Media deem Trump the nominee, despite Haley tying him to Putin

Nikki Haley is campaigning hard, making the television rounds and ramping up her rhetoric against Donald Trump.

She is fighting on her home turf – South Carolina, the state that knows her best – and yet the media are acting in many ways as if the campaign is over.

That’s largely because the state’s former governor trails Trump by 22 to 36 percentage points, according to the last several South Carolina polls.

RON DESANTIS ACCUSES NIKKI HALEY OF APPEALING TO 'LIBERAL' T-SHIRT WEARERS: 'SHE'S POISONED THE WELL'

Haley is not only way behind Trump, she’s not closing the gap in a way that makes it a competitive contest on Saturday.

And if she loses by more than 20, the pundits will view that as the final nail in her political coffin.

Beyond that, I can’t think of a single state that Haley can win outright. She says she’ll continue at least through Super Tuesday, but the former president may have mathematically clinched the nomination by then, or shortly afterward.

This is not a knock on Haley (though contemporaries say she burned some bridges in South Carolina). The former U.N. ambassador managed to be the last woman standing, well after Pence, DeSantis, Scott, Christie and the others dropped out. But it’s instructive to look at how she’s campaigning, and why Trump – despite his four indictments and $355 million civil fraud penalty – seems unstoppable.

In a Sunday interview on ABC’s "This Week," Haley increasingly tried to tie Trump to Vladimir Putin’s murderous tactics in the wake of the Arctic prison killing of opposition leader Alexei Navalny:

"When you hear Donald Trump say in South Carolina a week ago that he would encourage Putin to invade our allies if they weren’t pulling their weight, that’s bone-chilling, because all he did in that one moment was empower Putin. And all he did in that moment was, he sided with a guy that kills his political opponents, he sided with a thug that arrests American journalists and holds them hostage, and he sided with a guy who wanted to make a point to the Russian people, don’t challenge me in the next election or this will happen to you too."

TRUMP’S NATO COMMENTS TRIGGER FIERCE MEDIA AND EUROPEAN OPPOSITION: HOW SERIOUS IS HE?

What’s more, Haley told Jonathan Karl, "it’s actually pretty amazing that he – not only after making those comments that he would encourage Putin to invade NATO, but the fact that he won’t acknowledge anything with Navalny. Either he sides with Putin and thinks it’s cool that Putin killed one of his political opponents, or he just doesn’t think it’s that big of a deal." 

Trump had said he wouldn’t protect any NATO country that didn’t spend 2% of its funds on defense, and in that case he would encourage Putin and Russia to "do whatever they hell they wanted." He has made no mention of Navalny’s death, which President Biden quickly blamed on Putin.

Haley reminded viewers that if Ukraine falls, Poland or the Baltics could be next.

Now think about this. If a candidate not named Trump had made comments interpreted as potentially blowing up the Atlantic alliance – drawing condemnation from top European leaders – and stayed silent when Russia’s dictator had the opposition leader killed, after a previous poisoning attempt, wouldn’t there be a political uproar?

But since it is Trump, who as president had a friendly relationship with Putin, there has been scant criticism from Republicans. If Trump believes it, most of the party falls into line.

It harkens back to his old 2016 line about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. Just as the Senate seemed on the verge of passing a bipartisan border bill that included aid to Ukraine and Israel, Trump torpedoed the measure by coming out against it.

DEMOCRATS WIN SEAT, REPUBLICANS WIN IMPEACHMENT, TWO PRESIDENTS CLASH OVER NATO

And in a FOX town hall Sunday night, Haley, who often says her ex-boss was a good president at the time, offered a more negative assessment:

"There were things that he did wrong," Haley told John Roberts. "His press conference in Helsinki, when he went and was trying to buddy up with Putin, I called him out for that. I explained that deeply in my book…how he was completely wrong. Because every time he was in the same room with him, he got weak in the knees. We can't have a president that gets weak in the knees with Putin."

About 20 minutes after Haley used the "weak in the knees" line yesterday on "Fox & Friends," saying Trump has "yet to say anything about Navalny’s death," the ex-president responded on Truth Social: 

"The sudden death of Alexei Navalny has made me more and more aware of what is happening in our Country. It is a slow, steady progression, with CROOKED, Radical Left Politicians, Prosecutors, and Judges leading us down a path to destruction." You might have noticed the pivot, and the failure to mention Putin at all. 

All this, in a nutshell, is why the press are far more interested in the veepstakes chatter surrounding Trump than in Haley’s dogged campaigning.

What most of the media and other critics fail to understand is that Trump represents the majority of his party. He has remade the GOP in his own image. Most leaders, with the notable exception of the strongly pro-Ukraine Mitch McConnell, follow their leader, as do rank-and-file members afraid of a Donald-backed primary challenger.

Speaker Mike Johnson admitted he consulted with Trump before declaring the border compromise DOA. Marco Rubio, who two months ago helped pass a law barring any president from withdrawing from NATO, said he had no problem with Trump’s remarks about the alliance.

There are even lines that Haley won’t cross. Asked repeatedly on ABC whether she still plans to endorse Trump if he wins, as she said at the campaign’s outset, Haley kept deflecting the question.

A decade ago, Haley’s pro-military and anti-Russia views would have been a comfortable fit for the Republican Party, but that party no longer exists.

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.

Sen Paul says Ukraine aid package would ‘tie the hands’ of future administrations

Several conservatives agree with Sen. JD Vance's memo circulated early Monday that there's a "hidden" clause in the national security supplemental bill that he believes could be grounds to impeach former President Donald Trump from office if elected to office later this year. 

Vance sent a memo to GOP lawmakers highlighting that the bill, which would send billions of federal dollars to Ukraine, assures the delivery of funding through September 2025. Trump, however, has vowed to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of gaining office, which would also end funding.

Vance's memo claimed that the supplemental bill "represents an attempt by the foreign policy blob/deep state to stop President Trump from pursuing his desired policy, and if he does so anyways, to provide grounds to impeach him and undermine his administration," and he urged Republicans to block its passage. 

SEN. VANCE MEMO WARNS GOP COLLEAGUES OF ‘SYSTEMIC FAILURES’ IN US AID TO UKRAINE

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, said he supported Vance's memo on Monday, arguing that Democrats are "setting up" for a possible Trump presidential win.

"They're locking in foreign aid that will even tie the hands of the next president," Paul told Fox News Digital in an interview. "So, I think it's a terrible idea. But also, if the next President were to try to have a different policy, you can see the Democrats again starting an impeachment."

"I think they're going to try to impeach him before he gains office now, and that's exactly what this is," he said.

Mark Paoletta, former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) General Counsel during the Trump Administration, told Fox News Digital in a statement that the clause in the bill text is an "effort to inappropriately tie President Trump’s hands in his next term by locking in Ukraine funding for multiple years." 

"In a presidential election year, Congress should not be making long-term funding commitments, particularly in foreign policy, that will attempt to tie the hands of the next commander in chief," Paoletta said. "President Trump had every right to pause the Ukraine funding for about 60 days, given his concerns about corruption in Ukraine and how best to spend those funds."

He added, "As OMB General Counsel, I issued the legal justification to pause the funding, and would do it again today."

Russ Vought, a former Trump cabinet member, also agreed with Vance's memo and said in a post on X that Vance is "absolutely right to interpret these Ukraine provisions" in this manner. 

PENTAGON FINALLY RUNS OUT OF MONEY FOR UKRAINE, URGES 50 ALLIES TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING KYIV

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., said the provision in the bill "is gonna force him to send money and spend money for Ukraine."

"This is in the bill," Tuberville told Fox News Digital. "So, it's just another situation where the Democrats are doing something and working towards making sure that money's spent in a certain area where American taxpayers and this country don't have."

The Trump administration, through the OMB, withheld a total of about $400 million of security assistance from Ukraine in 2019. This came just before Trump asked Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelenskyy to investigate the family of his 2020 rival, Joe Biden, and while the White House allegedly was withholding an Oval Office visit from Zelenskyy in exchange for that investigation.

These actions are what fueled the impeachment effort against Trump, in which he was ultimately acquitted. 

Trump has indicated that if he is elected president this year, he would resolve the war in Ukraine "within 24 hours." 

RUSSIAN LAWMAKERS WEIGH BILL TO SEIZE PROPERTY FROM THOSE WHO CRITICIZE PUTIN'S INVASION OF UKRAINE

The supplemental package, on track for final passage this week in the upper chamber, would send billions of federal dollars to Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific. The bill text includes $1.6 billion to finance Ukraine's military as well as just under $14 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, set to expire on Sept. 30, 2025. 

"These are the exact same accounts President Trump was impeached for pausing in December 2019," Vance wrote in a memo distributed to GOP offices early Monday. "Every single House Republican voted against this impeachment solution."

The Senate is gearing up for the last round of procedural votes Monday night to push the supplemental package forward for a final vote this week, despite several Republicans in opposition who are avoiding a time agreement to continue filibustering. It's unclear if the bill would pass in the GOP-led House. 

A former version of this bill that included border-related provisions failed to pass in the Senate last week. 

The offices of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. R-Ky., did not respond to Fox News Digital's requests for comment on Vance's memo.

Fox News' Tyler Olson and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report. 

Ukraine aid package would be used to impeach Trump, Sen Vance warns

Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, warned his Republican colleagues that the proposed Ukrainian aid bill could be used to impeach former President Trump if he wins re-election in November.

Vance sent a memo to GOP lawmakers highlighting that the Ukraine package assures the delivery of funding through September 2025. Trump, however, has vowed to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of gaining office, which would also end funding.

"[The package] represents an attempt by the foreign policy blob/deep state to stop President Trump from pursuing his desired policy, and if he does so anyways, to provide grounds to impeach him and undermine his administration. All Republicans should oppose its passage," the memo read.

"Back in 2019, Democrats articulated a novel theory of impeachment, based on Trump’s refusal to spend money from the USAI—Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Five years after impeaching Trump for refusing to spend money on Ukraine, they have drafted a new law that again requires Trump to spend money on Ukraine. If he negotiates an end to the war, as he has promised to do, they will undoubtedly argue that he has broken the law," Vance wrote in an op-ed for the American Conservative.

NETANYAHU DECLARES ‘VICTORY IS WITHIN REACH’ AS HAMAS REDUCED TO ‘LAST REMAINING BASTION’

On Sunday, the Senate voted to push forward the aid package, which also includes funds for Israel and other U.S. allies. So far, 18 GOP lawmakers have signed on to the effort.

The package would provide $60 billion for Ukraine, mostly to purchase U.S.-made defense equipment, including munitions and air defense systems that authorities say it desperately needs as Russia batters the country. It also includes $8 billion for the government in Kyiv and other assistance.

The 67-27 test vote Sunday on the $95.3 billion foreign aid package came just after Trump moved to kill the assistance and has escalated his attacks on the NATO military alliance.

MODERATE DEMS SILENT AS BIDEN SKIRTS SENATE CONFIRMATION FOR JOHN KERRY'S REPLACEMENT

Trump suggested this weekend that he would let Russia run amok in countries that are not contributing their fair share to NATO's budget.

Even if it makes it out of the Senate, the bill faces an uncertain future in the House of Representatives, where Republican lawmakers are more deeply aligned with Trump.

Fox News' Bradford Betz contributed to this report.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to potential timing for the Senate and the international aid package

The Senate has now cleared the first barrier to starting debate on the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

But how long until there’s a final vote?

In short, this might take a while.

Expect the strong possibility of weekend sessions and even important overnight votes. It’s possible this may not wrap up until next Tuesday – or beyond.

IMPEACHMENT OF ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS WILL HINGE ON THE MATH: CHAD PERGRAM

To wit:

The Senate overcame a filibuster just to start debate on the bill. From a very technical standpoint, the Senate is not on the bill just yet. Opponents of clearing the filibuster are awarded 30 hours after the vote early today.

So, unless there is an agreement to speed things up, the Senate could vote Friday evening around 7 pm ET just to get on the bill.

At that stage, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will likely "file cloture" to try to end debate on the bill.

By rule, if Schumer files on Friday, the Senate cannot vote to overcome the second filibuster until Sunday. "Cloture" (to end a filibuster) requires an "intervening day" before voting to end the filibuster. So that means the Senate can’t vote to break the second filibuster until Sunday. Saturday serves as the "intervening day."

But this is where this gets tricky.

ISRAEL, UKRAINE FOREIGN AID BILL CLEARS FIRST HURDLE IN SENATE WITHOUT BORDER AND IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS

By rule, the Senate must vote to crack the second filibuster one hour after the Senate meets on Sunday. This presents "The Super Bowl Scenario." What the Senate MIGHT do if they are really trying to step on the gas (and get senators the game or to watch the Super Bowl), is meet at 12:00:01 am et SUNDAY. The intervening day (Saturday) will have expired. By rule, the Senate can vote at 1:00:01 am ET Sunday to end debate on the overall bill.

However, there is also the "non-Super Bowl" situation here. We’ll call this the "Ravens-Lions" scenario. Say for a moment that senators don’t give a care about the Super Bowl. So the Senate might meet at noon or 1 pm et Sunday. By rule, the procedural vote to end the filibuster would happen one hour after the Senate meets. So just after 1 pm ET Sunday or 2 pm ET Sunday.

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

If the Senate gets 60 votes to break a filibuster, the bill is on a glidepath to eventual passage. 

But we are far from finished.

Opponents of the bill can require the Senate to burn up to 30 hours after the Senate breaks the filibuster before the Senate can vote on final passage.

So, unless there’s an agreement, the Senate couldn’t vote on final passage of the bill until Monday night after 7 pm et or so… or… in the wee hours of Tuesday morning. Everything will hinge on when the Senate concludes the procedural vote to end the filibuster.

In addition, there’s lot of interesting stuff to watch in between. Debate. Votes on amendments related to the border. You name it. And, it’s entirely possible that the Senate may actually take several days of debate and amendment votes – and elect to not try to break a filibuster and then pass the bill until late next week.

This is all developing right now.

Former Burisma lawyer registers as foreign agent more than seven years later amid Hunter Biden investigations

A lawyer who previously represented the head of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that once employed Hunter Biden, registered retroactively as a foreign agent for the work he did for the natural gas company seven years ago.

The registration from John Buretta came in documents filed Thursday with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires lawfirms and lobbyists to disclose their work representing the interests of foreign clients.

The disclosure from Buretta for the 2016 work he did for Mykola Zlochevsky — who co-founded Burisma Holdings in 2002 — came more than seven years after the fact, raising questions and concerns about why Hunter Biden, who also performed work on behalf of Burisma and Zlochevsky at the time, did not register as a foreign agent under FARA.

Buretta previously worked as a defense lawyer for Zlochevsky amid corruption investigations into the Burisma chief by the Ukrainian government and, according to FARA documents, U.S. authorities.

BIDENS ALLEGEDLY 'COERCED' BURISMA CEO TO PAY THEM MILLIONS TO HELP GET UKRAINE PROSECUTOR FIRED: FBI FORM

In the forms filed this week, Buretta's law firm, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, noted, "In January 2016, Mr. Buretta was retained to represent Mykola Zlochevsky in connection with possible investigations by governmental authorities in the United States. The representation thereafter broadened to include Burisma Holdings Limited, as well as governmental investigations in Ukraine, and continued until April 2017. The representation included both registrable and non-registrable activities. This registration and related materials cover all interactions with U.S. government officials in the course of the representation."

As part of his representation of Zlochevsky, the law firm noted in the form that Buretta met with three Obama administration officials in March 2016 and sent another U.S. government official a letter in September 2016.

"In these interactions, Mr. Buretta identified his clients and presented facts relevant to potential U.S. and Ukrainian investigations, including information from a UK proceeding involving his clients," the law firm noted.

Buretta's law firm did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment, but in a statement to the Washington Examiner explained that the filing came after a discussion with the DOJ.

"After discussions with the Department of Justice regarding FARA’s scope, Cravath has filed a retroactive registration covering legal services provided to two former clients in March and September 2016, and a supplemental statement terminating the registration as of September 2016," a Cravath, Swaine & Moore spokesperson told the outlet.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS CONSIDER HOLDING HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

In recent years, the DOJ has strengthened its enforcement of FARA violations. During former President Donald Trump's administration, the DOJ prosecuted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for failing to register as a foreign agent for work he performed in Ukraine.

Unlike Buretta, however, Manafort, who was eventually sentenced to prison, was not allowed to retroactively file a FARA disclosure to avoid charges being levied against him.

Included in the Thursday FARA filing was a breakdown of how much money Cravath received from Burisma Holdings. From January 2016 to August 2017, the firm was paid nearly $350,000, according to the documents.

The filing from Buretta and his attorneys comes as House Republicans continue to investigate Hunter Biden, who has been accused of violating FARA, wire fraud, money laundering, and other alleged crimes.

Then-Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden allegedly "coerced" Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky to pay them millions of dollars in exchange for their help in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired, according to allegations contained in an unclassified FBI document released last July by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Grassley said he released the document, which describes an alleged criminal bribery scheme involving Joe Biden and a Ukrainian business executive, so that the American people can "read this document for themselves without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats."

The document in question was an FBI-generated FD-1023 form — a confidential human source (CHS) reporting document — that reflects the FBI's interview with a "highly credible" confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with a top executive of Burisma Holdings over the course of several years starting in 2015. Hunter Biden, at the time, sat on the board of Burisma.

Biden has acknowledged that when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, and at the time, Hunter had a highly lucrative role on the board, receiving thousands of dollars per month. The then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion of critical U.S. aid if Shokin were not fired.

Biden allies maintain the then-vice president pushed for Shokin's firing due to concerns the Ukrainian prosecutor went easy on corruption, and say that his firing, at the time, was the policy position of the U.S. and international community.

The House Oversight Committee next week will hold a meeting to consider a resolution to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress after violating his congressional subpoenas.

The Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Hunter Biden for a closed-door deposition last month as part of the House Republican-led impeachment inquiry against President Biden. He defied the subpoena and held a press conference outside the Capitol complex instead.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Speaker Johnson gives Biden an ultimatum on Ukraine funding, immigration

There will be no additional funding for Ukraine without first making extensive reforms to the U.S. immigration system, House Speaker Mike Johnson told President Biden on Tuesday.

Johnson issued the ultimatum in a letter to the White House, according to Punchbowl News. Biden and Democrats had pushed for months to provide additional funding for Ukraine's war effort amid dwindling Republican support for the issue. With immigration being an even more divisive issue for Congress, Johnson's declaration is a major blow to the prospect of further aid to Kyiv.

Johnson's letter says Ukraine aid is "dependent upon enactment of transformative change to our nation's border security laws," according to Punchbowl.

The message came in response to a Monday letter from the White House. Penned by Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young, it warned that the U.S. would run out of Ukraine aid funding by the end of 2023.

ZELENSKYY TO ADDRESS US SENATORS DURING CLASSIFIED BRIEFING ON STALLED MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE, ISRAEL

"There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money—and nearly out of time," Young wrote. "Cutting off the flow of U.S. weapons and equipment will kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories."

"Already, our packages of security assistance have become smaller and the deliveries of aid have become more limited. If our assistance stops, it will cause significant issues for Ukraine," she added.

UKRAINE TO RECEIVE NATO SUPPORT FOR 'AS LONG AS IT TAKES,' GAIN ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP AFTER CONFLICT

The U.S. has already contributed well over $100 billion to Ukraine's war effort since Russia invaded the country in February 2022. Republicans have increasingly questioned why that money isn't being spent at home, however.

Johnson first announced plans to pair Ukraine funding and immigration funding into the same bill in early November.

"The American people feel very strongly about this, and I do as well. We have things that we can and should do around the world, but we have to take care of our own house first," Johnson said at the time. "As long as the border is wide open, we're opening ourselves up for great threats. And again, it's just a matter of principle that if we're going to take care of a border in Ukraine, we need to take care of America's as well. And I think there's bipartisan support for that idea."

Ukrainian forces have found little success in their months-long counteroffensive against Russia as well. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg warned that the world should "be prepared for bad news" in the conflict this week.

December deadlines: Things are a little different around Capitol Hill before the Christmas cutoff

Every December seemingly has a deadline on Capitol Hill.

To impeach the President.

To fund the government.

To avoid the fiscal cliff.

To raise the debt ceiling.

To approve a payroll tax cut.

To pass tax reform.

To allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

To pass Obamacare.

To undo Obamacare.

But things are a little different around Capitol Hill this December.

CONGRESS AIMS TO HOLD VOTE TO INITIATE BIDEN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

There’s no single, sweeping issue that is consuming Congress. Sure, there are lots of things to do. In fact, big things — which we’ll outline shortly. But the feeling this Christmas at the Capitol is different. No government shutdown is looming (talk to us about that in January and February). And while Congress has faced concrete deadlines before, there is no absolute, drop-dead date to complete anything.

Except there is a cutoff point. It’s the same as every other year: December 25th.

Lawmakers have three weeks to handle lots of things.

But it’s unclear if they’ll crank through them. And that’s why there’s the potential for Congress to linger in Washington and maybe — just maybe — still slam into the December 25th deadline.

Let’s start with impeachment.

No, the House is not going to impeach President Biden before Christmas. You might remember that December is kind of "impeachment month" on Capitol Hill. The House impeached President Clinton on Dec. 19, 1998, for obstructing justice and lying after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The House impeached former President Trump — the first time — on Dec. 18, 2019, for abusing his power and obstructing justice as it pertained to Ukraine.

Notice a pattern?

While those votes were actual resolutions to impeach the President, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is just pushing a plan to formalize an impeachment inquiry. FOX is told the goal is to pass the impeachment probe resolution next week.

HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO HOW THE SANTOS EXPULSION WILL AMPLIFY PRESSURE ON DEMOCRATS TO DEAL WITH MEN

House Republicans have nibbled around the edges of impeachment for months. But the House never adopted a measure officially authorizing impeachment.

"Now we're being stonewalled by the White House because they're preventing at least two to three DOJ witnesses from coming forward," said Johnson on FOX. "So a formal impeachment inquiry vote on the floor will allow us to take it to the next necessary step. And I think it's something we have to do at this juncture."

Plus, Johnson needs to notch a political and legislative win.

Johnson hasn’t had much to crow about since he first clasped the Speaker’s gavel in October. He quickly passed a bill to boost Israel in its fight against Hamas. But since then, Johnson has presided over a House majority that encountered multiple stumbles in efforts to pass their own spending bills. The highlight of Johnson’s short tenure may have been the expulsion of former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. — which Johnson and other GOP leaders opposed.

But impeachment could boost the GOP — especially as Congress stares at the possibility of dual government shutdowns over the winter.

"If it goes to the floor, we're going to pass it. There's no question," said House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., about an impeachment inquiry vote.

It’s about the math.

Republicans can only lose three votes on their side and prevail and still open an impeachment investigation. For months, moderates resisted an impeachment vote. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., initiated an impeachment inquiry — without an official vote — because he never had the votes. Moreover, McCarthy needed to do something to move the needle on his side of the aisle when GOP spending bills began stalling on the floor and conservatives grew restless over his debt ceiling pact with President Biden.

But votes to potentially launch an impeachment inquiry began to fall into place over the past few weeks. House Republicans believe things changed over Thanksgiving — after lawmakers were marooned in Washington for nearly 11 consecutive weeks since late summer.

"They met people in Walmart and people on Main Street, and they're like, ‘What in the world did the Bidens do to receive millions and millions of dollars from our enemies around the world? And did they not pay taxes on it?’ So they heard from their constituents," said House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.

Democrats accuse Republicans of a political diversion ahead of an election year.

GOOD TIDINGS AND CHEER, UNLESS YOU'RE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

"This is all part of a phony effort by extreme MAGA Republicans to distract the American people because they have no track record of accomplishment," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

But impeachment isn’t what is most vexing to many on Capitol Hill this December.

Major issues loom over passing the annual defense policy bill. But it faces a dispute over declassifying some information related to Unidentified Aeriel Phenomena (UAPs). Renewing the foreign surveillance counter-terrorism program known as "FISA." And then there is the big one: President Biden’s international aid package for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. The status of that bill is much harder to read because there’s no hard deadline — except Christmas. And the end of the year. And then when the focus pivots in January to averting a government shutdown.

To some, it would be hard to see Congress leaving town before the holiday without addressing Israel and Ukraine. Republicans insist that Democrats attach a robust border security plan to the package. However, Republicans aren’t even in agreement on what those border provisions might look like. But, if the plan blows up, Republicans hope to blame Democrats who are getting hammered politically for not tackling the border.

White House Budget Director Shalanda Young sent an urgent letter to lawmakers Monday, saying Congress was about to "kneecap" Ukraine by not passing the aid.

Talks over the border went sideways in recent days, perhaps scuttling the supplemental spending plan.

And if Congress doesn’t pass the international aid bill?

"You can bet Vladimir Putin is watching. Hamas is watching. Iran, President Xi, North Korea, all of our adversaries. They’re watching closely," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "If Congress fails to defend democracy in its hour of need because of border policies inspired by Donald Trump or Stephen Miller, the judgment of history will be harsh indeed."

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lashed his colleagues across the aisle.

"Democrats appear to be hell-bent on exhausting every half-baked idea before they get serious about actually fixing our border," said McConnell. "Senate Republicans know that national security begins with border security. And we’ve made it crystal clear that in order to pass the Senate, any measure we take up in the coming days must include serious policy changes designed to get the Biden Administration’s border crisis under control."

So it’s unclear if the fight over the border and the international aid package could keep Congress here close to Christmas this year — entering the special legislative pantheon of five-alarm fires which have screwed up other holiday seasons on Capitol Hill.

But things are a little different around the Capitol this December.

And even if Congress abandons Washington without finishing everything, no one will be celebrating.

Top House Republican says 2015 Blinken speech contradicts Biden White House narrative on Shokin: ‘Alarming’

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., on Wednesday accused President Biden of "corruptly [changing] the United States’ policy towards Ukraine," during the Obama administration, pointing to a 2015 speech from now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken praising Ukraine’s "anti-corruption" efforts when Viktor Shokin was the country’s prosecutor general.

"This is corruption at the highest levels of federal government and one of many reasons why House Republicans have launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden," Stefanik told Fox News Digital.

The timing of Blinken’s praise toward the Ukraine government in March 2015 raises questions about the White House’s insistence that then-Vice President Joe Biden was pushing for Ukraine officials to fire Shokin because he was not fulfilling his duties in prosecuting corruption.

Nearly a year after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board in April 2014, Shokin was appointed the prosecutor general of Ukraine, inheriting multiple investigations into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Shokin was fired in March 2016 amid international pressure, including from the Obama administration, over alleged corruption. 

REPUBLICANS ERUPT OVER 2015 EMAIL EXPOSING ‘ULTIMATE PURPOSE’ OF HUNTER'S INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA

Republicans claim that Biden’s push for Shokin’s firing was linked to Hunter’s work with Burisma, but the White House has said he was fired because he was not effectively prosecuting corruption.

Just a year before Shokin's firing, when Blinken was serving as deputy secretary of state to John Kerry, he gave a speech in Berlin on March 5, 2015, saying Ukraine had achieved "probably the best government" it had seen "since its independence."

"It’s been working to undertake deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms," Blinken said at the time. "These include laws to enhance transparency in public procurement, to reduce the government inefficiency and corruption. To clean up Ukraine’s energy sector, to make the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate for business and attract foreign investment. To create a new anti-corruption agency. To strengthen the prosecutor general’s office."

Stefanik told Fox News Digital that the video of Blinken's remarks "is further evidence that the Obama-Biden Administration thought the Ukrainian government and Prosecutor General Shokin were indeed successfully combating corruption in Ukraine.

"Yet, Joe Biden corruptly changed the United States’ policy towards Ukraine along with the assessment of Shokin to illegally and corruptly benefit his son’s foreign business partners in Ukraine when he decided to withhold aid to Ukraine until Shokin was fired," she said. "The most alarming part of this video is that Hunter Biden contacted Blinken shortly after this speech while Hunter Biden was serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company that Shokin was allegedly investigating to have a meeting."

HUNTER BIDEN GUSHED OVER ‘EXTRAVAGANT’ GIFTS FROM BURISMA EXEC WHO WAS FOCUS OF CORRUPTION PROBE

Blinken’s comments in Germany came roughly four months before he held a meeting with Hunter Biden at the State Department on July 22, 2015, Fox News Digital previously reported.

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Stefanik's claim is "based on dubious allegations" and reiterated the White House position that the international community expressed legitimate concerns about Shokin's inadequate prosecution of corruption.

On Tuesday, House Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., sent a letter to Blinken highlighting comments from multiple Obama administration officials also praising Shokin’s office in 2015.

Comer accused the State Department of taking a "sudden change in disposition towards the Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General in late 2015." His letter included past comments from State Department officials revealed through a FOIA lawsuit by Just the News media outlet.

The letter cited then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, who wrote a letter to Shokin on Kerry’s behalf, applauding his office’s "ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government" on June 11, 2015.

On Sept. 24, 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt said at the Odesa Financial Forum, "We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight against corruption. We want the Ukrainian people to have confidence in the Prosecutor General’s Office, and see that the PGO, like the new patrol police, has been reinvented as an institution to serve the citizens of Ukraine."

On Oct. 1, 2015, the National Security Council’s Interagency Policy Committee said in a memo that Ukraine had made "sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee" of a $1 billion loan, and that "it is in our strategic interest to provide one."

Comer’s letter also said that on Nov. 5, 2015, Biden participated in a call with then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and "provided no indication that the United States’ policy regarding Ukraine required the dismissal of Prosecutor General Shokin."

"By late 2015, however, the removal of Prosecutor General Shokin became a condition of the loan guarantee by the United States," Comer wrote. "In March 2016, Shokin was dismissed from his position by the Ukrainian Rada after months of public pressure most adamantly applied by then-Vice President Biden."

Comer pointed to recent statements to Congress made by former Hunter Biden business associate Devon Archer, who said that on Dec. 4, 2015, Hunter "called D.C." in a private meeting with Zlochevsky, Burisma's founder, and Vadim Pozharsky, Burisma’s corporate secretary, in Dubai following Pozharsky’s request.

Biden traveled to Ukraine days three days later, where he threatened to withhold the loan unless Shokin was fired.

On March 29, 2016, Shokin was fired.

A year after leaving the White House, Biden recounted his closed-door conversations with Poroshenko during the 2015 trip. He explained how he told Ukrainian officials the U.S. would withhold up to $1 billion in aid money earmarked for the country if Shokin remained in his position.

"I said, ‘Nah, I’m not going to – we’re not going to give you the billion dollars.’ They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said –.' I said, ‘Call him,’" Biden recounted during a January 2018 event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. "I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the $1 billion.’"

"I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here,'" Biden continued. "I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

OBAMA-ERA EMAILS REVEAL HUNTER’S EXTENSIVE TIES TO NEARLY A DOZEN SENIOR-LEVEL BIDEN ADMIN AIDES

During an interview with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade that aired on Aug. 26, Shokin said he was fired by Poroshenko at Biden’s insistence specifically because he was investigating Burisma.

"There were no complaints whatsoever and no problems with how I was performing at my job. But because pressure was repeatedly put on Poroshenko, that is what ended up in him firing me," Shokin said.

The White House has forcefully pushed back on Shokin’s claims.

"Years of independent reporting has found that Shokin was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden at the time," the White House told Fox News in a lengthy response to Shokin’s interview. 

The White House listed multiple reports, including one from The New York Times in 2019 that said the probe went "dormant" under Shokin. However, multiple reports, also from the Times, simultaneously suggest Shokin posed a real threat to Burisma, whether through a legitimate investigation or through abusing his office to extort its owners. 

"Among both Ukrainian and American officials, there is considerable debate about whether Mr. Shokin was intent on pursuing a legitimate inquiry into Burisma or whether he was merely using the threat of prosecution to solicit a bribe, as Mr. Zlochevsky’s defenders assert," The Times added in a 2019 report.

"Mr. Zlochevsky’s allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation," The Times reported. "Mr. Shokin was not aggressively pursuing investigations into Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma. But the oligarch’s allies say Mr. Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team, and that left the oligarch’s team leery of dealing with the prosecutor." 

The White House did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

Trump impeachment witness Alexander Vindman accused of trying to profit off Ukraine war with defense contracts

Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who made waves as a witness during the first impeachment proceedings of former President Donald Trump, is now being accused of trying to profit off the war in Ukraine by pitching lucrative defense contracts through his private company.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who was one of the sharpest critics of Vindman throughout the impeachment investigation, blasted him as an "opportunist," and accused him of undertaking continuous efforts to try and personally profit from his attacks against the Trump administration to his reported dealings in Ukraine.

The first impeachment of Trump centered around a July 2019 call in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s actions and business dealings in Ukraine—specifically Hunter Biden’s ventures with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. The president’s request came after millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats and some witnesses, including Vindman, cited as a quid pro quo arrangement.

"When conservatives speak the truth, the mainstream media panics and desperately attempts to provide cover for the left. They did this for Alexander Vindman, just like they did for Hunter Biden, Dr. Fauci and teachers unions," Blackburn said, referencing liberal media outlets' staunch defense of Vindman throughout his time as a witness during the impeachment investigation.

US INTELLIGENCE SAYS PRO-UKRAINE GROUP BEHIND NORD STREAM PIPELINE ATTACKS: REPORT

"Alexander Vindman has always been a political activist and opportunist masquerading behind his career. He saw an opening for personal fame and profited by exploiting the media’s outrage against President Trump," she accused.

"Vindman has spent the last three years on MSNBC and CNN attacking Republicans. Now, new revelations suggest Vindman could be profiting off the war in Ukraine, just as he did by speaking out against the Trump administration," Blackburn added.

According to a report by Human Events, a conservative digital newspaper, Vindman has been pitching the government of Ukraine to obtain defense contracts through Trident International LLC, of which he is the CEO.

FALL OF UKRAINIAN CITY OF BAKHMUT WOULD NOT MEAN A STRATEGIC WIN FOR RUSSIA: PENTAGON

The report stated that last year, Vindman, who was born in Ukraine, pitched a project worth $12 million that his company said would address the country's problems with managing the readiness, repair and maintenance of its weapons systems by developing a center within the country to essentially operate as a middle-man between NATO and the Ukrainian military.

The center would reportedly operate in such a way that equipment and weapons could be repaired in closer proximity to the front line and cut down on the time it takes for transpiration and maintenance. 

It's unclear, however, if the project has been approved as the report stated court documents showed there was an ongoing dispute over payments related to the project.

FIRST LADY PRAISES BIDEN'S ‘ENERGY LEVEL’: HOW MANY 30-YEAR-OLDS CAN FLY TO POLAND, HOP ON TRAIN TO UKRAINE?

According to Breitbart News, Vindman appeared to confirm Human Events' report in a now deleted tweet.

"Thanks for the advert. I’m trying to get logistics in place to help Ukraine win the war and secure America. Looking for philanthropic contributions to get it going. Reach out if you support the cause of democracy and US National Security," Vindman allegedly tweeted.

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Vindman responded to the accusations by blasting Blackburn, accusing her of lying and contributing to him ultimately leaving the military.

"Ooh, Blackburn. She’s an idiot, an agent of chaos promoting disinformation. She has never said one true thing about me. Her attacks in 2019/20 contributed to an environment that made it impossible for me to continue my nonpartisan military service," Vindman said.

"More importantly, it’s the politicization of Ukraine, by the fringe right, that brought about this war, imperiling Ukraine, Europe, and most importantly the U.S.," he added.

Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report.