Impeachment once again looms large in Congress

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., don’t get along.

But if House Republicans try to impeach President Biden or a roster of other Biden cabinet officials in the coming months, a look at how Pelosi handled impeachment questions deserves attention.

Rewind the calendar to 2007. Democrats flipped control of the House in the 2006 midterms. Pelosi faced a wall of pressure from liberal Democrats to impeach President George W. Bush over the war in Iraq.

Pelosi resisted those calls. "Impeachment is off the table," Pelosi said at the time.

TED CRUZ CALLS ON HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE IMPEACHING BIDEN OVER HUNTER ALLEGATIONS: ‘DIRECT EVIDENCE’

But Pelosi had a plan to wind down the U.S. commitment overseas. Pelosi instructed then-Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisc., to start diminishing spending available for the war effort. Control of the purse strings is the ultimate power in Congress. Pelosi and Obey didn’t want to cut off troops in the field. But the plan was to dial back funding so the U.S. would leave Iraq sooner rather than later. 

Fast forward to the summer of 2019.

BIDEN DENIES INVOLVEMENT IN SON HUNTER'S CHINESE BUSINESS DEALINGS AFTER NEW MESSAGE EMERGES

Pelosi had resisted calls to impeach former President Donald Trump for years over a host of transgressions. Pelosi often reminded House Democrats and her members she supported an investigation of alleged misdeeds and would "follow the facts" wherever they may lead.

Democrats were disappointed in information provided at a summer 2019 hearing with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller was coy during his testimony and failed to produce a smoking gun. But some lawmakers observed that Mueller may have left a breadcrumb of clues in his report investigating Trump: impeachment may be an option.

Still, Democrats were reluctant to go there — even though many wanted to do so.

In fact, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, regularly launched efforts to try to impeach former President Trump. While many Democrats admired Green’s gusto, they viewed his effort as an unserious sideshow.

Pelosi wouldn’t let the House be a part of such a carnival.

That was until word came of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Information surfaced that Mr. Trump may have delayed sending previously-approved assistance to Ukraine. But he first pressured Zelenskyy to launch investigations of President Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

No love was lost between the former president and Pelosi. But Pelosi was often a master of understanding where the votes might be on a given issue. She was also mindful of protecting her members from taking a tough vote. Pelosi didn’t appear ready for impeachment yet. Certainly after Mueller’s appearance. But the Trump/Zelenskyy phone call was another matter.

In mid-September 2019, a coalition of seven Democratic freshmen House members penned an op-ed in The Washington Post. They wrote that if the allegations against Trump were true, they would consider it "an impeachable offense."

WHAT A BIDEN IMPEACHMENT FIGHT WOULD DO TO REPUBLICANS, AND THE COUNTRY

All seven authors flipped districts from Republican to Democratic control in the 2018 midterms. The seven had serious national security credentials. Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., served in the Army. Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., worked for the CIA. Three served in the Navy: Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., along with former Reps. Elaine Luria, D-Va., and Gil Cisneros, D-Calif. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., was in the Air Force.

The op-ed signaled to Pelosi that centrist, Democratic freshmen from battleground districts were willing to potentially impeach the president. The speaker had protected them and others from what could become a career-defining vote. Pelosi greenlighted a formal impeachment inquiry a few days after the op-ed. The House voted on Halloween to design the ground rules for an impeachment inquiry. And just before Christmas, the House voted to impeach Trump again.

The Pelosi-led House moved to impeach Trump just hours after the Capitol riot in January, 2021.

The measure went to the floor swiftly — lacking the weeks and months of hearings which were a feature of the former president's first impeachment. In fact, the House impeached Trump days before his term expired.

Pelosi didn’t hold back on impeaching Trump that time because she had the votes. She also wanted to impeach him while he was still in office.

What is past is prologue.

McCarthy may have temporarily circumvented an immediate push by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., to impeach President Biden before the House abandoned Washington for the July Fourth recess. But this is far from the last time we will see or hear about this debate.

A ROAD TO IMPEACHMENT: HOUSE REPUBLICANS MAY YET IMPEACH BIDEN

And the stark reality is that it may very well wind up in an eventual impeachment of President Biden.

Here are several scenarios which could unfold over the next few months:

The Judiciary and Homeland Security committees are already probing alleged misdeeds of Biden. Boebert’s resolution specifically calls for impeachment of the president because of how he’s dealt with the border. The House voted to send Boebert’s resolution to those panels, preventing an immediate up/down vote on impeachment on the floor. 

Watch to see how these committees move. If they amp things up, the House could be headed toward a true impeachment inquiry. That ultimately could result in an impeachment vote later this year. However, it is unclear if the House actually has the votes to impeach Biden.

By contrast, the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees could do nothing with the referral of Boebert’s impeachment resolution. Boebert indicated she’d force the issue on the floor again. This is a little like Al Green’s repeated efforts to impeach Trump. But if Boebert presses the issue, McCarthy could lack the ammo to again sidestep a direct confrontation over impeachment. 

That likely means Boebert reintroduces her special resolution to impeach Biden. Either the House votes on that or tables it. A straight vote on impeachment causes big problems among Republicans. Some conservatives truly want to impeach the president. Others like to talk about impeachment but don’t really want to tangle with it. Still, other GOPers see impeachment as political kryptonite and want to stay as far away from it as possible. Forcing a vote actually on an issue as explosive as impeachment ignites a GOP firestorm. Of course, voting to table it triggers a political maelstrom among a different set of GOP factions.

Here's another possibility: The committees actually shelve the impeachment effort. The committees might address the impeachment question and conduct investigations. But some Republicans already view the move to send the Boebert plan to committee as an effort to euthanize the enterprise. Some Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief. Others will go nuclear — perhaps against the speaker.

The bottom line: While not yet a formal "impeachment inquiry," the committees have wide latitude to truly investigate allegations which could be potentially worthy of impeachment. The vote to send the Boebert impeachment resolution to committee may have been a fig leaf. But chances are that the House must address impeachment for President of the United States in some form later this year.

As we speak, there are various Republicans who hope to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves.

In an interview with Fox about impeaching Garland, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., noted that "Kevin McCarthy is not against impeachment at all." Greene observed that "if we’re going to do it, it needs to be successful."

In other words, just don’t deposit a privileged impeachment resolution on the floor and expect members to vote on it, al a Boebert or Al Green.

"The speaker of the House, whether it’s Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy or anyone … they want to make sure that they have the votes to pass it," said Greene.

That’s a calculus McCarthy may need to figure in the coming months — be it for Biden or the host of other figures listed above.

Pelosi moved the impeachments for Trump once she was confident she had the votes. But McCarthy only has a four-seat majority. It’s far from clear how he’ll handle similar impeachment calls on his watch.

Texas lawmakers focus on property taxes in second special legislative session

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called state lawmakers into a second special legislative session Tuesday with no talks of border security and immigration on the agenda, just hours after the first one wrapped up with the Republican-led Legislature in a stalemate over property taxes.

Abbott’s first special session agenda focused on property taxes and border security. It ended Tuesday afternoon with no deals on either issue and bitter disagreement among the chambers on how to cut property taxes and by how much.

The third legislative session of 2023 continues a series of rough patches for the GOP in America’s most populous red state, most notably with the impeachment of Republican Attorney General, Ken Paxton. Paxton is to be tried in the Texas Senate in September.

TEXAS POSTAL WORKER DIES WHILE DELIVERING MAIL IN 'DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT' WITH RECORD-HIGH TEMPS

Abbott further tightened the agenda for the second round to only property taxes, adding that he'll keep calling lawmakers to the Capitol "until property tax cut legislation reaches my desk."

Although the governor can add agenda items later in the 30-day special session, the second session's agenda marks at least a temporary pivot away from immigration and border security issues that have flared again nationally ahead of the 2024 election.

SAN ANTONIO MIGRANT DEATHS: FOUR MORE ARRESTED IN ALLEGED HUMAN TRAFFICKING OPERATION THAT LEFT 53 DEAD

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis visited the Texas-Mexico border to unveil an immigration policy proposal — his first as a 2024 presidential contender — that included ending birthright citizenship and completing a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, among other GOP immigration priorities. He also echoed Abbott's claims of an "invasion" along the southern border.

"I think the state of Texas has the right to declare an invasion," DeSantis, a Republican, told an audience member at an event in Eagle Pass on Monday.

During the state's regular biennial session, which ended May 29, Texas lawmakers allocated over $5 billion for border security. Days later, Abbott unveiled a new initiative — floating marine barriers that will be deployed at "hotspots along the Rio Grande River."

According to a June announcement from Abbott's office, the first 1,000 of the water-based border security device will be deployed near Eagle Pass — the same region where nine migrants died while attempting to cross the river in September.

Fox News Politics: Biden denies Hunter lies

BIDEN BOMBSHELL: IRS investigators are blowing the whistle on the Hunter Biden investigation… Read more: DOJ, FBI, IRS interfered with Hunter Biden probe, according to whistleblower testimony released by GOP

MASSIVE IMPLICATIONS: Trump claims the Hunter Biden revelations show the president is compromised overseas… Read more: Trump ties latest Hunter revelations to Biden inaction on China's Cuba spy base: 'Bigger than Watergate'

BIG GUY LIE? Joe Biden denied lying when he said he never talked to his son Hunter about his business deals… Read more: Biden denies lying about Hunter Biden business deal conversations

TIME IS NOW: Sen. Ted Cruz says it's time to consider impeachment over the Hunter Biden investigation… Read more: Ted Cruz calls on House to investigate impeaching Biden over Hunter allegations: 'Direct evidence'

REPARATION WATCH: States that make reparations payments for slavery would lose bailout money from feds under proposed bill… Read more: Texas rep introduces bill to bar federal bailouts of states that implement reparations

MORE DENIALS: The head of Biden's DOJ denies interfering in the Hunter investigation… Read more: Garland denies interfering with Hunter Biden probe in first comments since whistleblower claims released

X-WRAY? As calls grow for the FBI director to resign, he's scheduled to appear before Congress… Read more: FBI Director Christopher Wray to testify before House Judiciary Committee amid calls to resign

ODD VENUE: Biden shared some non-public information about the Chinese spy balloon at a fundraiser… Read more: Biden surprises US officials after revealing sensitive info on China at big-dollar fundraiser: report

HIS SON HUNTER: Days after the Hunter investigation scandal exploded, Biden traveled with his son to Camp David… Read more: Biden faces backlash for Camp David guest after IRS whistleblower allegations exposed: 'Business to discuss?'

EV CAVE: The Biden administration backed off a highly controversial electric vehicle rule… Read more: Biden admin backs down from sweeping EV proposal after saying it would boost energy security

CLEAN SWEEP: Every candidate Virginia GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin endorsed won their Republican primary elections… Read more: Youngkin’s clean sweep: All 10 GOP candidates he endorsed won their contested primaries in Virginia

SOROS-CITY: But dark money megadonor George Soros also had a good night backing progressive prosecutors… Read more: Soros cash fuels big wins for progressive prosecutors in Virginia primaries

COURT RULES: The Supreme Court delivered a massive ruling on the power states have to set election districts… Read more: Supreme Court justices rule state lawmakers do not have exclusive control over elections in key decision

DOING HIS PART: Polls show Trump got a boost from the DOJ indictment… Read more: Trump lead grows following indictment, one factor continues to be thorn in Biden's side with voters: poll

ROOTS: All living United States presidents except Donald Trump share pre-Civil War trait… Read more: Trump is only living US president not descended from slaveholders, report says

BATTLEGROUND RACE: Former Navy SEAL challenges Democrat in red state… Read more: Former Navy SEAL challenges vulnerable Dem senator in red state race vital for 2024 Senate majority

CAMPAIGN PUMP: Watch the viral video of Biden's Democratic primary challenger pumping iron… Read more: RFK Jr. posts push-up video after viral bench press: 'Getting in shape for my debates with President Biden!'

BOO HOO: Chris Christie's attack on Trump at a faith event didn't go over well… Read more: Christie jeered after criticizing Trump at faith event: 'You can boo all you want'

SHOTS FIRED: Mike Pence is going after DeSantis in the presidential race… Read more: Pence lobs shot at DeSantis over Disney battle: He's following 'footsteps of the radical left'

‘GET SMART’: GOP presidential candidate Francis Suarez was unaware of the ongoing oppression of an entire people group… Read more: 2024 candidate Suarez faceplants in radio interview: 'What is a Uyghur?'

2024 SWING STATES: See the biggest battleground states from Fox News Power Rankings… Read more: Fox News Power Rankings: Previewing 2024 battleground states, key congressional races

House Republicans divided over push to ‘expunge’ Trump impeachment

House Republicans are divided over a recent proposal to expunge former President Trump's second impeachment from the House records, with many lawmakers concerned it could harm them in upcoming elections.

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., proposed the largely symbolic move last week. It remains to be seen whether they have the votes to move forward, however, as some GOP members are outright opposed to the effort and others harbor campaign concerns.

CNN's Manu Raju asked Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., whether he would support the move last week.

"Not at this point, no," Bacon responded. "It sounds a little bit weird to me. It is what it is, it happened."

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

Meanwhile, Reps. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., and David Valadao, R-Calif., both voted to impeach Trump following Jan. 6, 2021 and are sure to oppose any effort to remove the stain.

The debate comes as Trump is facing an entirely new set of charges as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the former president. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges relating to his alleged mishandling of classified documents.

HOW THE TRUMP INDICTMENT PUTS OUR COUNTRY ON TRIAL

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

Stefanik called the June 13 arraignment a "dark day for our country" as "Joe Biden continues to fully weaponize the federal government against President Trump, his leading opponent for the White House in 2024."

"America was founded on the principle of equal justice under law," the New York Republican continued. "The American people see the glaring double standard: one set of rules if your last name is Biden or Clinton and another set of rules for everyone else. It’s never been more important that we unite behind President Trump's historic campaign to win the White House, to restore the rule of law, and save our Republic. God bless America, President Trump, and all those targeted by Biden’s regime as we continue our efforts to end this corrupt political weaponization and stop the deep state."

The charges against Trump include willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements. It is the first time in U.S. history that a former president has faced federal criminal charges.

McCarthy hints at Garland impeachment over ‘weaponization’ of DOJ after whistleblower claims

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy hinted Sunday at possibly opening an impeachment inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland if IRS whistleblower claims that the Justice Department interfered with the Hunter Biden probe are proved true.

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee released transcripts of interviews with two IRS whistleblowers who claim decisions made during the probe by DOJ, FBI and IRS officials seemed to be "influenced by politics."

"We need to get to the facts, and that includes reconciling these clear disparities. U.S. Attorney David Weiss must provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee," McCarthy said Sunday on Twitter. "If the whistleblowers' allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into Merrick Garland's weaponization of DOJ."

IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley Jr., who oversaw the investigation, had testified to the Ways and Means Committee that he was told Weiss attempted to bring charges against Hunter Biden earlier on in the investigation in other districts, but was denied by DOJ leadership. Shapley also testified Weiss requested special counsel privileges and was denied by Garland.

HUNTER BIDEN-LINKED ACCOUNT RECEIVED $5 MILLION DAYS AFTER THREATENING MESSAGES: 'SITTING HERE WITH MY FATHER'

Garland has adamantly denied these allegations. Weiss, in a June 7 letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio., claimed he had "been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution, consistent with federal law, the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and Departmental regulations."

However, in a statement from his representatives on Friday, Shapley said that on Oct. 7, 2022 Weiss told six witnesses he did not have authority to charge in other districts and had thus requested special counsel status.

DOJ TOLD IRS NOT TO INTERVIEW JOE BIDEN'S GRANDCHILDREN IN HUNTER PROBE TO AVOID 'HOT WATER': WHISTLEBLOWER

Shapley's version was "independently and contemporaneously corroborated" in a now-public email now by the witnesses, the legal team said. 

HUNTER BIDEN EXPENSED PROSTITUTES, SEX CLUB TO 'CONSULTING' BUSINESS ON 2018 TAX RETURNS: IRS WHISTLEBLOWER

Witnesses included Baltimore FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Sobocinski and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ryeshia Holley, IRS Assistant Special Agent in Charge Gary Shapley and Special Agent in Charge Darrell Waldon, the legal team said.

"Mr. Shapley would have no insight into why Mr.Weiss's would make these statements at the October 7, 2022 meeting if they were false," the meeting said. "That Mr. Weiss made these statements is easily corroborated, and it is up to him and the Justice Department to reconcile the evidence of his October 7, 2022 statements with contrary statements by Mr. Weiss and the Attorney General to Congress."

Garland's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Trump lead grows following indictment, one factor continues to be thorn in Biden’s side with voters: poll

Former President Donald Trump continues to lead as the GOP frontrunner after being indicted on federal charges in early June, however, nearly half of GOP voters surveyed are skeptical over whether he should continue to lead the Republican Party, according to a new poll.

A new NBC poll shows a majority of Republican voters would vote for Trump in the Republican primary, with 51% listing him as their number one choice. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis came in second with 22% of the votes and former Vice President Mike Pence coming in third with 7%. 

These new numbers come in comparison to how the candidates fared with GOP voters back in April shortly after Trump was indicted in New York in connection to hush-money payments made in 2016. 46% of Republican voters supported Trump then and 31% said they were backing DeSantis. 

After pleading not guilty to 37 federal charges related to his handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in June, a combined total of 77% of GOP primary voters stated the federal charges gave them either minor concerns (14%) or no real concerns (63%). 64% of Republican voters also said the various indictments and investigations Trump faces are politically motivated. 

TRUMP SAYS HE'S 'PROUD TO BE THE MOST PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT' IN US HISTORY ON ANNIVERSARY OF ROE V. WADE OVERTURN

These numbers are then compared to 55% of all registered voters who say the charges give them either major concerns (47%) or moderate concerns (8%).

Trump remains the GOP frontrunner, even when poised in a hypothetical match against DeSantis, with 60% of Republican voters backing the former President and DeSantis receiving only 36%. 

HOUSE GOP SEEKING TO EXPUNGE 'SHAM' TRUMP IMPEACHMENTS

However, in a hypothetical Trump-Biden battle, President Joe Biden came out on top with a near majority of the vote (49%). Trump received 45% support. However, a total of 68% of those surveyed stated Biden's mental and physical health was a major/moderate concern for them. 

On the flip side, when asked if they agree with Trump remaining the party's leader, nearly half of GOP voters said yes, with 21% saying they believed he was a good president but it was time to consider other leaders. 

Trump appeared at a Miami federal courthouse in early June in connection to the classified documents case, marking the first time a former president has faced federal criminal charges. The charges include willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements.

The former president slammed the federal indictment as "sham" and "election interference" by the Biden administration in a speech at his property Trump National Golf Club Bedminster after appearing in federal court, calling it "the most heinous abuse of power in the history of our country."

Trump also slammed Special Counsel Jack Smith at the time, calling him a "deranged lunatic" as well as blasting President Biden for having "his top political opponent arrested and charged."

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Ted Cruz calls on House to investigate impeaching Biden over Hunter allegations: ‘Direct evidence’

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz is urging the House to look into impeaching President Biden after an IRS whistleblower on the Hunter Biden probe told Congress that the president's son invoked his father to pressure a Chinese business partner through WhatsApp and claimed the elder Biden was in the room while he was making deals.

Asked at what point the investigation and problems pertaining to Hunter Biden turn into an issue for the president, which could lead to impeachment efforts by Republicans, Cruz said: "It is right now."

"Look, this WhatsApp is direct evidence of Joe Biden abusing his government power to enrich his son, and, assuming 10% for the big guy, to enrich himself," Cruz continued. "Remember, this WhatsApp says ‘we want to know.’ This is not just me, Hunter, just mooching off my dad. . . . Of course the House needs to investigate it, but the stunning thing is what the IRS whistleblower says is [Department of Justice], Merrick Garland prevented an investigation even into this message." l

Garland has denied that there was any interference in the Hunter Biden probe.

Cruz's remarks came during a new episode of the senator's podcast, which is called Verdict with Ted Cruz.

HUNTER BIDEN-LINKED ACCOUNT RECEIVED $5 MILLION DAYS AFTER THREATENING MESSAGES: 'SITTING HERE WITH MY FATHER'

Cruz discussed allegations from an IRS whistleblower released by House Republicans this week, where an investigator on the Hunter Biden probe claimed there had been unprecedented efforts to prevent investigations into Joe Biden during the 2020 campaign and into his presidency.

Whistleblower Gary Shapley Jr. — who oversaw the IRS probe into the president's son — said the IRS had obtained a WhatsApp message dated July 30, 2017, from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, CEO of Harvest Fund Management, in which Hunter alleged that he was with his father and named him to put pressure on Zhao to fulfill a commitment.

"And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction."

"I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father," Hunter Biden reportedly said.

"This WhatsApp directly ties Joe Biden to the millions of dollars coming from communist China," Cruz said. "Now, it is possible Hunter Biden was lying, it's possible Joe Biden wasn't next to him. It's possible Joe Biden was not going to inflict official damage on the Chinese if they didn't pay him and his son millions of dollars. That's possible, but you know what, we don't know if it's true or not. Why? Because, according to the whistleblower, they didn't investigate, and they were prohibited from investigating. They were prevented from even asking the question."

"Let me be clear: This, on the face of it, is obstruction of justice," he said. "And if Merrick Garland issued that order, he is the one blocking the investigation, and I think there's real evidence of Merrick Garland being guilty of obstruction of justice."

Cruz, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has served in the Senate since 2013, said, "If you had a single Democrat who gave a flying flip about the rule of law, we would have a hearing right now with Merrick Garland in front of us, under oath, asking about this WhatsApp," he said. "We would ask to see every document, we would ask to see every email, we'd ask to see every communication between DOJ and the investigators. We would put the IRS whistleblowers on the stand, under oath to testify about it, and we would confront Merrick Garland with that."

KIRBY ARGUES WITH REPORTER ABOUT PURPORTED HUNTER BIDEN TEXT MESSAGE: 'NOT GOING TO COMMENT FURTHER'

"The chances of the Senate Judiciary Committee doing that are zero, because [chairman] Dick Durbin doesn't care," he added. "No Senate Democrat cares, but the House does, so that is the only hope for investigating this."

If the claims made in the WhatsApp message are accurate, they starkly contradict President Biden's repeated insistence that he had no knowledge of son Hunter's business dealings.

Asked Friday by a reporter whether the WhatsApp message undermines the president's claims that he had no knowledge of his son's overseas activities, National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby replied, "No, and I'm not going to comment further on this."

A Hunter Biden attorney said in a statement Friday, "Any verifiable words or actions of my client, in the midst of a horrible addiction, are solely his own and have no connection to anyone in his family."

White House Counsel's Office spokesman Ian Sams said, "As we have said many times before, the President was not in business with his son."

"As we have also said many times before, the Justice Department makes decisions in its criminal investigations independently, and in this case, the White House has not been involved," Sams continued. "As the President has said, he loves his son and is proud of him accepting responsibility for his actions and is proud of what he is doing to rebuild his life."

Supreme Court hands Biden admin major win on challenge to ICE enforcement policy

The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Biden administration a major victory on a key immigration case – ruling that GOP-led states do not have standing to challenge a policy narrowing federal immigration enforcement.

The justices, in an 8-1 ruling in U.S. v Texas, found that Republican states did not have standing to challenge a narrowing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) priorities for arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants. 

"In sum, the States have brought an extraordinarily unusual lawsuit. They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this," the opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said.

Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenting justice.

DHS SAYS IT WILL ABIDE BY COURT ORDER BLOCKING BIDEN ICE RESTRICTIONS

The case involved the issuing of new enforcement guidelines by the Department of Homeland Security. After initially attempting to impose a 30-day moratorium on all ICE deportations, the department issued guidance that restricted ICE agents to targeting three types of illegal immigrants for arrest and deportation: recent border crossers; threats to public safety; and national security threats.

"The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them," DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in the memo. "We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country's well-being require it."

The department said it was the most efficient use of limited resources to protect the American people, but critics saw it as part of a broader rolling back of enforcement and border security. The imposition of those guidelines coincided with a sharp drop in ICE deportations. In FY 2021, which included the final months of the Trump administration, ICE arrested 74,082 noncitizens and deported 59,011. Of the 74,082 arrests between October 2020 and October 2021, only 47,755 took place after Feb. 18 when the new priorities were implemented. Of removals, just 28,677 of the 59,011 deportations took place after Feb. 18.

NEARLY 17 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LIVING IN US, 16% INCREASE SINCE 2021: ANALYSIS

Texas and Louisiana challenged the legality of the guidelines, arguing that the policy breached the Administrative Procedure Act and that they had standing because their states would incur greater law enforcement costs and a significant impact on social services due to the increase in illegal immigration that resulted. A district court found that the states did have standing and blocked the implementation of the policy.

MIGRANT NUMBERS EXCEEDED 200,000 ENCOUNTERS AGAIN IN MAY AS TITLE 42 EXPIRED

However, the high court disagreed: "The threshold question is whether the States have standing under Article III to maintain this suit. The answer is no." The opinion said that while monetary costs are an injury, the injury to allow standing must also be "legally and judicially cognizable."

It also clarified that it was not stating that states may never have standing over an alleged failure to make more arrests or prosecutions – including if the Executive Branch "wholly abandoned" its responsibilities in this regard -- but not in this case.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment, but said they "diagnose the jurisdictional defect differently…the problem here is redressability." They say that the states lack standing "because federal courts do not have authority to redress their injuries."

Justice Alito, in his dissent, says that the majority "brushes aside a major precedent that directly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our established test for standing, disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare—withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc."

Alito notes that Congress passed legislation in the 1990s that commands the detention and removal of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of certain crimes.

"The Secretary of Homeland Security, however, has instructed his agents to disobey this legislative command and instead follow a different policy that is more to his liking. And the Court now says that no party injured by this policy is allowed to challenge it in court," he says, accusing his colleagues of "a deeply and dangerously" flawed interpretation of executive authority.

The case is one of a number of immigration challenges that have faced the Court, including recent challenges to end the Title 42 public health order. It is likely to eventually consider a challenge to a "Parole with Conditions" policy, which saw migrants released without court dates due to overcrowding and was implemented as Title 42 ended in May. The policy was blocked by a federal judge just days later. 

Boebert blasts Dem opponent fundraising off family members performing abortions: ‘Disgusting’

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., accused her 2024 Democrat opponent of choosing "to fundraise off the killing of innocent babies" after a campaign email touted his family members' long history in the abortion industry.

Adam Frisch, the Democrat vying for the Republican-held Colorado seat next cycle, sent an email blast Saturday, highlighting that members of his family were abortion doctors and labeling Boebert's pro-life position as "extreme."

Adam's father, Melvin Frisch, has a decades-long history of work in the abortion industry dating back to the early 1970s, when he served in the Public Health Service on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana.

Frisch said in the fundraising email that his abortionist father – who in 1982 published an analysis arguing that dilation and evacuation abortions were safe to perform after 13 weeks of pregnancy – "really shaped how I think about the issue."

REP BOEBERT SAYS SHE WILL USE PRIVILEGED MOTION TO BRING IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AGAINST BIDEN

According to the Foundations of Life Pregnancy Center, dilation and evacuation abortions usually occur within the 13th to 24th week of pregnancy, but the "fetus is too large to be broken up by suction alone and will not pass through the suction tubing."

The center describes how after "the cervix is stretched open, the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus’ skull is crushed to ease removal. A sharp tool (called a curette) is also used to scrape out the contents of the uterus, removing any remaining tissue."

COLORADO DEMS VOTE AGAINST HARSHER PENALTIES FOR INDECENT EXPOSURE TO KIDS BECAUSE IT COULD ‘BAN DRAG SHOWS’

Melvin Frisch was also medical director of Planned Parenthood Arizona, which his congressional candidate son said "helped train the next generation of health care providers at Planned Parenthood," according to the email.

Frisch noted in the email how he is excited that his OB-GYN sister, Hope Frisch, is continuing his father's "legacy" in the field.

"My opponent, Lauren Boebert, wants you to think that women having the freedom to make their own medical decisions is some extreme idea. It’s not," Frisch said of his pro-life contender.

Boebert has a history of siding with pro-life legislation in Congress, most recently introducing the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2023 in January to place a one-year moratorium on federal funds given to Planned Parenthood.

"Abortion is the Frisch family business," Boebert told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement. "Abortions paid for Adam's privileged childhood and private schooling, and abortionists help fund his campaign."

"It's disgusting Adam Frisch chooses to fundraise off the killing of innocent babies, but everyone needs to understand for Adam, abortions mean lining his family's pockets and filling his campaign coffers," the congresswoman said, hitting back at the Democrat's email.

Frisch's campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

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.