alone and try to impeach Mr. Biden with her own privileged resolution. 

ADAM SCHIFF VOWS TO WEAR HOUSE GOP CENSURE LIKE ‘BADGE OF HONOR’

"I was tired of politicians telling us something that we wanted to hear back home, getting to where we send them and trust them to be our voice and doing something completely different. This isn't a talking point for me. This is an action item," said Boebert in an interview.

Any member may bring up a privileged resolution. But they’re usually the province of the minority party since they don’t control the floor. Still, Boebert and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., recently deployed privileged resolutions to go around House leaders and force action on their pet initiatives. 

Luna tried twice with a privileged resolution to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. The first measure failed. But the second one succeeded. 

MCCARTHY SIDELINES LAUREN BOEBERT'S PUSH FOR QUICK VOTE ON BIDEN IMPEACHMENT

This is ironic because Republicans long touted a return to "regular order" in their quest to run the House. In his effort to secure the Speakership, McCarthy promised that he wouldn’t just hand down bills from on high. He wanted legislation to gurgle up through subcommittees and committees before hitting the floor. Leaders wouldn’t drop legislation on lawmakers in the dead of night.

An attempt to punish a lawmaker with censure – the second most serious form of official discipline in the House – customarily goes through committee. The same with articles of impeachment. The Ethics Committee would usually spend months investigating the alleged misdeeds of a Member before sending a censure citation to the floor. Impeachment of the President could consume months of closed door depositions, public hearings and floor debate. That was the process for impeaching former President Trump in late 2019. However, the House was much more hasty in impeaching Mr. Trump the second time after the Capitol riot. 

But nothing says a member can’t introduce a privileged resolution to censure a fellow lawmaker or even impeach the President without going through the additional machinations. If the House votes to censure or impeach, you are censured or impeached. The mechanics aren’t required. 

Even if that’s the "regular order." Or, the "regular order" 

BOEBERT FORCING VOTE ON BIDEN IMPEACHMENT HITS NERVE WITH HER OWN PARTY: ‘PLAYGROUND GAMES'

"Maybe we’re redefining regular order," said Luna in an interview. "Maybe we’re redefining what the typical process would be and that Members have more of a voice."

Allowing his rank-and-file to have a "voice" is key to McCarthy’s political success as Speaker. He promised to give Members more say in the legislative process. The Speaker certainly agreed with censuring his Golden State nemesis Schiff for his role in the Russia probe. And even though McCarthy is no fan of President Biden, he knows that impeachments of Presidents come at tremendous political cost.

As Speaker, McCarthy must protect the integrity of the institution, the Speakership and the seriousness of impeachment. That’s to say nothing of guarding vulnerable Republicans from battleground districts who look askance at impeachment.

Lots of Congressional Republicans hint at impeachment to keep them in the good graces of conservative voters back home. But they know that impeachments are rare, and they may never have to vote on such a proposal, despite the feisty rhetoric. So to Boebert, talk was cheap.

That’s why she circumvented the customary committee process for impeachment, depositing a privileged resolution on the floor without the typical volutions. 

"Bringing up this privileged motion to impeach Joe Biden absolutely forces members to put their money where their mouth is. If most of the Republicans (governed) as they (campaigned), then we would be a lot better off," said Boebert.

But Boebert’s approach failed to impress some of her GOP colleagues.

"We can't turn impeachment into the equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the British Parliament," said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn. "When we do that we cheapen what impeachment is. It's supposed to be a tool of last resort. Not a first resort."

Boebert failed to appear at a meeting of all House Republicans Wednesday morning to present her impeachment resolution and gain support for it.

"I don’t think that one minute of speaking time at (the Republican) Conference was going to persuade anyone," said Boebert. "I don’t think that is something that took precedence for my busy schedule."

For the record, nearly every House Republican also attends those same meetings and somehow finds a way to wedge those weekly conclaves into their schedules.

"I believe in team sports you should work together. And this was an individual who was undermining the team," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., about Boebert. "Impeachment shouldn’t be something that is frivolous and treated in that way."

McCarthy needed to thread the needle on Boebert’s resolution. But he too was unimpressed with the gambit by the Colorado Republican.

"You just don’t flippantly put something on the floor," said McCarthy. "You follow the investigation wherever it takes you."

McCarthy then met with Boebert.

"I don’t think that my actions are flippant," Boebert said afterward. "I believe they are very intentional."

THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO CENSURING SCHIFF THIS WEEK

But McCarthy wasn’t going to let Boebert’s impeachment resolution on the floor. He also wasn’t going to expose vulnerable Republicans to a scenario where they voted to table the impeachment resolution and then caught flak from arch conservatives in their districts. However, McCarthy wanted to block Democrats from tabling the resolution, too.

So McCarthy crafted a special provision to handle Boebert’s impeachment resolution. The House would vote on a "rule" to send the impeachment measure to the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. How much those committees investigated is then up to them. But McCarthy’s plan made sure to keep Boebert’s resolution alive. And it simultaneously inoculated anti-impeachment Republican lawmakers so they couldn’t face criticism for dismissing Boebert’s effort. 

In addition, lawmakers like Fitzpatrick and Bacon got their wishes, too. Committees could now continue to investigate the President – with the possibility of impeachment.

"The timeline of our investigation is pretty much in our heads," said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn. "We kind of know the pathway." 

Boebert said she’d like to see the House impeach President Biden by the end of the year.

"If there’s ever a hesitation that the articles are not coming to the floor, then we’ll make sure that happens," said Boebert, noting she’d dial up another privileged resolution.

"We have to be ready to vote for any number of fanciful ideas that the House Republican Conference comes up with," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. "They are trying to out-MAGA and out-extreme each other."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., intends to impeach Mr. Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Washington, DC, U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves. But on Wednesday afternoon. Greene and Boebert engaged in an animated conversation on the House floor. Greene accused Boebert of stealing her impeachment idea. It was reported Greene called Boebert "a little b*tch." 

"They had a discussion," said McCarthy, trying to downplay the rhubarb between Greene and Boebert. 

Yours truly pressed McCarthy on if the confrontation was truly a "discussion." 

"I think it’s healthy that people have discussions," replied McCarthy.

When asked for her side of the story, Boebert simply walked away from a pack of reporters gathered on the Capitol steps.

"Thank you all so much. Have a great day," said Boebert. 

2021 in political scandals: Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal, Trump impeachment, Cuomo brothers, and more

From the impeachment of former President Donald Trump to the downfall of former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, 2021 wasn’t short on political scandals as the coronavirus pandemic continued to grip the world.