Category: House

Tensions flare in ‘weaponization’ panel hearing with sidelined FBI agents 

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

Republicans and Democrats battled during a tense hearing Thursday over three FBI agents who Republicans say were retaliated against for blowing the whistle on bias at the agency— and who Democrats argue the GOP is using to legitimize the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

GOP lawmakers accused the FBI of retaliating against “truth tellers” by revoking their security clearances because they espoused conservative views and took their concerns to Republicans on the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

“Politics is driving the federal agencies,” said Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of both the Judiciary Committee and the subcommittee, alleging that the government targets citizens who are not politically correct.

“What’s just as frightening is if you’re one of the good employees who come forward to talk about the targeting, you become the target,” he added.

Democrats countered by arguing that the GOP, in the words of Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), was using the hearing as “a vehicle to legitimize the events of Jan. 6 and the people who perpetrated it.”

They questioned the FBI agents’ credibility and whether they should be considered whistleblowers, sparred with Republicans over access to documents and materials, and accused the panel of being a tool for former President Trump.

“This select committee is a clearing house for testing conspiracy theories for Donald Trump to use in his 2024 presidential campaign,” said Del. Stacey Plaskett (V.I.), the panel’s ranking Democrat. 

“You all have employment grievances. That doesn’t make you whistleblowers,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said.

The hearing, which took place just days after special counsel John Durham released a report that offered stark criticism for the FBI’s opening of an investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign ties to Russia, underscored GOP suspicions of the federal intelligence and law enforcement organizations.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) at one point referenced the piercing evil eye from J. R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" series to describe the FBI.

“The Eye of Sauron has turned inward, and it is operating with a white-hot intensity that seeks to destroy everything in its path,” she said.  

The hearing accompanied the Thursday release of an interim staff report from the panel’s Republicans that detailed what it says are abuses by the FBI, as described by what Republicans say are dozens of whistleblowers.

Allegations both in the report and in the hearing range from the agents being directed to scribble down license plate numbers in a parking lot outside a school board meeting to being pressured to open cases on people who traveled to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, but did not enter the Capitol.

Democrats had already preemptively countered the GOP’s “weaponization” investigation, writing in a 300-page report in March that some of the GOP witnesses were connected to committee Republicans through people with deep ties to former President Trump. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) reiterated and established at the hearing that two of the witnesses had received donations from Kash Patel, a former top Department of Defense official who is a surrogate for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

Jordan brushed off the financial connection between witnesses and Trump allies in a press conference Thursday.

“They’ve got a family. How are they supposed to pay their family?” he asked.

The FBI in a statement asserted that it does not retaliate against protected whistleblowers.

“The FBI’s mission is to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people. The FBI has not and will not retaliate against individuals who make protected whistleblower disclosures,” the agency said in a statement to The Hill in response to the subcommittee hearing.

Thursday’s hearing also came just one day after the FBI sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee that went into more detail about the reasons why the agency revoked the security clearances from three agents, including two of those who testified at the subcommittee hearing Thursday.

According to a copy of the FBI letter obtained by The Hill, agent Brett Gloss, who did not testify at the hearing and has not been charged with a crime, was in a restricted area of the U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021, amounting to criminal trespass and “questionable judgment” that indicated he may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information.

Agent Marcus Allen, one of the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing, had his security clearance revoked after the agency found he “espoused alternative theories to coworkers” about Jan. 6 “in apparent attempts to hinder investigative activity,” including sharing a theory that federal law enforcement had infiltrated the crowd.

“It appears I was retaliated against because I forwarded information to my superiors that questioned the official narrative of January 6th,” Allen said in the Thursday hearing. He also said the FBI’s assertion that his supervisor “admonished” him was inaccurate. 

The FBI also found that one case related to Jan. 6 was closed after Allen said he did not find any relevant information about a subject — but that case was later reopened after another FBI employee found relevant information that was publicly available. That person assaulted a Capitol Police officer on Jan. 6, the agency said.

At one point in the hearing, Democrats stumbled in an attempt to push back on the witnesses’ credibility when Sánchez asked Allen to address a Twitter account with the name “Marcus Allen” that had retweeted a tweet asserting that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) staged the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Allen responded that it was not his Twitter account — and that he did not agree with the message, condemning the violence at the Capitol on that day.

The FBI said agent Stephen Friend had his security clearance revoked after he acknowledged that he “publicly released sensitive FBI information on his personal social media accounts without authorization,” participated in unapproved media interviews, and secretly recorded a meeting with FBI management.

Friend testified to the committee that after raising concerns to his superiors with how the FBI was handling investigations into Jan. 6 subjects, the FBI suspended him without pay. 

Friend testified that he was assigned to attend a school board meeting and took down the information from attendees’ license plates in the parking lot. He also said that after he was suspended from the FBI, his investigations of child sexual exploitation material were handed off to local law enforcement rather than to another federal agent.

A third witness, Garrett O’Boyle, who had his security clearance suspended but not yet fully revoked, was suspended without pay after he raised concerns with his chain of command and then made disclosures to Congress. He had just made a move across the country for the job, and he choked up as he described the FBI holding his family’s belongings — including his children’s clothing — for six weeks before they could access them.

Jordan said that O’Boyle was the first whistleblower to tell the committee about the process the FBI was using to assess threats against school board members, which he said have resulted in zero prosecutions.

“When citizens in this country get to the point where they can call the most powerful law-enforcement agency in the world on their neighbor just because they disagree with them, that is chilling to the First Amendment rights of the people who are getting the FBI called on them,” O’Boyle said in the hearing.

Mike Lillis contributed. Updated at 6:16 p.m.

McCarthy shifts, voices new confidence in debt ceiling deal

Posted on (Updated by Aris Folley

Bipartisan negotiators racing to secure a debt ceiling deal voiced new confidence on Thursday that they'll locate a compromise before a federal default.

But even as President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both hinted at significant progress in the talks, rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties are raising alarms about the concessions their leaders have made — pushback that's highlighted the hurdles certain to face leadership as they prepare to sell an emerging agreement to their respective troops.

“We're not there. We haven't agreed to anything yet. But I see the path that we could come through,” McCarthy told reporters on Thursday morning, while also saying “it'd be important to try to have the agreement, especially in principle, by sometime this weekend.”

It’s an ambitious timeline for negotiations that began in earnest only nine days ago. And to be successful, party leaders will have to navigate the various pressures from rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties. 

For McCarthy, that means assuring leery conservatives that he’s not straying too far from the legislative package that passed through the House late last month, which combined a debt limit increase with steep cuts in federal spending. 

“You can’t continue to spend and spend and spend without constraints. That’s completely irresponsible. And we’re just not going to do that,” Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) said.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.)

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) speaks during an enrollment ceremony for the Revised Criminal Code Act in the Capitol on Friday, March 10, 2023. (Annabelle Gordon)

If Biden won’t accept the level of cuts passed by the House, he added, then McCarthy should demand tougher border security measures as part of the package. 

The Freedom Caucus complicated McCarthy’s task further on Thursday, urging the Speaker to step away from the negotiating table and demand that Democrats accept the House-passed bill. 

"There should be no further discussion until the Senate passes the legislation,” the group said in a statement.

Biden is facing his own headaches from the left.

More on the debt ceiling from The Hill:

For the past few days, liberals in both chambers have come out in strong opposition to GOP-backed proposals for tougher work requirements for federal assistance programs — a position amplified this week by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who has sided squarely with his progressive members. 

“We have continued to make clear, as House Democrats, that so-called extreme work requirements that these MAGA Republicans want to try to impose as a ransom note are a nonstarter,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. “Period. Full stop.”

While Biden has seemingly ruled out changes to Medicaid in negotiations with McCarthy, he sparked confusion and, in some cases, frustration in his party when he appeared to open the door for stricter work requirements for other programs, like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Republicans have sought to toughen the work requirements for all three of those programs — provisions featured in their debt limit legislation.

“What I've said in the past is, I understand he voted for work requirements in 1996 and some other things in ‘86 with the crime bill, but we didn't elect the Joe Biden of 1986 and 1996, we elected the Joe Biden of 2020,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters on Thursday. 

“They hurt the very people that they're designed to serve. And to put them on something like SNAP at a time when hunger is now reaching pandemic levels in the country is something that is not a core Democratic value,” Jayapal said, describing the push as a “non-starter.”

The comments echo the sentiment of other Democrats in both chambers worried about the concessions the White House could wind up making as part of the bipartisan talks, underlining the potential uproar in store for the president if his party is unsatisfied with the final deal. 

"The president tends to float a lot of things, sometimes spontaneously,” said Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.). “But I can tell you the work-requirements piece is a nonstarter with a vast majority of the Progressive Caucus, and that's the largest caucus” among House Democrats. 

“So it's quite problematic." 

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) returns to the House Chamber on the second day of the 118th session of Congress on Wednesday, January 4, 2023. (Greg Nash)

While McCarthy has continued to insist on the work requirement changes, he and others in the party have refrained from publicly drawing further red lines, as tensions on both sides escalate ahead of the looming default deadline, which the Treasury Department has warned could arrive as soon as June 1.

But that doesn’t mean some Republicans aren’t sending warning signals.

“I’m gonna still vote against it because I’m against raising the debt ceiling,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), one of the four Republicans to oppose the Republicans’ bill last month. “And I guarantee you you’ll pick up more people [in opposition], because other people have gotten hammered on their vote.”

Another sticking point between the parties is the question of how long the government’s borrowing authority should be extended. 

The Republicans’ bill would have hiked the debt ceiling through next March, at the latest, meaning Congress would have to revisit the issue again before the 2024 elections. Biden and Democrats have rejected that timeline, demanding a longer window to get beyond those elections. 

“I don't see any way that we kick the can down the road for anything less than two years,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said this week.  

Spending levels are another major point of contention. 

The Republicans’ bill would have reduced deficit spending by roughly $4.8 trillion over the next decade, capping spending at fiscal year 2022 levels next year and limiting growth to 1 percent in the years following. And conservatives are warning that anything less must be met in kind from Democrats. 

“We've got $1.5 trillion for a year versus 4.8 trillion in cuts,” Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), head of the Republican Study Committee, told reporters Thursday. “So, it's gonna get real difficult as [there’s] less and less spending cuts. I can't imagine that the body would be in unity for $1 for dollar.”

Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.)

Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) speaks during a press conference to discuss The Lower Energy Costs Act on Tuesday, March 28, 2023. (Annabelle Gordon)

The challenge facing McCarthy and his leadership team is to find a compromise that can win the support of Biden and congressional Democrats without alienating conservatives in his own conference, who have distrusted his conservative bonafides in the past.

Earlier this week, McCarthy tapped Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), a close ally, to spearhead the talks with Biden administration officials, and some Republicans see him as the key to finding that balance. 

“That's why the Speaker has put him forward,” Hern told The Hill. “As these sort of suggestions, demands, requirements … — it’s their job to go out and sort of float a balloon to see how those are going to work.”

On the other side, the White House has tapped known dealmakers Shalanda Young, head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Steve Ricchetti, a top Biden adviser, as well as legislative affairs chief Louisa Terrell to work toward a compromise.

Discussing a potential timeline to clinch a deal on Thursday, McCarthy voiced optimism that negotiators “have a structure now” and have people “working two or three times a day, then going back, getting more numbers.”

McCarthy also lauded Biden's picks to lead the talks – a move by the White House seen as a significant step given the officials' extensive experience working with congressional members on both sides.

“I have the greatest respect for Shalanda and Ricchetti. I mean they are exceptionally smart,” McCarthy said. “They are strong in their beliefs on the Democratic side just as who we have in the room.”

Mychael Schnell contributed.

Freedom Caucus says ‘no further discussion’ on debt ceiling until Senate passes House GOP bill

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

The House Freedom Caucus is calling for “no further discussion” on legislation to raise the debt ceiling until the Senate passes the bill House Republicans approved last month that would pair an increase in the borrowing limit with steep spending cuts.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called the bill “dead on arrival.”

The hard-liner conservative caucus said it adopted its official position on Thursday as debt limit negotiations continued behind closed doors between representatives for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and the White House.

“The U.S. House of Representatives has done its job in passing the Limit, Save, Grow Act to provide a mechanism to raise the debt ceiling. This legislation is the official position of the House Freedom Caucus and, by its passage with 217 votes, the entire House Republican Conference,” the caucus wrote.

“The House Freedom Caucus calls on Speaker McCarthy and Senate Republicans to use every leverage and tool at their disposal to ensure the Limit, Save, Grow Act is signed into law. There should be no further discussion until the Senate passes the legislation,” the caucus added.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) addresses reporters during a press conference on March 10 with members of the House Freedom Caucus to discuss the debt limit. (Annabelle Gordon)

While Republicans were united behind their debt limit bill, which was intended to bring President Biden to the negotiating table, the Freedom Caucus position could indicate unity behind McCarthy’s strategy is starting to break — posing complications for the negotiations.

However, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry (R-Pa.) softened the position in an interview with CBS.

"We're not saying you can't continue to talk, but until they're willing to tell us what they're willing to do, it's hard to come to an agreement,” Perry said. 

“We should probably compromise on something — but there's nothing to compromise with. They haven't asked anything,” he added.

Shortly before the House GOP bill passed, some conservative Republicans — including members of the Freedom Caucus — warned they would not support any legislation that was weaker than the one on the floor last month, which would put McCarthy in a difficult spot if he strikes a compromise and needs to rally support among the GOP conference for the compromise legislation.

Debt limit negotiations kicked into high gear this week after McCarthy and the White House cut out congressional Democrats and Senate Republicans from the talks and selected emissaries to hash out details behind the scenes. The development, which McCarthy hailed as a positive step, came about two weeks out from June 1, the day Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the U.S. could run out of cash to pay its bills.

On Thursday, McCarthy struck an optimistic tone, telling reporters, “I see the path that we can come to an agreement.” He noted, however, that the two sides “haven’t agreed to anything yet.”

More debt ceiling coverage from The Hill:

House Republicans passed their debt limit proposal — titled the Limit, Save, Grow Act — in a 217-215 vote last month. The legislation would lift the borrowing limit by $1.5 trillion or through March 2024, whichever comes first, and it would implement $4.8 trillion in spending cuts.

The legislation calls for capping federal funding at fiscal 2022 levels, limiting spending growth to 1 percent every year over the next decade, beefing up work requirements for some social programs and clawing back unused COVID-19 funds.

House Republicans have since called on the Senate to take up the measure, but Schumer has called it “dead on arrival.” President Biden also issued a veto threat should it land on his desk. Democrats had initially pushed for a “clean” debt ceiling increase — meaning no conditions are associated with the hike — and said they would discuss federal spending as part of the annual appropriations process.

But the two sides have since come together at the negotiating table and are now racing to come to a consensus and walk the U.S. off the edge of the fiscal cliff.

One sticking point that rose to the forefront this week is work requirements. McCarthy told reporters work requirements for public assistance programs are a red line in negotiations, while Biden said he would not agree to “anything of any consequence” when it comes to the subject.

“I’m not going to accept any work requirements that’s going to impact on the medical health needs of people; I’m not going to accept any work requirements that go much beyond what is already — I voted years ago for the work requirements that exist. But it’s possible there could be a few others, but not anything of any consequence,” he said.

The bill House Republicans passed last month implements stricter work requirements for specific recipients of Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which was previously known as food stamps — and other federal benefit programs.

Updated at 5:34 p.m.

House Republicans advance bill increasing veteran spending but reducing key medical fund

Posted on (Updated by Brad Dress

House Republicans advanced an appropriations bill Wednesday that would increase spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) by $18 billion from last fiscal year but significantly reduce a key fund providing care for veterans exposed to toxic chemicals.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs introduced the bill, which would fully fund the VA budget request and provide about $152 billion in discretionary spending for the agency, up from the Biden administration's request of $142.8 billion.

But the legislation was passed by the subcommittee despite concerns from Democrats over a $14.7 billion cut to the Toxic Exposures Fund from the Biden administration's request of about $20 billion for the medical benefits allocation.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said the "message Republicans are sending to the American people is they are not interested in protecting veterans."

"In spite of the imaginary topline of this bill, it still underfunds our commitment to our veterans," she said at the legislation's markup session.

Republicans argue they met a promise to not cut veterans spending after a huge fight with Democrats and veterans organizations over potential reductions to the VA.

Those concerns were raised after the House passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act last month, which caps all new non-defense spending at fiscal 2022 levels, amounting to a $130 billion topline cut across all federal agencies except the Defense Department.

Republicans pledged not to cut the VA and said reduced spending could be made at other agencies instead.

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday that the bill "responsibly funds veterans health care."

"It will ensure our veterans get the treatment they deserve," she said. "It's a strong bill."

While the bill passed out of the subcommittee, it is still in the markup phase and will need to pass the full Appropriations Committee before heading to the House floor.

All appropriations bills setting up funding for the next fiscal year are usually passed by the end of September after approval by both the House and the Senate.

Some veterans organizations have blasted the veterans spending legislation for reducing the Toxic Exposures Fund, which is crucial to helping veterans get care for exposure to toxic chemicals.

That's especially important after Congress approved the PACT Act last year, which expanded veteran access to toxins exposure benefits. More than 500,000 claims have already been filed through the PACT Act.

"House Republicans are shortchanging the Fund by $14.7 BILLION dollars," tweeted progressive group VoteVets. "Breaking a promise to Veterans—and lying to us on top of it."

Republicans included around $5.5 billion for the fund. GOP lawmakers said they rejected the additional allocations for the Toxic Exposure Fund over concerns about it being included in mandatory spending.

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), chairman of the Military and Veterans Affairs subcommittee, said Republicans "did not accept the proposed shift of more than $14 billion to the mandatory side of the budget" for the Toxic Exposure Fund.

"Instead, we utilized the Cost of War Toxic Exposure Fund as intended: to cover the incremental costs above the [fiscal 2021] baseline to implement the PACT Act," Carter said in a Wednesday statement during the markup hearing.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, delivered a lengthy statement in opposition to the legislation.

She said the bill is "completely detached from reality" and breaks a promise from the PACT Act.

"Do not tell me that Republicans are fully funding programs," DeLauro said at the markup. "The larger Republican agenda does nothing to protect veterans from their proposed cuts."

Separately, the subcommittee legislation also includes more than $17 billion for the Defense Department's military construction projects and for military housing, an increase of more than $900 million from the Biden administration's request.

Louisiana congressman manhandles activist during press conference: ‘You’re out’

Posted on (Updated by Joseph Choi

Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins (R) physically pushed back an activist approaching a press conference in front of the Capitol on Wednesday. The man was attempting to ask Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) questions as he walked toward the podium.

In a video posted online and shared with The Hill, Higgins can be seen grabbing the man’s arms and pushing him back several yards, nearly lifting him off the ground.

The man, Jake Burdett, was at the Capitol on Wednesday with the Maryland Progressive Healthcare Coalition to show support for the reintroduction of the Medicare for All Act alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

Kristy Fogle, founder of the Maryland Progressive Healthcare Coalition, told The Hill that her group saw the press conference being held in front of the Capitol, and Burdett said he was interested in asking Boebert a “tough question” when she was at the podium.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.)

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) asks questions during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing to discuss fraud and waste in federal pandemic spending on Wednesday, February 1, 2023. (Greg Nash)

Fogle said that, from her perspective, several men who were at the press conference blocked Burdett from approaching. In a video provided to The Hill, Burdett can be heard questioning Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who was speaking at the podium, on his affiliation with far-right white supremacist Nick Fuentes, as well as political ads that featured Gosar's family denouncing the congressman.

In the video taken by Burdett, Higgins can be heard telling him, “I’m a congressman. I’ll make you a deal. Listen, let this man talk, and then I’ll come talk to you privately.”

“All I’m asking you to do is just peacefully stand by with your camera, and I promise you — look at me — I’ll come talk to you straight-up and answer all your questions,” Higgins continued.

In a second video, Burdett approaches the press conference as Boebert is at the podium, questioning her about her recently filed divorce and her restaurant. At this point, several men, including Higgins, begin ushering Burdett away before he walks behind the podium.

After getting close to Boebert, Higgins is heard saying to Burdett, “Nope. You’re out, you’re out,” and begins to push him further and further away from the conference.

“Aren’t you a congressperson touching me?” Burdett asked Higgins, to which Higgins replied, “Yes sir. Yes sir, I am.”

Higgins can then be heard repeatedly saying, “stand by” and “calm down.”

“Rep. Higgins, who I didn't realize this was him at the time, he grabbed him, pushed him and continued to push him backwards,” Fogle said. “ I honestly didn't realize that was a representative. I thought that was a bodyguard, the way that he was acting.”

A tweet from Higgins on Thursday accused an unnamed activist of being "a 103M," referring to the police code for "disturbance by mental person."

"One agitator activist protestor became very disruptive and threatening in violation of the law," Higgins said. "Congressman Higgins successfully de-escalated the situation."

Boebert tweeted on Thursday that Higgins had "defended me as a radical socialist attempted to disrupt me during a press conference."

After the incident, U.S. Capitol Police came and interviewed Burdett, according to Fogle, while Higgins returned to the press conference.

In a statement to The Hill, U.S. Capitol Police said, “We are aware of this situation, interviewing the people who were involved, and reviewing the available video.”

Updated: 3:58 p.m.

Greene plans to file articles of impeachment against Biden

Posted on (Updated by Jared Gans

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) announced plans to file articles of impeachment against President Biden on Thursday, alleging he has violated his oath of office in not securing the country’s borders and protecting national security. 

Greene said at a press conference this will be the “first set” of articles she introduces against Biden, whom she said has purposefully failed to fulfill his responsibilities of the presidency.

“It is with the highest amount of solemnity that I announce my intention to introduce articles of impeachment today on the head of this America-last executive branch, that has been working since Jan. 20, 2021, to systematically destroy this country, the president of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden,” Greene said.

Greene made a similar announcement two days ago regarding her plans to introduce articles of impeachment against FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Greene said she has also introduced articles of impeachment against Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

The White House called Greene's plan a "stunt," noting Biden is focused on "preventing House Republicans’ default that would crash the economy."

“Is there a bigger example of a shameless sideshow political stunt than a trolling impeachment attack by one of the most extreme MAGA members in Congress over ‘national security’ while she actively demands to defund the FBI and even said she ‘would’ve been armed’ and ‘would have won’ the January 6 insurrection, if only she’d been in charge of it?" said Ian Sams, White House spokesman for oversight and investigations.

Greene initially introduced articles of impeachment against Biden on the first day of his presidency. She also filed articles against Garland in August following the search of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for the classified and sensitive documents taken there. Neither advanced in the House.

The Georgia Republican and ally of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Biden has refused to enforced immigration laws and secure the border, "deliberately" compromising U.S. national security. She said he has allowed migrants to "invade" the country while depriving border control agents of the resources and policies they need to perform their duties.

Greene said Biden has allowed fentanyl to "flood" into the country and kill Americans every day.

She also slammed the administration over its plan to direct Customs and Border Protection to release migrants into the U.S. without a set court date or way to track them. Under the plan, migrants need to check in with an app until they are given a court date to appear.

Greene said it amounts to "catch-and-release," allowing the migrants to be released instead of being held in custody until their court date.

"His policies, directives and statements surrounding the southern border have violated our laws and destroyed our country," she said. "Biden has blatantly violated his constitutional duty, and he is a direct threat to our national security."

Article II of the Constitution states that the president and other U.S. officials can be removed from office through impeachment and conviction on "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Greene said she wants to take time to gather cosponsors on her impeachment resolutions. She avoided directly answering a question on what exact charges she would file against Biden.

She said she discussed her plans to file the impeachment articles with other members of Republican leadership and said they did not ask her not to move forward.

She said she is introducing the articles because a majority the "base" of Republican voters and other Americans outside it agree with impeaching these officials, describing it as "the right thing to do."

"There's never any consequences for anyone in the federal government when regular American citizens face consequences all the time, and I'm introducing these articles because this is what people are demanding," Greene said.

Mayorkas has faced intense criticism from many Republicans over the situation at the southern border, which experienced a record number of migrant crossings in recent months. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) called for Mayorkas's impeachment last week.

Greene alleges Wray and Garland have turned the FBI and Justice Department into Biden's "personal police force" to prosecute the administration's political opponents. She claimed that those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were mostly peaceful, but Garland has still pursued them. A bipartisan Senate report found last year that seven people died related to the attack on the Capitol that day.

Greene said Wray prioritizes his own party above performing his job, wrongly identifying the Republican Wray as a Democrat. He has been director of the FBI since August 2017 and was nominated by former President Trump.

She said she is filing impeachment articles against Graves, the U.S. attorney, over his prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants, which she said have continued while he has declined to prosecute 67 percent of people arrested by Washington, D.C., police last year.

"That affects people in our nation's capital, just regular innocent people that live and work here. I think as our conference learns more and more on this, they'll understand it," she said.

Greene said employees are fired from their jobs if they are corrupt or are not adequately serving their employers. She said all five officials are corrupt and unfit to hold office, so they must be impeached.

Updated at 12:04 p.m.

New York progressives heckle Santos, argue with Greene on Capitol steps

Posted on (Updated by Stephen Neukam

Progressive Democrats from New York heckled Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) as he spoke to reporters on the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday, yelling at the embattled lawmaker to resign and telling Republicans to punt him from Congress.

Earlier in the day, House lawmakers pushed the question of whether Santos, who is facing federal charges, should be expelled from the chamber to the House Ethics Committee, which has already been investigating Santos since March amid mounting questions about his background and finances. The panel is looking into whether he engaged in unlawful activity during his 2022 campaign and failed to properly disclose information to the House.

Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) interrupted Santos’s press scrum with shouts about how Santos needs to leave Congress.

“Kick him out! He’s gotta go!” Bowman shouted. “Resign! Save yourself! Have some dignity!”

Ocasio-Cortez told Santos “you gotta go, you gotta give it up.”

“New Yorkers need better!” Bowman yelled.

Santos acknowledged the lawmakers, telling reporters “if I could understand you over my colleague screaming here.”

“I can’t continue to address you guys because there’s a deranged member here, so I’m gonna walk,” Santos said.

Bowman then got into an animated conversation with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), telling the Republican her “party’s hanging by a thread.”

“You gotta save the party,” Bowman said. “No more QAnon, no more MAGA, no more debt ceiling nonsense.”

As Bowman spoke, Greene started to chant “impeach Biden.” When Bowman told her to “do something about guns,” Greene shot back: “right, so close the border.”

The interactions between the lawmakers came after Santos continued to defend himself amid ongoing investigations, saying “there’s a process in this country, everybody is innocent until proven guilty.”

“You cannot behave as judge and jury in this procedure,” Santos said.

Boebert defends husband amid divorce filing: ‘He didn’t “sick dogs” on the process server’

Posted on (Updated by Olivia Beavers and Morgan Chalfant

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is defending her estranged husband, condemning what she calls “misrepresentations” cited in court documents about their impending divorce.

“I have always spoken highly of my marriage. I believe in marriage. I believe in the power our words hold,” Boebert said in a statement posted on Twitter Wednesday.

“Jayson, a man I spent half of my life with, did not sign up to be in the public limelight, and he certainly did not agree to be falsely accused of things he didn't do,” the Colorado Republican added.

In court documents obtained by The Hill, a process server claimed in a sworn affidavit that the congresswoman’s husband, Jayson Boebert, was “drinking a tall glass of beer” and “cleaning a gun that was sitting on a table,” when approached with the paperwork.

Describing Jayson Boebert as “extremely angry,” the process server said: “He started yelling and using profanities, and told me that I was trespassing, and that he was calling the Sheriff’s Office. I told him I was leaving the documents on the chair outside of the door, he closed the door then let the dogs out.”

Boebert, who married her husband in 2006, announced her divorce Tuesday, saying, “This is truly about irreconcilable differences.”

“The stories reported about the process server, and even Jayson running over a mailbox are a complete lie. Jayson doesn’t sit around cleaning guns and he certainly doesn't drink beer out of a glass, just as much as he doesn’t drink Bud Light,” said Boebert, who shares four children with her husband.

“Our own home security footage shows he didn’t ‘sick dogs’ on the process server. The dogs were outside when the server pulled up, they never showed aggression toward him, nor did he appear afraid of them,” she said.

“Our divorce is a private matter, but the misrepresentations must be addressed,” said the second-term lawmaker, who announced in March that she would become a “36-year-old grandmother” when her 17-year-old son’s girlfriend gives birth.

“Jayson deserves his privacy, not slanderous stories,” Boebert said. “Despite what others may say, I welcome your thoughts, and fervent, heartfelt prayers for our family.”

—Zach Schonfeld contributed.

‘Stop, stop’: GOP bashes Biden for taking off during debt showdown

Posted on (Updated by Alex Gangitano

Republicans are blasting President Biden for leaving Washington for Asia on Wednesday without significant progress on debt limit negotiations, as the country inches toward a deadline on defaulting that could prove catastrophic on the financial system.

Biden will be in Japan for this weekend’s Group of Seven (G-7) summit but has canceled the latter portion of his trip, which included stops in Papua New Guinea and Australia, to be back in the nation’s capital and resume talks with congressional leaders. 

Even with the shortened trip, lawmakers criticized Biden for taking off at all.

“Here we are on the brink of a Biden default. And I think we saw the helicopters going across here, and I said I think he’s leaving now to go to Japan. I’m like stop, stop,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said during an outdoor press conference at the Capitol on Wednesday.

She criticized the president for priding himself on being a good negotiator yet not negotiating with Republicans between the beginning of February until last week, when he brought leaders to the table again.

“Mr. President, cancel your trip to Japan. Stay at the table,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D). “Good grief, Mr. President, when is enough, enough? Shame on anyone, on anyone, who refuses to act. Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy and this entire team have been responsible, reasonable and sensible. Time is short, Mr. President. Let’s get this done.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who has gone toe-to-toe with Biden on some key policy issues, said the president “should not leave, and he should worry about the debt limit here at home.”

After his meeting with Biden and other congressional leaders Tuesday, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was asked if Biden should even be attending the G-7 and responded that the president can make his own decisions about his time. 

The White House maintains Biden can be president anywhere, a line they often use when he heads out of Washington.

But on the day of Biden's departure, McCarthy slightly changed his tune, saying, “I think he can” conduct international business while dealing with the debt ceiling before suggesting that the president should not have taken the trip.

“I think America wants an American president focused on American problems,” the California Republican said.

Biden delivered last-minute, unexpected remarks just before take off where he tried to assure the nation that leaders could come to an agreement before the country could default on its debt on June. 1 He referred to his shortened trip, indicating that would return Sunday after the G-7. His absence disrupted another international event — a planned Quad Leaders' summit in Sydney was canceled once Biden determined he would not attend.

When questioned about Biden’s indication that he can return to Washington on Sunday, have a press conference and finish the deal, McCarthy poked at the president for not engaging in talks between Feb. 1 and last week.

“It’s doable, but this is for a guy who didn’t want to meet with us for 97 days, and leaves the country and says he wants to come back Sunday to have a press conference? I really want a president that’s engaged and working through it,” the Speaker said.

The White House brushed off Republican criticism over Biden leaving Washington at all, highlighting the significance of the G-7.

“One of the responsibilities that an American president has is our leadership on the global stage, which is incredibly important and critical,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on the way to Japan, by way of Alaska, on Wednesday. “There are critical issues, yes, domestically, but also internationally that the president has to take on.”

McCarthy at the White House on Tuesday outlined that Biden had “changed the scope” of who is involved in talks, appointing White House officials, including his Office of Management and Budget director, to work directly with members of the Speaker’s team as they try to reach an agreement.

Biden on Wednesday said that group met last night and will meet again Wednesday as well as in the days following. Biden added he will be in “constant contact” with his team while at the G-7 and in touch with the Speaker.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan defended the decision to cancel the second leg of the trip when questioned about the White House previously insisting that Biden can do the job of president anywhere — right before they announced the trip would be cut short.

“As we were getting prepared to take off on this trip, he … made the determination that in the balance of his time, he needed to be back in Washington for the closing days before the deadline to ensure the United States does not go over a cliff,” Sullivan said.

“The president is confident that we can avoid default, but the reason he’s going back is to make sure that happens. So what he will tell [allies] is he is going home to do what a president does,” Sullivan said, adding that Biden will express confidence to allies that he can strike a deal.

Vice President Harris is set to provide an update to reporters on preventing default Thursday, alongside the director of the National Economic Council Director, Lael Brainard, indicating that she is also stepping in while the president is away.

That’s still not enough for lawmakers.

“[Treasury Department Secretary Janet Yellen] said the U.S. could default as early as June 1, which is 16 days away. With this as a backdrop, President Biden is planning to hop on a plane to Japan tomorrow,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Tuesday. “He can't fly halfway around the globe just as negotiations are gaining momentum.” 

Meanwhile, some Democrats defended the president’s decision to leave town.

"I don't think he's the one sitting in the room doing the negotiations. I think he's the one, hopefully, leading the people in the room negotiating, but he can do that via Zoom or via telephone call,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said. “Look, there's a lot of shit going on in the world he needs to be tending to, too.”

Similarly, Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said Biden’s trip to the G-7 is a high priority.

“President Biden has a G-7 meeting, which is an effort to establish global security. It's a very high priority,” he said. “I hope that Speaker McCarthy doesn't try to use that [against him]."

Democrats call on Judiciary GOP to probe DeSantis’s election police

Posted on (Updated by Lauren Sforza

A trio of Democrat lawmakers are calling on the House Judiciary Committee's GOP leadership to investigate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's (R) handling of the state law enforcement agency, alleging he is using it to advance his political agenda and intimidate voters.

"Given the allegations of abuse of authority, improper politicization, and voter intimidation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), I am calling on the Judiciary Committee to open an investigation and [hold a] public hearing into Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's alleged mishandling of the agency," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

The letter, signed by Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), noted that because the FDLE receives $57 million in federal funding, Congress has the jurisdiction to investigate whether it is using the funds for "improper and unconstitutional ends." Their letter also noted that DeSantis's launch of a voting fraud unit employed help from the FDLE, which argued against the move because due to the lack of voting fraud cases.

The lawmakers alleged that DeSantis's push for the election police force was used to intimidate voters of color, blasting the police force as a "draconian response."

DeSantis signed a bill last year that created an election police force dedicated to investigating voter fraud and other election-related crimes.

"The Governor was reportedly motivated to target these individuals — mostly Black, an overwhelmingly Democratic constituency — to placate former President Trump and his false claims that widespread voter fraud led to his defeat in 2020, despite having won the State of Florida by three percentage points," the letter reads.

The lawmakers also alleged that DeSantis abused his power by sending FDLE to the southwest border, saying the move diverted resources from the state to "score political points in the runup to his campaign for president." And the lawmakers said the governor used the agency to target his political opponent, Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren, by producing crime statistics about his jurisdiction in an effort to make him "look bad."

"We cannot be good stewards of taxpayer dollars by funding a law enforcement arm that is being weaponized for a single governor's personal political purposes," the letter stated. "Whether it is seeking to disenfranchise voters, violate civil liberties, or dig up political dirt, the FDLE under Governor DeSantis's direction requires oversight by this Committee."

The Hill has reached out to DeSantis's office for comment.