House Republican critical of Biden impeachment push demands his removal via 25th Amendment

FIRST ON FOX: A House Republican who has been critical of rushing to impeach President Biden is calling for his removal over questions about his mental fitness for the job.

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., told Fox News Digital that he plans to introduce a resolution on Monday to call on Biden’s Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. 

His most-cited reason was Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report did not recommend any charges for the president but repeatedly painted him as an aging leader with a poor memory.

Buck said the report "addressed what many Americans have long witnessed with their own eyes – that President Biden is no longer fit to successfully discharge the critical duties of his office."

JAMES BIDEN SAYS HIS BROTHER 'HAS NEVER HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT' OR ANY 'FINANCIAL INTEREST' IN BUSINESS VENTURES

"Numerous instances were articulated in the report, and have played out in full public view, showing President Biden’s apparent cognitive decline and lack of mental stamina," he told Fox News Digital.

"The societal challenges and security threats our country faces are innumerable and require a chief executive with both strong mental and physical faculties. The time has come for the vice president and the Cabinet to put our country first and move forward on invoking the 25th Amendment."

DEVON ARCHER: HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA EXECS ‘CALLED DC’ TO GET UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED

In his resolution text, Buck also cited Biden’s verbal stumbles and public gaffes as evidence of mental decline. It pointed out that Biden recently confused French President Emmanuel Macron with a predecessor who died decades prior, and that he also mixed up German leaders’ names and mistakenly referred to the president of Egypt as the president of Mexico.

Biden and his allies have vigorously denied that his mental acuity is suffering.

But Buck’s resolution is a significant addition to the growing pressure for Biden officials to address scrutiny over the president’s mental fitness. 

The Colorado Republican, who is retiring at the end of this term, is one of the few House GOP lawmakers who have publicly expressed wariness over the push to impeach Biden over allegations that he and his family’s businesses profited off of his political weight.

Buck voted along with the rest of the House GOP Conference to formalize the Biden impeachment inquiry in December, but just last week he criticized the probe’s leaders for relying on allegations made by FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who was recently indicted for lying to the bureau.

BIDEN MET WITH CHAIRMAN OF CHINESE ENERGY FIRM HUNTER DID BUSINESS WITH IN 2017, EX-ASSOCIATE TESTIFIES

"We’ve always been looking for a link between what Hunter Biden received in terms of money and Joe Biden’s activities or Joe Biden receiving money. This clearly is not a credible link at this point," Buck said in a CNN interview.

He told the network in September, "I want to make sure we don’t ruin this institution over a tit-for-tat impeachment. If the evidence is there… I will absolutely vote for impeachment. I don’t see the evidence at this point."

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the White House Cabinet to declare the president unfit to perform his duties, transferring power to the vice president. 

The president is able to take those powers back by writing to Congress that he is able to serve. The Cabinet would then have four days to refute that, after which Congress would vote on whether the president could remain in power.

Buck is one of several Republican lawmakers who have called for the constitutional amendment to be invoked in the wake of Hur's report, including Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, as well as Reps. Mary Miller, R-Ill., and Mike Collins, R-Ga.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment on Buck's resolution.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Good people in Alabama suffer more than anyone over what Republicans do

Glamour:

‘These Embryos Are Five Years Worth of Money, Sadness, and Hope. I Just Want to Be a Mom.’

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled last week that frozen embryos are legally considered children, which effectively banned IVF treatment in the state. Here’s how the decision impacts one couple.
Crain, a journalist and artist who lives in Birmingham, has spent the past several years reporting on the loss of women’s rights to their own bodies in Alabama while dealing with the mental and physical toll of her own private fertility journey. She and her husband had been preparing to transfer their frozen embryos from their latest egg retrieval when she heard the news about the Supreme Court’s decision.

“It's insane,” she says. “While I don't view my embryos as scared children sitting in the freezer calling for their mommy, I do feel that they are mine and no one else's. And right now I can't, can't touch them physically, mentally, spiritually, if I wanted to. I legally can't.”

Republicans freaking out on IVF issue as Dems step up messaginghttps://t.co/NYtBtu9kYP

— Tim McBride (@mcbridetd) February 25, 2024

Eric Garcia/Independent:

CPAC celebrates the Alabama IVF ruling – while Trump and Republicans distance themselves

Republican candidates and the GOP’s presumptive presidential candidate have come out opposing restrictions to IVF. But some conservatives at CPAC celebrated the Alabama ruling

Republicans have begun to sense that the ruling is unpopular. Last year, the Pew Research Center found that 42 per cent of Americans have either used fertility treatments or knew someone who has, particularly as women continue to have children older. On Friday, Mr Tuberville posted on X/Twitter that he had spoken with Alabama’s speaker of the house, saying that the legislature will take up a bill to protect IVF.

“We want everyone to have the opportunity to have kids,” he said. “IVF will remain legal and available in Alabama.”

Similarly, National Review reported that the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent a memo to Republican candidates for Senate instructing them to “clearly state your support for IVF and fertility-related services as blessings for those seeking to have children.”

Two of the candidates for Senate in swing states who appeared at CPAC – David McCormick in Pennsylvania and Kari Lake in Arizona – both put out statements saying they opposed restrictions to IVF.

Republican leaders have instructed their politicians to publicly support IVF even if they have previously sponsored legislation that would ban IVF. The GOP is held together by its willingness to lie in unison.

— Mark Jacob (@MarkJacob16) February 24, 2024

John Archibald/Al.com:

Alabama Supreme Court is a theocracy

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Tom Parker was downright gleeful.

He quoted Genesis in his sermon — I’m sorry, his concurring opinion — in the Alabama ruling that turned in vitro fertilization on its head by defining frozen embryos as children.

He quoted 17th century Dutch theologian Petrus Van Mastricht. Ya know, good ole Van Mastricht. He quoted a 16th century Bible – because older is closer to God, maybe – and quoted the Sixth Commandment, thou shalt not kill.

He quoted Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin and one of Roy Moore’s old pals at the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery. He wrote of the “wrath of God.”

The people of Alabama, he said, decided all this was public policy.

“It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’”

Did I say it wasn’t a sermon? It was definitely a sermon.

This interview of a hard-core Trump voter in South Carolina by @Boris_Sanchez @cnn is absolutely fascinating 👉 https://t.co/KoTfxyIlKG Despite his loyalty to Trump, he validates my point @nytopinion about the devastating effect of a conviction 👇https://t.co/htqQX9wOsA

— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) February 25, 2024

Context for the above CNN video (the indictment remarks are at 00:41, listen to his reaction about conviction):

Among Haley supporters via @CNN exit polls: If Trump wins nomination: 21% satisfied 78% dissatisfied If Trump is convicted: 15% still fit for presidency 82% unfit for presidency

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) February 25, 2024

There’s too much out there on Biden’s weaknesses, not enough on Trump’s. So, here’s two more on Trump, starting with Dan Pfeiffer/”Message Box” on Substack:

Yet Another Underwhelming Trump Primary Win

Trump is on the glide path to the nomination, but he isn't improving his performance with swing voters

However, the real story is that Trump underperformed expectations and failed to expand his coalition. Once again, despite another dominant primary victory, the results highlighted Trump's vulnerabilities and offered a roadmap for defeating him in November.

Based on the exit polls, Trump’s campaign team should be popping some Xanax with the champagne over his win in South Carolina.

You cannot win the White House with the coalition that Trump is getting in these primaries. He must expand his coalition, persuade people who aren’t already on board, and get beyond the Big Lie-believing MAGA base. Through three primary contests, Trump has gained no ground.

Republican primary voters who vote for a candidate other than Trump are significantly less likely to return to him in the general. This is where resources should be spent. Everything else is a distraction. GOP defections will be the single largest factor in the November outcome

— Mike Madrid (@madrid_mike) February 25, 2024

Many here don’t believe it and don’t trust GOP voters. But they often have more sense than their candidates, at least if they aren’t white evangelical voters in South Carolina:

CNN exit polls in South Carolina primary: White evangelical Christians: 75% Trump 24% Haley Everyone else: 51% Haley 49% Trump

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) February 25, 2024

Walter Shapiro/The New Republic:

How Nikki Haley Can Beat Trump

She won’t win the Republican nomination, but by staying in the race she’s lowering Donald Trump’s chances of returning to the White House.

In a Tuesday speech giving her full-throated justification for staying in the race beyond her home state’s primary, Haley said, “Like most Americans, I have a handful of serious concerns about the former president. But I have countless serious concerns about the current president.” That line alone virtually guarantees that Haley will not magically appear as a surprise guest at the August Democratic convention.

Although the plucky Haley portrays herself as a loyal Republican, her limited—but scorching—attacks on Trump are worth examining in detail. She is appealing to a dwindling band of Reagan Republicans, suburban moderates and up-for-grabs independents. There are probably not enough of these voters to hand Haley a primary victory, but these are constituencies that the Joe Biden campaign will also target in November. Haley, in effect, is offering a crash course in how to woo swing voters who do not automatically assume that Trump is a racist and fascist out to trample the Constitution.  

Biden is building an anti-Trump coalition, not a pro-Biden one. every message that keeps folks in that coalition is a good one, every entity that peels off voters (third party) is a bad one (see Sarah Longwell above).

David Rothkopf/Daily Beast:

A Vote for Trump Is a Vote for Putin—and a World in Danger

Global peace, Europe’s future, and our security are on the ballot in November. The final word on Ukraine’s future, NATO’s future, and Putin’s future will come from American voters.

It is time to remove from our analytical lexicon the terms that are commonly used to minimize the dangers associated with the Trump-MAGA-Putin alliance. After more than eight years of compiling evidence that demonstrates Russia’s efforts to co-opt the American right is perhaps the most successful intelligence operation of our time, we have to reject the transparent vocabulary of keyboard warriors that still cry “hoax” every time new and irrefutable evidence of GOP-Russia ties is presented.

In the past two weeks alone, there has been the evidence that the core of the GOP sham impeachment effort against President Biden turned on the testimony of a man with ties to Russian intelligence; Trump’s invitation to Putin to do “whatever the hell he wants” with Europe; the MAGA right’s decision to postpone further even considering aid to UkraineTucker Carlson’s jaunt to Moscow to amplify the Kremlin’s lies about itself; the refusal of Trump to condemn the murder of Alexei Navalny in Russian prison; and the arrest of yet another American for no good reason in Russia.

Republicans pretending they want to protect IVF but getting owned by their own voting records. pic.twitter.com/TikXNgtixb

— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) February 24, 2024

Thomas Zimmer/”Democracy Americana” on Substack:

“Project 2025” Promises Revenge, Oppression, and Autocratic Rule

The Right’s plans for a return to power are driven by a radicalizing siege mentality and a desperate desire to restore dominance

One of the more frustrating aspects of studying and talking about American politics is that if you simply trace the radicalization of the Right and the Republican Party, there is a good chance a mainstream audience will dismiss you as a leftwing conspiracy theorist or an unhinged “activist.” Donald Trump’s outrageousness notwithstanding, it is difficult to convey to people who don’t pay much attention to politics how much the power centers of conservative politics have been taken over by anti-democratic extremism. One way to deal with this problem is to get people to actually read and listen to what emanates from the Right. If you don’t believe and can’t trust my (lefty / liberal) assessment, maybe you can believe them? In that spirit, I think it’s worth spending time diving deep into Kevin Roberts’ “Promise to America” – with lots of extensive quotes, as it is important to get a sense of what these people sound like when they are not being sanitized and normalized by mainstream media coverage. This will serve as Part I of my dissection of “Project 2025,” focusing on the worldview and ideas that are guiding the plans on the Right; there will also be a Part II in which I will look more closely at what those plans entail, and the strategies for how to realize them and turn America into the kind of society the reactionary Right desires.

ProPublica:

New Details Suggest Senior Trump Aides Knew Jan. 6 Rally Could Get Chaotic

Text messages and interviews show that Stop the Steal leaders fooled the Capitol police and welcomed racists to increase their crowd sizes, while White House officials worked to both contain and appease them.

On Dec. 19, President Donald Trump blasted out a tweet to his 88 million followers, inviting supporters to Washington for a “wild” protest.

Earlier that week, one of his senior advisers had released a 36-page report alleging significant evidence of election fraud that could reverse Joe Biden’s victory. “A great report,” Trump wrote. “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

The tweet worked like a starter’s pistol, with two pro-Trump factions competing to take control of the “big protest.”

Sheesh. This “analysis” lacks context that SC has an open primary. It is clear that a sizable number of Dems showed up just to cast an early anti-Trump vote. It says nothing about the GOP base. Need to wait until we get to closed primaries before drawing a conclusion like this. https://t.co/qw45nNbZBd

— Patrick Murray (@PollsterPatrick) February 25, 2024

From Cliff Schecter on John Oliver’s Clarence Thomas offer:

Why conservative attacks on Trump and his GOP sycophants are the most cutting

The op-ed sections of various traditional media outlets have provided ample opportunity over the past few years for Donald Trump’s many detractors to vent their contempt and frustration. This is an opportunity to call out not only Trump’s heinous behavior but also the behavior of those who continue to pledge their support to him, in spite of—or because of—his actions. Based on the sheer amount of impassioned invective alone, there’s little doubt that Trump has proven to be the most polarizing figure in our nation’s political history.  

Most of that criticism has come from the left side of the political aisle. Adam Serwer’s essay in The Atlantic, aptly titled ”The Cruelty Is the Point,” described the malicious Trump mentality and its attraction for Trump’s supporter base as well as could be imagined. Charles Blow of The New York Times certainly deserves accolades for his tireless efforts in the wake of the 2016 election to contextualize, among other things, Trump’s appeal in terms of racism. And though it’s not clear whether she’d identify as left-leaning, Jane Mayer’s investigative work produced what is undoubtedly some of the best journalism about Trump. Obviously this list omits a lot of stellar writers whose political sensibilities, one way or another, have combined to form a durable and thorough evisceration of Trump and Trumpism.

But a discrete line of attack from certain conservatives, many of whom have styled themselves “Never Trumpers,” has also emerged as particularly acute over the past eight years. The writings of The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, The Atlantic’s David Frum and Tom Nichols, and certain pieces written by David French and even Robert Kagan have been unusually acute in conveying an almost-palpable indignation and outright disgust. And this is not just aimed at Trump but at their fellow conservatives who have so obsequiously debased themselves by adhering to him. 

Of course, liberals are outraged and disgusted by Trump as well. But there is a wounded betrayal infusing the critiques by these (some could be called “former”) conservatives that invigorates their rhetoric to levels that even the most ardent anti-Trump voices from the left can’t quite capture. Something that makes their feelings of disgust stand out with a peculiar, inscrutable resonance that liberals, by definition, lack to adequately express.

RELATED STORY: Police union endorses Trump despite his glorifying jailed Jan. 6 'hostages' who attacked officers

This phenomenon is important because it provides a unique reminder of just how far the Republican Party has fallen. To fully comprehend it, though, it’s helpful to try to imagine ourselves experiencing the events of the past eight years from the same vantage point as these now-disaffected Republicans. 

This is the point where many will remind us that these same Republicans (some of them former die-hard neo-cons who led the cheerleading for George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq War) are responsible for Trump’s ascension in the first place. That it also led to the descent of the GOP into its current putrescent, cadaverous state is the natural, inevitable outcome of their efforts. The only way to understand that is to imagine—as Democrats—what our reactions would be under similar circumstances. And putting it mildly, that is not easy.

First, you have to assume that for the better part of their waking political lives these folks—like Democrats—proceeded under the assumption that theirs was the “proper” course for the country, that their values were “good” values that ultimately portended a “good” result for the nation. They never, ever anticipated that someone possessed of such pervasive duplicity, outright fraudulence, and raw criminal mindset as Donald Trump could ever establish such complete, unquestionable domination of their party. They never anticipated that all of the racist dog-whistles their party relied upon for decades to muster their voters would suddenly be unleashed and openly normalized. They never foresaw that, facing the threat of demographic irrelevancy, their party and its leader would revert to openly embracing violent, murderous dictators and welcoming their meddling in our elections as an effort to preserve their political power. 

For Democrats to really appreciate the overwhelming degree of cognitive dissonance that clearly discomfits these “Never-Trumpers,” some analogies have to be drawn from an “alternate universe.” Imagine that instead of the morally upright, civic-minded fellow we all know, Barack Obama had spent the entirety of his life as a self-aggrandizing, misogynist blowhard with a long track record of corrupt business ventures, serial infidelity, and dependence on Russian financial largesse. Imagine him crudely projecting his own moral decrepitude on his opponent and eagerly allying himself with some of the most insidious and criminal personages in the country to attain the presidency. Imagine that instead of Michelle, Sasha, and Malia flanking him his offspring were the likes of Melania, Ivanka, Donald Jr., and Eric, for whom the only salient characteristics were grifting off their father’s existence. Imagine him eagerly and actively soliciting the assistance of our most ruthless strategic enemies to gain the presidency. 

Would Democrats enthusiastically elect such a person to represent them? Not very likely, but let’s just imagine they did. And in one of his first official acts as president, Obama proceeded to dispatch his openly racist underlings to implement a policy of child kidnapping toward undocumented immigrants and permanently separating them from their mothers and fathers. Imagine a long train of his own hand-picked officials resigning to write books decrying his absolute incompetence and sociopathic instability. Imagine him trying to condition military assistance to an erstwhile ally upon inventing political dirt on his presumed opponent in the next election. Meanwhile, imagine his fellow Democrats in Congress ignoring, then emulating his behavior. And they refused to criticize him and actively engaged themselves in performative, imitative acts, rubber-stamping his selection of political candidates. And all of those candidates invariably displayed the same corrupt tendencies before they went on to overwhelmingly lose in the next election.

Then imagine the world is stricken by the worst pandemic in a century, and rather than rallying to protect Americans, the Democratic president is more concerned with his own political viability. He and his closest advisers openly plan to leverage the pandemic against his political opposition, hiring quack physician advisers to ridicule the medical establishment and encourage the American people to eschew protecting themselves. All of this is being done, mind you, with the eager cooperation and praise of the Democratic Party and Democratic voters, many of whom begin to outdo themselves with public displays of obsequious sycophancy. During this interlude, nearly 1 million Americans die, a large number of those deaths stemming directly or indirectly from this president’s malevolent inaction.

Obviously at this point, any moral justification or excuses for such a hideous transformation affecting a political party would have long since evaporated. Which brings us back to reality, a reality that these “conservatives” appalled by Trump surely recognize: that Democrats would never, ever have allowed this to happen. Period.

But Republicans didn’t do that. In fact, they did the exact opposite, affirming and cementing their abandonment of all morality, all respect for the nation and its institutions, probably forever. Every action by Republicans since Trump lost in 2020 has revealed their party and almost all of its voters as swirling ever-downward in a nihilistic death spiral, from which there appears to be no return. Rather than acknowledge their gross, self-destructive miscalculation, they’ve simply doubled down like lemmings, eagerly chasing Trump as they rush toward the cliff’s edge.

And all during this time they’ve continuously excoriated—at times violently threatening—any Republican who refuses to go along with them. The storming of the Capitol by members of Trump’s voting base on Jan. 6 didn’t change their minds. Trump’s second impeachment didn’t change their minds. The serial lies about the election and Trump’s submergence beneath the weight of harsh criminal and civil liability didn’t change them, either.

The “Never-Trumpers” were, from the outset, operating under at least the assumption that their beliefs and goals were rooted in some semblance of civic responsibility, one which they—misguidedly or not—believed would serve the nation. Whether that belief was actually well-founded is or not is beside the point; the sad reality is that for them, there simply is no longer any place to go. As David French obliquely pointed out in his latest piece in The New York Times, their fellow Republicans really don’t want them. And Democrats don’t particularly need them, either. They have lost their tribe and realistically don’t seem to stand much chance of ever getting it back in their lifetimes. They could, of course, become Democrats (Jennifer Rubin said in 2020 she’s already one). That may just be a bridge too far for some of them, for whatever reasons.

But they still have a voice—an unusually strong one, because their acute sense of betrayal has put them in an uniquely shrewd position to bear witness to the self-destruction their party has wrought. Historically (in this country, at least), a political party must have some commonality of purpose, rooted in some actual benefit to the society that sustains it. When the whims of a single leader become the sole reason a party continues to exist, that party is no more than a cult, and when cults finally die they tend to collapse. This country has, however, never seen a political party abandon itself the way the modern Republican Party has abandoned itself to Trump, and there’s a chance that the cult will continue for some time even after Trump himself departs the stage.

But ultimately—maybe sooner, maybe later—it will implode. And after that happens, somebody (at least) has to be around to pick up the pieces, however ugly and painful a task that’s going to be.

RELATED STORY: Turns out the GOP does have a few ideas—and they're all terrible

Campaign Action

Johnson and Schumer spar over elusive solution to Friday’s shutdown cliff

Government funding talks devolved into public finger pointing Sunday evening, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accused House Republicans of needing to "sort themselves out" and Speaker Mike Johnson cited "new Democrat demands" for snagging endgame negotiations.

Top lawmakers and appropriators had hoped to unveil the text of a small spending package over the weekend, possibly alongside another short-term funding patch to buy more time for talks on fiscal 2024 bills, beyond the March 1 and March 8 shutdown deadlines. But any hope of reaching an agreement is now slipping into the week, risking a funding lapse at midnight on Friday for the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and others.

Schumer and Johnson, along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are expected to meet Tuesday with President Joe Biden to discuss government funding and stalled emergency money for Ukraine, Israel and other issues.

Schumer wrote in a letter to colleagues on Sunday that it is his "sincere hope" that Johnson "will step up to once again buck the extremists in his caucus and do the right thing."

"While we had hoped to have legislation ready this weekend that would give ample time for members to review the text, it is clear now that House Republicans need more time to sort themselves out," he said. "With the uncertainty of how the House will pass the appropriations bills and avoid a shutdown this week, I ask all Senators to keep their schedules flexible, so we can work to ensure a pointless and harmful lapse in funding doesn’t occur."

Johnson called Schumer's letter "counterproductive rhetoric," insisting that House Republicans continue to "work in good faith" and "hope to reach an outcome as soon as possible."

Many of the remaining sticking points "come from new Democrat demands that were not previously included in the Senate bills," Johnson said in a statement. "At a time of divided government, Senate Democrats are attempting at this late stage to spend on priorities that are farther left than what their chamber agreed upon."

In the run-up to the shutdown cliff, appropriations staff has been working around the clock in hopes of clinching a deal on some or all of the first four bills set to expire, including the Agriculture-FDA, Energy-Water, Military Construction-VA and Transportation-HUD measures.

Johnson is facing tremendous pressure from his right flank to secure policy wins across the bills on topics ranging from abortion to guns. During a conference call with Republicans on Friday night, he said he couldn't rule out the possibility of a partial government shutdown at week's end.

Negotiators in recent days have sparred over cuts to agriculture programs and limits on how USDA spends money, for example. Both sides have also warred over a policy rider that would ban mail delivery of abortion pills, a heated impasse over nutrition funding for low-income mothers and babies, as well as a pilot program proposed by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) that would restrict SNAP food aid purchases.

The timeline for any legislative action is exceedingly tight. The House, which has been expected to move first on any bills, won't be in session until Wednesday. The Senate, set to deal with impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, returns from recess on Monday.

Aside from funding regular government operations, congressional leaders continue to spar over foreign military aid. On the heels of his trip with several other Senate Democrats to Ukraine, Schumer challenged Johnson to visit the country "and witness what we witnessed, because I believe it is virtually impossible for anyone with decency and goodwill to turn their back on Ukraine if they saw the horrors of that war with their own eyes."

The Senate's national security supplemental, which would deliver tens of billions of dollars in emergency aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, would pass the House if Johnson allowed a vote, Schumer wrote. "Now is the time for action. Speaker Johnson cannot let politics or blind obeisance to Donald Trump get in the way."

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Posted in Uncategorized

Burning down the House: February has been an unmitigated disaster for Republicans

Ah… Watch out!

You might get what you’re after.

Cool babies.

Strange. But I’m not a stranger.

I’m an ordinary guy.

Burning down the house. —Talking Heads. "Burning Down the House." 1983

David Byrne’s hypnotic, octave plunge between the lyrics "watch" and "out" is a sonic caveat.

THE SPEAKER’S LOBBY: WANTS AND NEEDS, AND THE LOOMING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF BIDEN'S BORDER CHIEF

Those are the very first lines of the Talking Heads ‘80s anthem "Burning Down the House." The listener is forewarned. A tumultuous musical adventure lies ahead. The pending libretto is gnarly gibberish. Words which fit together — but don’t make any sense. A near homage to "I Am the Walrus" by the Beatles.

Like Byrne’s lyrics, what’s going on these days in the U.S. House of Representatives, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Watch out. The House is seemingly out of control right now. Political arsonists are striking matches and pouring gasoline all over the place.

Republicans hold the majority. But they’ve been burning down their own House.

"Things have not been functioning well at all and that needs to change," beseeched Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn.

Chaos grips the House.

That’s saying something, considering this is an institution which practically mastered dysfunction.

"We can’t get anything done," lamented Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.

Lawmakers are exasperated.

"My Republican friends are barely hanging onto this majority by their fingernails," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.

My house…

Is out of the ordinary.

That’s right.

Don’t want to hurt nobody.

SENATE VOTED IN FAVOR OF $95 BILLION INTERNATIONAL SPENDING BILL, THERE MAY BE ANOTHER AROUND THE CORNER

House Republicans have blocked their own bills — drawn up with the blessing of GOP leaders — from hitting the House floor a staggering six times in the past eight months. The House usually requires the lawmakers approve a "rule" to allocate debate time and dictate whether amendments are in order. Only then can legislation come to the floor. 

The majority usually votes yes, greenlighting the debate. The minority customarily opposes the rule. But Republicans have torched their own rule six times. That’s a startling figure. Previous majorities only defeated two rules in the previous 23 years.

Republicans have struggled for 13 months now with their narrow majority. It started with the 15-round Speaker’s race in January of last year — an exercise not witnessed since 1858.

"We only had a two-vote margin at the end (of our majority)," said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

But Pelosi could empathize with the contemporary struggles of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

"I don’t think people understand how hard it is," said Pelosi "Respect members on both sides of the aisle. Build consensus. Prioritize your issues. Don’t put people out on a limb on things that aren’t important."

T. S. Eliot wrote that "April is the cruelest month" in his seminal poem, "The Waste Land."

Back on Capitol Hill, Johnson, might argue with Elliot about the brutality of April.

February has been an unmitigated disaster for House Republicans. More things have gone wrong for the GOP than points scored in the NBA All-Star Game.

To wit:

Republicans torched two of their own "rules." They failed during their first attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — before impeaching him by just a solitary vote after the GOP took a mulligan. Johnson even put a bill on the floor to aid Israel — which promptly failed. That was an unforced error. Conventional wisdom is that Johnson shouldn’t have pressed on the Israel bill — especially since the defeat came moments after the failed impeachment vote. And Republicans even saw their meager majority dwindle even further. 

Former Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. won a special election in New York to succeed expelled Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. The GOP majority will shrink from 219 Republicans to 213 Democrats when the House swears-in Suozzi on Wednesday. That means Johnson can only lose two votes on any given roll call and still pass a measure — sans Democratic assistance.

On the morning after Suozzi’s victory, Ryan Schmelz of Fox News Radio asked Johnson how he’d "handle a narrow majority."

"Just as we do every day. We just do a lot of member discussion," replied Johnson.

It’s about the math. But how they’ve done things "every day" hasn’t provided a victory.

This is why some Republicans are taking aim at Johnson. They’ve regretted the House ditching former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. That’s why McCarthy allies are particularly infuriated at how bad things have been in the House of late.

"Whatever the cards were for McCarthy are the same cards that are being dealt to Speaker Johnson," said Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla. "All it did was take a crowbar to it and make it worse."

Some Republicans criticized the leadership for indecision and making late play calls.

"They’ve got to start thinking strategically over the long-term. Not just what’s in front of us," said Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.

Some lawmakers are certainly making long-term strategic decisions. They’re getting out.

So far, five committee chairs have announced their retirements: Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger, R-Tex., Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., special China committee Chairman Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn.

Green said he wouldn’t seek re-election shortly after the House impeached Mayorkas. Green will serve as the lead impeachment manager (or prosecutor) as the House presents its case to the Senate. Green saw that as an opportunity to go out on top.

"My point being, you go out for the win, right? And I’ve accomplished what I wanted to do," said Green.

A recent poll by Monmouth University found that only 17 percent of people surveyed approve of the job Congress is doing. But not everyone believes political paralysis is bad.

"Let me just tell you something about the people I represent," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex. "They don't want this body to keep passing more laws and spending more money for the sake of it."

This is the "burning down the House" problem which bedevils lawmakers. Especially as two government funding deadlines loom.

We talked about February and April earlier. So expect March to enter like a lion.

As David Byrne sang, some conservatives are "fighting fire with fire." And they’re not getting what they’re after, either.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

So not only burning down the House. But perhaps shutting down the government, too.

Tim Scott rips ‘two-tiered standard’ between treatment of Trump, Biden on border executive action: video

FIRST ON FOX — Republican South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott slammed what he called a "two-tiered standard" concerning President Biden mulling executive action to handle the border crisis, and how former President Trump was treated during his presidency when he attempted to do the same thing.

"Well, there's no question that there's a two-tiered standard in our national media. The way they cover President Trump versus the way that they use kid gloves to cover Joe Biden. There's no question about that," Scott said during a Thursday interview with Fox News Digital when asked about reports that Biden is weighing executive action to crack down on asylum-seeking.

"More important, however, is that when we had President Trump in office, we actually had a basically sealed southern border. Crossings were around a thousand a day. Under President Biden in December, we had 10,000 crossings on average per day," he added. "That contrast should be what the media is covering."

TRUMP VP AUDITIONS: SCOTT RAMASWAMY HIT TRAIL IN SOUTH CAROLINA ON BEHALF OF FORMER PRESIDENT

An administration source told Fox earlier this week that Biden is considering executive action to restrict the ability of migrants to claim asylum amid historic numbers of border crossings facing the country, but that it’s one of "several" plans being looked at.

An administration official also stressed that there have been no final decisions on what actions, if any, could be taken and that exploring policy options does not mean they will come to pass.

One of the options reportedly on the table is use of 212(f) of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the president to restrict certain categories of foreigners who are deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Trump attempted to use it but was blocked by a federal court, a ruling later upheld by the Supreme Court.

HISPANIC HOUSE DEMS ACCUSE BIDEN OF LEAVING THEM IN DARK ON POSSIBLE EXECUTIVE ACTION AT BORDER

The former president also faced sharp criticism from Democrats and members of the liberal media for attempting to use executive action on immigration, including being called "xenophobic" and "racist."

Biden has yet to face the same widespread level of criticism, although some of the more progressive Democrats have lashed out at the idea of Biden reverting to the previous administration's approach.

"Democrats CANNOT solve immigration problems by adopting Trump-like policies," Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., wrote in a post on X, while Rep. Jesús García, D-Ill., claimed, "President Biden would be making a grave mistake if he moves forward with this policy."

DEMOCRAT IN CRUCIAL SENATE RACE UNDER FIRE FOR PAST AMNESTY, SANCTUARY CITY ‘SUPPORT’ AS BORDER CRISIS SPIRALS

The possible executive action by Biden comes just under two weeks after the House of Representatives narrowly voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the border crisis.

During a gaggle with reporters after casting his vote in the South Carolina primary earlier in the day, Scott told Fox that he "certainly" supported Mayorkas' impeachment, and he praised the House for having the "courage" to take such action. However, he admitted the task likely wouldn't go anywhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

"The best way to eliminate Mayorkas being the secretary is to actually fire Joe Biden," he said. "If we really want to change the trajectory of the country as it relates to immigration — illegal immigration — we have to do so by having someone, a commander-in-chief, who respects our borders, who wants to close our borders."

Fox News' Adam Shaw and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.