The list of Democratic lawmakers boycotting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's joint address to Congress on Thursday is growing.
Progressive Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Summer Lee (D-Pa.) on Thursday said they wouldn't attend the event. They join fellow progressive Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
“When it comes to standing up for human rights, actions speak louder than words," Bush and Bowman said in a joint statement with Tlaib and Omar.
The statement blasted the decision to invite the Indian leader adding that "by bestowing Prime Minister Modi with the rare honor of a joint address, Congress undermines its ability to be a credible advocate for the rights of religious minorities and journalists around the world."
The lawmakers added that they "stand in solidarity with the communities that have been harmed by Modi and his policies."
"We must never sacrifice human rights at the altar of political expediency and we urge all Members of Congress who profess to stand for freedom and democracy to join us in boycotting this embarrassing spectacle.”
Lee, in a separate statement, said Modi's government "has targeted journalists, emboldened violent Hindu nationalist groups, and jailed political opponents."
"We are not true allies if we cannot push them to uphold basic human rights and religious freedoms," she added.
The statements come just hours before the Indian prime minister was set to arrive at the Capitol.
Modi's speech to the joint session of Congress comes hours after he met with President Biden and announced a slew of military, tech and health deals between the U.S. and India.
During the joint press conference at the White House, Modi brushed aside a question about human rights abuses and democratic backsliding in his country.
While Democrats in both the House and the Senate have urged Biden to address the issue of human rights in his meetings with Modi, the historic address is set to be a widely attended event.
Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson announced she will resign at the end of the month, after serving in her post since 2019.
“It has been a distinct privilege to serve as clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives during three Congresses and an honor to have been first nominated by Speaker Pelosi and then renominated by you to serve in the 118th Congress,” Johnson said Thursday in the House chamber, addressing Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
McCarthy accepted her resignation and announced his appointment of Kevin McCumber to act and exercise the duties of the clerk. McCarthy then administered McCumber’s oath of office.
Johnson’s resignation will be effective at the end of day June 30, and McCumber will assume the post July 1.
After she delivered her announcement, members of the House stood to applaud Johnson, whose tenure as House Clerk has included two impeachment proceedings, the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and the tumultuous weeklong Speaker vote this January.
Despite already serving for several years, Johnson particularly gained national attention during the weeklong Speaker vote series. As House Republicans struggled to elect a Speaker, Johnson presided over the chamber and was tasked with keeping order while the House had no leader.
The House also had not passed rules yet for the session, so Johnson had flexibility to enforce order as she saw fit — and frequently had to prevent members from descending into chaos while tensions only increased throughout the week.
She was the fourth woman and second Black person in the role. She earned a law degree from Howard University before working for the Smithsonian Institution for a decade.
In January, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) called Johnson “a historic figure in her own right” and said she was “doing a very good job under difficult circumstances.”
House Republicans on Thursday neutered an effort to impeach President Biden, punting the resolution to a pair of committees and avoiding — for now — a politically perilous vote that threatened to split the GOP and undermine the party’s various investigations into the White House.
The 219-208 party-line vote ends a two-day clash between GOP leaders and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), a conservative firebrand who stunned Washington on Tuesday by introducing a procedural measure to force a floor vote on her impeachment articles despite the objection of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
The articles, which accuse Biden of overseeing “a complete and total invasion at the southern border,” triggered an outcry from some of Boebert’s GOP colleagues, who were caught by surprise and quickly condemned any impeachment vote as premature.
The sides ultimately reached an agreement late Wednesday to sidestep an impeachment vote by sending her articles to both the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, which have jurisdiction over impeachment and immigration policy, respectively.
The deal avoids — at least temporarily — what might have been an embarrassing internal fight on the House floor.
But Boebert is already warning that if the two committees don’t move on impeachment quickly enough to satisfy her sense of urgency, she intends to reintroduce the “privileged” resolution to force the issue to the House floor once again.
“That is my commitment, that if nothing happens in committee like I’m promised that it will, yes, I will bring a privileged resolution every day for the rest of my time here in Congress,” Boebert told reporters Wednesday night.
Asked how much time she is willing to give the committee process before moving to force another vote, Boebert said, “The chairman is working on those details,” adding that he's planned "a few months of work" and that "there’s a little bit of grace there."
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) speaks to reporters following vote series at the Capitol on Thursday, June 22, 2023.
"But, I mean, that’s tentative,” she qualified.
The push to impeach Biden is nothing new for House Republicans. In the last Congress, when Democrats still controlled the chamber, GOP lawmakers introduced no fewer than 10 impeachment resolutions against the president, targeting his policies on issues as diverse as immigration, the response to the COVID pandemic and the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The new Congress, under GOP control, has already featured the introduction of four similar resolutions.
Yet Boebert’s strategy this week stood out as an enormous escalation in the effort to oust Biden — one that threatened to turn a behind-the-scenes messaging strategy into a front-and-center floor vote that would have put many Republicans in an uncomfortable spot.
Vulnerable moderate lawmakers have hoped to avoid going on the record on impeachment, for fear of blowback in their purple districts. And GOP leaders have sought to finalize their investigations into Biden at the committee level before charging ahead with anything as aggressive as impeachment.
“This is one of the most serious things you can do as a member of Congress. I think you’ve got to go through the process. You’ve got to have the investigation,” McCarthy said. “Throwing something on the floor actually harms the investigation that we’re doing right now.”
Adding to the Republicans’ reluctance is the simple fact that any impeachment resolution would almost certainly fail on the House floor, creating an embarrassing political situation for GOP leaders who have accused Biden of being unfit for office.
Their move to defuse the impeachment push came the same week that another Republican — Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) — used the same procedural gambit as Boebert to force a vote on censuring Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a highly unusual disciplinary action approved by GOP lawmakers Wednesday.
The successful vote, however, came only after a band of Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the effort last week, which brought threats of retaliation from former President Trump and forced Luna to revise the resolution and force another vote.
Both votes have highlighted the difficulties facing McCarthy and other GOP leaders as they fight to manage a restive conference with a razor-thin majority. McCarthy struggled to obtain the Speakership in January in the face of opposition from 20 GOP detractors — including Boebert — who continue to question his conservative bona fides.
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., speaks during the stamp unveiling ceremony in honor of Rep. John Lewis on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, June 21, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
Eleven of those conservatives shut down all activity on the House floor earlier this month to protest McCarthy’s handling of the debt ceiling negotiations with Biden. And they’re threatening to do it again if the Speaker doesn’t get behind deeper spending cuts in the upcoming fight over government funding, which expires Oct. 1.
Democrats sought to highlight that internal discord Thursday, arguing that the vote on Biden’s impeachment resolution was a product of McCarthy’s weak leadership.
“We all know the truth: The real emergency here was that the Georgia wing and the Colorado wing of the MAGA caucus got into a fight right over there on the House floor about who gets to impeach the president first,” Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.), the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, said during debate.
He was referring to a spat between Boebert and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) one day earlier about the impeachment articles.
“The truth is that Speaker McCarthy has lost control of this House, and it is being run by the MAGA fringe. This is nuts,” he continued. “Kids get shot in their classrooms, nothing. Environmental disasters destroy entire communities, nothing. Our air is clogged with smoke because half the Northern Hemisphere is on fire due to climate change, nothing. But when the MAGA wing nuts say, 'Jump,' Speaker McCarthy says, 'How high?'”
Democrats also argued that Republicans were attempting to distract from the legal troubles surrounding former President Trump, following his federal indictment earlier this month and state charges in March.
“This resolution is simply the latest attempt by extreme MAGA republicans to distract from the legal peril facing their twice-impeached, twice-indicted party leader,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chaired the Jan. 6 select committee. “This cynical resolution has nothing to do with border security. It does nothing to stop fentanyl deaths. And it has nothing to do with the constitutional law.”
Republicans, however, disagreed, asserting that their effort against Biden was squarely focused on his response to the situation at the southern border.
“Let’s be very clear: The issue that is happening at our southern border — not the name-calling or talking about former President Trump — what is happening at our southern border today and for the last two years under President Biden has been a dereliction of duty with respect to immigration law in the United States,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) said on the House floor Thursday.
While Thursday’s vote punted the question of whether Biden should be impeached, some of the president’s fiercest critics are vowing that the referral to committees marks just the beginning of their latest effort against the president.
“Our job in the House of Representatives is, in fact, to deter the overreach and abuse of authority by the President of the United States refusing to carry out the laws of the United States in detriment to the well-being, security, and lives of the people of this country,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said on the House floor Thursday.
“That is our job in the House of Representatives. That is why we are here, that is why I support this rule and that is why I support this resolution. That is why I support this inquiry,” he continued. “And we are just beginning.”
The Senate voted largely along party lines Thursday to reject a Republican-sponsored resolution that would have overturned a Biden administration rule effectively banning the use of stabilizing braces on pistols — devices that have been used in several mass shootings.
Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.), two centrist Democrats facing tough reelection races next year in red states, voted against the resolution. They both have a history of supporting gun-owners' rights.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said repealing the rule effectively banning pistol braces would have made it “easier to conceal an assault-style pistol, something that’s been used in mass shooting after mass shooting.”
“Shame on them,” he said of Republicans who pushed to overturn the regulation.
“If you’ve ever seen a gunman fire what looks like a machine gun with one hand, that’s what pistol braces allow you to do,” he said.
The White House noted in a statement of administration policy that gunmen have used brace devices in mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and Boulder, Colo.
The resolution, which Republicans moved under the Congressional Review Act, would have nullified the rule finalized in January by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stating that any stabilizing brace attached to a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches would be regulated as a “short-barreled rifle” under the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Congress passed legislation in the 1980s to impose a 10-year prison sentencing enhancement for using a short-barreled rifle in any violent or drug trafficking crime.
Under the new Biden administration rule, gun owners who have a pistol with a stabilizing brace can either add a longer barrel to the firearm, remove the brace, turn the firearm in to a local ATF office or register it as a short-barreled rifle with federal authorities.
“Short-barreled rifles are more concealable than long guns, yet more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols. For these reasons, they are particularly lethal, which is why Congress has deemed them to be dangerous and unusual weapons subject to strict regulation since 1934,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a June 12 statement of policy.
The White House budget office said earlier this month that Biden would veto the measure.
“For almost 90 years, short-barreled rifles have been controlled under the National Firearms Act, along with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Why? Because they combine the accuracy of a rifle with the concealability of a handgun. It’s a deadly combination,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said before the vote.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), the House sponsor of the resolution, called the ATF rule “unconstitutional” and an example of “executive overreach.”
The House passed the resolution earlier this month by a largely partisan vote of 219 to 210.
Two Democrats voted for it and two Republicans voted against it.
Rep. George Santos’s (R-N.Y.) father and aunt financially backed his criminal bail, according to newly unsealed court documents.
The release of their names — father Gercino dos Santos and aunt Elma Preven — on Thursday is the latest iteration of a months-long saga surrounding Santos, the federally indicted first-term lawmaker who has come under intense scrutiny amid questions about his finances and background.
The congressman attempted to keep their identities private, citing fears of harassment as he unsuccessfully pushed back twice on media companies’ requests to unseal the names.
“As the News Organizations aptly note, family members frequently serve as suretors for criminal defendants in this country every day,” U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert, appointed by former President Clinton, wrote in a newly unsealed ruling handed down earlier this week.
"Consequently, it is more likely that disclosure of the Suretors’ identities will render any potential ‘story’ a ‘non-story,’ especially considering the News Organizations’ acknowledgement of this fact,” she added. “Indeed, it appears Defendant’s continued attempts to shield the identity of his Suretors, notwithstanding the fact that he is aware their identities are not controversial, has simply created hysteria over what is, in actuality, a nonissue."
Joe Murray, Santos’s lawyer, previously suggested Santos would rather have them withdraw and the lawmaker go to jail, rather than let their names become public, citing a “media frenzy.”
The judge, however, rejected that notion when ordering the names unsealed.
"Defendant did nothing to diffuse the ‘media frenzy’ when leaving the courthouse, instead choosing to address the numerous reporters awaiting his departure,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Shields wrote.
Thursday’s order also revealed that five days after Shields presided over Santos’s arraignment, she held a bond hearing behind closed doors. Santos’s aunt and father were present, but the congressman did not attend, according to court documents.
Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) celebrates the first ever Congressional Sneaker Day created by the Congressional Sneaker Caucus at the Capitol on Wednesday, June 21, 2023.
The filings indicate Santos’s father and aunt both “remained comfortable” at the hearing about their roles, even following days of media attention on the case.
Shields noted they didn’t secure the bond with cash or property, but were “deemed able to provide the necessary moral suasion” and are personally responsible for Santos’s compliance.
Santos last month was indicted on 13 federal charges that accuse him of misleading campaign donors, fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits and lying on financial disclosures. He pleaded not guilty.
But he has been the subject of controversy since before he was sworn into office after a bombshell report outlined questionable aspects of his resume in December. The criticism ballooned when more inquiries about his finances emerged and hit a fever pitch last month when he was indicted.
Also last month, A House Democrat moved to force a vote on expelling Santos but the chamber ultimately voted to send the resolution to the Ethics Committee, which was already investigating the congressman.
The unsealing of the names of people who sponsored Santos’s bond — which Santos fought — could have implications for that inquiry.
The Ethics panel launched its probe into Santos in March to look into various areas, but in recent weeks the committee asked for information about his bond suretors.
In a May 13 letter from the panel to Santos — which was first revealed in a court filing this month — the committee asked the congressman to identify the individuals who co-signed his bond, inform the committee of any payments made on his behalf to the co-signers as compensation, lay out any exceptions to House rules that the congressman believes applies to the bond guarantors and provide all documents related to the bond, including communications with the co-signers.
Santos did not immediately comply with the request: Roughly two weeks later, his attorney, Joseph Murray, asked that his client receive a 30-day extension to respond to the panel’s request while also noting he could not share the requested information with the committee until it was unsealed by the court.
“Please understand that unless or until such time that the Court unseals the identities of the suretors, the surety records, and proceedings, I cannot share that information with this Honorable House Ethics Committee,” Murray told the committee in a May 31 letter first revealed in a filing this month.
“If the Court decides to unseal the identities of the sureties, the surety records and proceedings, I will share that information with the Committee. If, however, the Court upholds the sealing, I will also share that Order with this Committee,” he added.
Editor's note: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said a Daily Beast story about her exchange with Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) was "impressively correct." An earlier version of this story contained an incorrect quote.
Tensions between Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) boiled over on the House floor as Greene called Boebert a "little bitch" amid GOP frustration at the Colorado Republican's move to try and force a vote on impeaching President Biden.
During votes Wednesday afternoon, Boebert approached Greene over statements she made earlier in the day for critiquing her move to force an impeachment vote, the Daily Beast reported.
Greene accused Boebert of copying her own articles of impeachment against Biden, which Greene had previously asked her to co-sponsor, the report said. And Greene also noted that she donated to Boebert and defended her.
At one point, Greene called Boebert a “little bitch.”
Greene confirmed the exchange, later telling reporters that the Daily Beast’s story — including the name-calling — was “impressively correct.”
Boebert’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the exchange, but she told CNN of the reported exchange, “Like I said, I’m not in middle school.”
Greene expanded on her frustration with Boebert while speaking to reporters at the Capitol.
“I have defended her when she's been attacked. She and I have virtually the same voting record. We're both members of the House Freedom Caucus. We should be natural allies,” Greene said. “But for some reason, she has a great skill and talent for making most people here not like her. And so, it’s her issue.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) speaks during a press conference held by the Republican Study Committee announcing their Fiscal Year 2024 Budget at the Capitol on Wednesday, June 14, 2023.
Greene said that she supported Boebert’s impeachment articles because she also wants to impeach Biden, but she critiqued her approach. Boebert's move to force a vote surprised and angered many of her colleagues.
“She didn't talk to anyone about it. She didn’t come to the conference [meeting]. She didn't address it with anybody. She copied my articles of impeachment, refused to cosponsor mine,” Greene said.
The Trump-supporting firebrands both arrived in Congress in 2020, and due to their ideological and stylistic similarities, were often lumped together. But the two have diverged in their tactical approaches over the last year or so, and they have made clear they do not get along with each other.
One House GOP member told The Hill that Boebert and Greene have never liked each other and sit at opposite ends of the table during House Freedom Caucus meetings.
The tension between the two has burst into public view in the past — particularly around the time Boebert and other conservatives blocked Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from immediately becoming Speaker, while Greene was a staunch supporter of McCarthy.
During the drawn-out Speaker’s fight in January, Greene and Boebert got into a confrontation in the women’s bathroom, the Daily Beast reported.
“You were OK taking millions of dollars from McCarthy, but you refuse to vote for him for Speaker, Lauren?” Greene reportedly said.
“When she started going after me, I looked at her and said, ‘Don’t be ugly,’” Boebert said.
Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
And in a December interview with conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, Boebert lamented being “accused of believing a lot of the things that [Greene] believes in.”
“I don’t believe in this, just like I don’t believe in Russian space lasers — Jewish space lasers and all of this,” Boebert said, in reference to a 2018 Facebook post from Greene in which she floated that a “laser beam or light beam” from “space solar generators” could be to blame for wildfires in California, also mentioning the “Rothschild Inc.” Greene later said she did not know the Rothschilds have long been at the center of antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Greene shot back on Twitter.
“She gladly takes our $$$ but when she’s been asked: Lauren refuses to endorse President Trump, she refuses to support Kevin McCarthy, and she childishly threw me under the bus for a cheap sound bite,” Greene said of Boebert.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said attorneys for former President Trump in the classified and sensitive documents case will have a “bad Christmas” following a recent filing that hints prosecutors have additional evidence beyond what was previously known.
A court filing from Wednesday states that special counsel Jack Smith has begun providing the evidence he plans to use to Trump, including multiple interviews of the former president, which seems to indicate the government has recordings of Trump discussing the documents he held at Mar-a-Lago beyond what is mentioned in the indictment.
Whitehouse told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell in an interview Wednesday that the filing tells him Smith has a strong case and feels comfortable turning over the evidence early in the process.
“It tells me that there’s gonna be bad Christmas for the Trump lawyers as they open the different files of evidence and find out how awful the evidence is against their client,” he said.
“And it tells me that they want to get Trump’s attention early, by getting his lawyers the evidence that they need to be able to go to their client and say, ‘Hey, you are in real trouble here,’” Whitehouse continued.
Judge Aileen Cannon has set a preliminary trial date for the case Aug. 14, but Trump’s team will likely delay the trial past then through pre-trial motions.
Trump was indicted on 37 federal charges earlier this month in relation to his handling of the documents that were taken from the White House to Mar-a-Lago after his presidency, including 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act. He has also been charged with obstructing the investigation into his retention of the documents.
The indictment alleges that Trump had documents containing military secrets and information on U.S. nuclear programs, pushed his attorneys to help cover up that he had the documents, and showed sensitive documents to people who were not authorized to see them at least twice.
Trump has maintained that he did not commit any wrongdoing in the case and the charges are politically motivated.
Smith defended the integrity of the Justice Department and FBI after the indictment was unsealed and emphasized the “scope” and “gravity” of the charges outlined in the indictment.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is fundraising off a late Wednesday vote by House Republicans to censure him over his comments criticizing alleged ties between former President Trump and Russia.
Schiff’s campaign for Senate in California said in an email sent out after the vote that Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) took up the resolution against him for his efforts trying to hold Trump accountable.
“This is not just a political stunt to rile up the MAGA base — it’s an attack on all accountability and constitutional oversight,” Schiff said in the email. “But make no mistake: If they thought this was going to deter me from holding Trump and his accomplices accountable or delivering real results for California and our nation, they thought wrong.”
Schiff is running for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) He is also facing California Reps. Katie Porter and Barbara Lee in what could be a hotly contested Democratic primary. He has become a controversial figure among the GOP over his accusations of Trump colluding with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign and his role in leading the first impeachment inquiry against Trump in 2020.
In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper late Wednesday, Schiff said he plans to wear the censure as a “badge of honor.” He noted the resolution to censure him previously failed last week with 20 Republicans voting in favor of tabling it, but Trump warned after that vote that any Republican voting against the resolution should face a primary challenge.
“So basically, this is Trump and MAGA world going after someone they think is effective in standing up to them,” Schiff said on CNN.
He also said he does not have any regrets about how he handled the allegations surrounding Trump and Russia and said the investigation into Trump’s misconduct was “very important.”
The investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election concluded that Russia took steps to interfere with the election and help elect Trump, but investigators did not find evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign. Multiple Trump associates pleaded guilty or were found guilty of charges stemming from the probe.
Schiff said in his fundraising email that he will continue his work to hold “MAGA Republicans” accountable and called on his supporters to help “push back against these attacks on our democracy.”
Trump similarly tried to raise money earlier this month off the backlash to his federal indictment for the classified and sensitive documents kept at his Mar-a-Lago property last year, bringing in more than $6.5 million in the days after the charges were unsealed.
Senate Republicans are questioning the push by House conservatives to impeach President Biden and other administration officials, arguing the moves are a waste of time and futile efforts that likely lack an impeachable offense.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) surprised even her own GOP colleagues Tuesday when she filed a privileged motion that would force a vote on a resolution to impeach Biden.
Conservatives have also been pushing to impeach figures, including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she is converting the articles of impeachment she has filed against top officials into privileged resolutions to use “when I feel it’s necessary.”
The moves, however, are making many Senate Republicans uneasy.
“I know people are angry. I’m angry at the Biden administration for their policies at the border and a whole host of other things, but I think we also need to look at what’s achievable,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “And with a Democratic majority in the Senate, I don’t think that’s achievable.”
The move by the Colorado Republican came out of left field to many, though Boebert told reporters she informed House GOP leadership she would be making the privileged motion.
The decision to move ahead also caught senators off guard, even those more conservative than others. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) exclaimed, “Really?” when asked about movement on Boebert’s articles of impeachment.
The resolution includes two articles related to Biden’s handling of matters along the U.S.-Mexico border — one for dereliction of duty and one for abuse of power. Some Senate GOP members argued Boebert’s latest maneuver is frivolous.
“I’ve got a pretty high bar for impeachment,” Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said, noting that he said as much in his pair of votes against convicting former President Trump. “I fear that snap impeachments will become the norm, and they mustn’t.”
Some even laughed at the idea of impeaching Biden.
Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah), the lone Senate Republican who voted to convict former President Trump in both of his trials, told The Hill that conservatives are spinning their wheels.
“Yeah,” Romney said when asked if he considers this a waste of time. “If someone commits a high crime or misdemeanor, of course. If they don’t, it’s a waste of time.”
The impeachment chatter is the latest maneuver by House conservatives that has alarmed their colleagues across the Capitol. A revolt by hard-line conservatives that ground House floor business to a halt earlier this month left Senate Republicans worried about what would happen when must-pass bills arrive. And House Republicans wrote their spending bills at levels below those agreed to in last month’s debt ceiling deal — setting up a fight with the Senate, which is following the agreed-upon caps.
But Boebert’s latest move also angered her House colleagues. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) went so far as to urge his House GOP conference to rally against Boebert’s resolution before it hits the floor later this week.
House Republicans want to keep attention focused on the Hunter Biden plea deal announced this week. And while some members may be in favor of impeaching some top officials — including Biden — they say Boebert’s is premature and could undermine existing congressional investigations and future impeachment efforts.
“I don’t think it’s the right thing to do,” McCarthy later told reporters.
“This is one of the most serious things you can do as a member of Congress. I think you’ve got to go through the process. You’ve got to have the investigation,” McCarthy continued. “And throwing something on the floor actually harms the investigation that we’re doing right now.”
House Democrats are expected to make a motion to table the resolution, putting up a blockade against the vote entirely. The motion to table resolution is expected to succeed.
Despite the wide opposition to Boebert’s effort, there has been some appetite for Biden’s removal among some Senate conservatives. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) called on the president to resign and ran ads on it earlier this year, though not because of his border policies.
However, Senate Republicans are warning their colleagues across the Capitol complex that if they do plow forward with any sort of impeachment against Biden or others, they better be ready to back it up and show there’s an impeachable offense involved.
“The Democrats played politics with impeachment. Republicans shouldn’t do that,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a friend and ally of McCarthy stemming from his time in the House. “If it’s something that’s impeachable, that’s fine. But there needs to be a process to it.”
While early impeachment pushes are likely to fail, some efforts by conservative members have garnered widespread support among Republicans. House Republicans on Wednesday passed a censure resolution against Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that was brought up by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla) over his handling of investigations into Trump.
And Senate Republicans on Wednesday reiterated their confidence in McCarthy despite the ongoing back-and-forth with conservatives.
“I think he’s got a handful of people who’re going to do what they’re going to do. I don’t know that he’s got a lot of control over any of that,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters.
“The House is the House. They’ve got their own way of doing things. I guess they’ll deal with them one way or another,” Thune said. “The best way to change the direction of the country is to win elections, and to win elections, you have to put forward a vision for the future of this country and talk in a positive way about the things that you want to do and draw contrasts with the administration.”
The House floor spun into chaos Wednesday after Republicans voted to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — a rare rebuke that sparked a rowdy protest from scores of Democrats, who huddled around their embattled ally and heckled Republicans with accusations of political cowardice.
The episode made for a wild ride on the floor, where Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), presiding over the censure vote from the dais, faced down an angry crowd of Democratic lawmakers who had flocked en masse to the well of the chamber and directed their ire directly at him.
Behind former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the crowd of Democrats launched their protest with chants of, ‘Shame! Shame! Shame!” At one point, Pelosi, like a conductor, signaled to her colleagues to continue the chants.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who was kicked off of a key committee at the start of the year, called the Republicans “spiteful cowards.”
“Disgrace,” Rep. Mark Takano, another California Democrat, shouted.
One unidentified Democrat offered a warning: “What goes around comes around.”
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), in the front row and glaring straight at McCarthy, called the Speaker “pathetic” and “weak.”
Schiff walked through a sea of Democrats on his way to the well of the chamber, where he was formally censured. Omar followed him down the aisle during the trek, while Democrats clapped and patted Schiff on the back.
“Adam, Adam,” they chanted. Schiff was seen saying, “Thank you,” to his colleagues.
The Democratic protestations triggered a smattering of frustrated responses from the otherwise amused Republicans across the aisle. At least one GOP lawmaker followed the Democrats’ “shame” chant with the words “on Schiff.” One urged the Democrats simply to “be quiet.” Another yelled out, “Jackass!” — toward no one in particular.
At one point, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) yelled out “$32 million dollars on your charade,” a reference to the cost of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 election. The dollar figure was included in Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) initial resolution to censure Schiff but was nixed amid GOP concerns over the precedent and constitutionality of fining congress members.
And when McCarthy called for Schiff to report to the well of the chamber, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) shouted “woo” and started clapping.
All the while, McCarthy beat the gavel furiously and urged “order” in the chamber. It was a futile gesture.
“Out of order!” the Democrats bellowed in response.
When McCarthy attempted to read the formal admonishment — a text beginning with the words, “The House has resolved” — Democrats retorted: “The House has not resolved.”
After being interrupted a number of times by the Democratic chants, McCarthy warned the chamber, “I have all night.” When he finally got through the reading, Democrats once again started chanting “Adam, Adam.”
Throughout the bitter back-and-forth, Schiff stood stoically at the center of the storm. Afterwards, he called it “a badge of honor.”
“It was gratifying to hear such nice words from all my colleagues, and [it] reinforced what a badge of honor it is to stand up to Trump and McCarthy and all the MAGA enablers of the former president,” Schiff said.
The entire scene was a stark departure from the other censure votes in modern history, when the offending lawmaker would march — unchaperoned — to the well of a hushed chamber to receive the formal admonishment. That was the case with former Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was censured in 2010, and more recently with Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who was censured in 2021.
The outpouring of Democratic support in Schiff’s case reflects not only his standing within the Caucus, but also the nature of the charges against him. Schiff, as senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, had emerged as among the fiercest antagonists of former President Trump, accusing him of abusing his power and serving as the lead manager in Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
That national branding — radioactive on the right — led directly to the Republicans’ censure resolution, which accused Schiff of lying to the public about Trump’s ties to Russia. Most Democrats share Schiff’s sentiments about Trump, however, turning Wednesday’s would-be punishment into a celebration of Schiff’s willingness to stand up to the former president.
“It’s the Speaker’s House, not Trump’s,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) yelled out.
A number of Democrats also mentioned Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), the controversial first-term lawmaker who was indicted on 13 federal charges in May over accusations that he misled donors and misrepresented his finances to the public and government agencies. He pleaded not guilty.
Last month, the House voted to send a resolution to expel Santos to the Ethics Committee, punting on the question of whether or not the New York Republican should be ousted from Congress. The move, however, was largely redundant, since the Ethics panel is already looking into Santos. Republican leadership has said the Ethics probe should run its course before taking action against the congressman.
“Where do you stand on Santos, Mr. Speaker?” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) yelled out.
Others cited the late-Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.); earlier in the day, House leaders unveiled a U.S. Postal Service stamp depicting the late congressman, who was a renowned civil rights leader.
“On the day you honor John Lewis,” one Democrat yelled out. “Shame on you.”
Luna, for her part, appeared to be soaking it up. She was seated near the front of the chamber throughout the process. Afterward, she was hailed by Republicans with a series of fist bumps as she exited up the center aisle. And just before walking off the chamber floor, Luna turned to send a warning to the protesting Democrats:
