ReportWire

Tag: Impeachment

  • Bill and Hillary Clinton face House showdown over Epstein ties

    [ad_1]

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein filesDuring his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.“It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.“Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”Bill Clinton’s ties to EpsteinBy last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercelyAs each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.“We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.Conservative attacks on the ClintonsThe Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.“Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.Still, some dynamics have changed.The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.“It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    WASHINGTON —

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.

    For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.

    The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.

    Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein files

    During his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

    For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.

    “It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.

    “Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”

    Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein

    By last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.

    Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.

    The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.

    The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.

    Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”

    The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercely

    As each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.

    Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.

    Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.

    That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.

    “We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.

    Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.

    One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.

    Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

    Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.

    Conservative attacks on the Clintons

    The Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.

    “Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.

    Still, some dynamics have changed.

    The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.

    He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”

    Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.

    “It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill and Hillary Clinton face House showdown over Epstein ties

    [ad_1]

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein filesDuring his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.“It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.“Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”Bill Clinton’s ties to EpsteinBy last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercelyAs each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.“We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.Conservative attacks on the ClintonsThe Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.“Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.Still, some dynamics have changed.The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.“It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    WASHINGTON —

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.

    For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.

    The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.

    Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein files

    During his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

    For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.

    “It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.

    “Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”

    Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein

    By last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.

    Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.

    The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.

    The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.

    Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”

    The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercely

    As each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.

    Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.

    Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.

    That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.

    “We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.

    Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.

    One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.

    Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

    Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.

    Conservative attacks on the Clintons

    The Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.

    “Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.

    Still, some dynamics have changed.

    The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.

    He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”

    Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.

    “It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly filing articles of impeachment for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem

    [ad_1]

    Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly announced plans to file articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday. 

    Kelly made the announcement after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis Wednesday morning. Kelly was also vocally opposed to the federal immigration operations in Chicago dubbed Operation Midway Blitz, which also involved two shootings by ICE and Customs and Border Patrol agents, one of which was fatal. 

    Kelly released a statement on Wednesday night, saying, “I’ve had enough.” 

    “[Noem] has turned ICE into a rogue force, violating the Constitution, tearing families apart, and leaving death in her wake,”  she wrote in part. “From Chicago to Minneapolis, her recklessness cost lives, including Renee Nicole Good. This isn’t just dangerous—it’s impeachable. I’m fighting back.”  

    Speaking to CBS News Chicago Thursday morning, Kelly called the shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis “murder” and said she is ready to take action. 

    “We just can’t sit back, we just can’t sit on the sidelines,” Kelly said. 



    Congresswoman Robin Kelly to file articles of impeachment against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem

    04:15

    Kelly said she will file three articles against Noem; one saying she willfully obstructed congressional oversight and withheld appropriate funds in violation of her constitutional law, a second accusing Noem of compromising the due process of U.S. citizens and directing unconstitutional actions, and a third alleging Noem abused her office for personal benefit and steered federal dollars to associates. 

    Kelly said her team has been working on this action since last year and they are ready to go ahead with the filing on Thursday, despite Republicans holding a majority in the House. The effort isn’t expected to succeed; even if the impeachment is approved on the House floor with a Republican majority, it would then go to the Senate where it would likely be dead on arrival, similar to the impeachment of then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024. The Senate quickly rejected the charges against Mayorkas, ending a months-long effort by Republicans to punish him for his policies on the southern U.S. border. 

    Lawmakers in Illinois and Minnesota swiftly condemned Wednesday’s shooting, with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey both calling for federal agents to leave the Twin Cities and the state immediately.

    “To Donald Trump and Kristi Noem: You’ve done enough,” Walz said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon. “There is nothing more important than Minnesotans’ safety.”

    Frey called the narrative DHS put forth in the immediate wake of the shooting “bull***t” and put his request for agents to leave even more bluntly than Gov. Walz.

    “Get the f*** out of Minneapolis,” he said.

    Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a statement in solidarity with Minneapolis, and invoked the fatal shooting of 38-year-old undocumented father Silvero Villegas-Gonzalez in Franklin Park last fall.

    “Under very similar conditions, in his car, right after dropping his children off at school. And just as they tried to do today in Minnesota, the Trump administration lied about what happened and spewed misinformation in an attempt to distort the public’s understanding,” Johnson said. “The point of this operation of ICE raids and of this President’s rhetoric is to divide us and to dehumanize our neighbors. Do not let them change the part of your soul that sees a fellow human being when you look at your neighbor.” 

    In the immediately aftermath of the shooting, Noem and DHS claimed the agent shot Good in self-defense, accusing her of domestic terrorism. DHS deployed similar narratives against Villegas-Gonzalez and 31-year-old Marimar Martinez, who was shot by CBP agents after blocking their cars in Brighton Park last fall. Federal prosecutors even secured a grand jury indictment against Martinez for attempting to kill a federal agent before dropping the charges a few weeks later. 

    CBS News Chicago reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment, which responded with the following statement: “How silly during a serious time. As ICE officers are facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them, Rep. Kelly is more focused on showmanship and fundraising clicks than actually cleaning up her crime-ridden Chicago district. We hope she would get serious about doing her job to protect American people, which is what this Department is doing under Secretary Noem.”

    WCCO Staff and

    Nikole Killion

    contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Sara Tenenbaum

    Source link

  • Eye Opener at 8: House passes war powers resolution

    [ad_1]


    Eye Opener at 8: House passes war powers resolution – CBS News









































    Watch CBS News



    A look back at what we’ve been covering on “CBS This Morning.”

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Judge convicted of obstructing immigrant arrest resigns as GOP threatens impeachment

    [ad_1]

    Embattled Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted of obstruction last month for helping an immigrant evade federal officers, has sent her resignation letter to the governor.

    The letter was sent Saturday. Republicans had been making plans to impeach her ever since her Dec. 19 conviction. A spokesperson for Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, said his office received Dugan’s letter, and he would work to fill the vacancy without delay.

    Dugan wrote that over the past decade she handled thousands of cases with “a commitment to treat all persons with dignity and respect, to act justly, deliberately and consistently, and to maintain a courtroom with the decorum and safety the public deserves.”

    But she said the case against her is too big of a distraction.

    “As you know, I am the subject of unprecedented federal legal proceedings, which are far from concluded but which present immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary. I am pursuing this fight for myself and for our independent judiciary,” Dugan said in her letter.

    Last April, federal prosecutors accused Dugan of distracting federal officers trying to arrest a Mexican immigrant outside her courtroom and leading the man out through a private door. A federal jury convicted her of felony obstruction.

    The case against Dugan was highlighted by President Donald Trump as he pressed ahead with his sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats insisted the administration was trying to make an example of Dugan to blunt judicial opposition to the operation.

    Republican Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos praised Dugan’s decision.

    “I’m glad Dugan did the right thing by resigning and followed the clear direction from the Wisconsin Constitution,” Vos said.

    Democrat Ann Jacobs, who is chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission board, said she agreed with Dugan that Milwaukee should have a permanent judge in place while this fight plays out.

    “Despite her situation, she is ever the champion of justice, wanting to remove the judiciary from a political battle over her fate. I’m sure this is terribly hard for her but she is true to her faith and her principles,” Jacobs said in a post on X.

    On April 18, immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse after learning 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz had reentered the country illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a hearing in a state battery case.

    Dugan confronted agents outside her courtroom and directed them to the office of her boss, Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley, because she told them their administrative warrant wasn’t sufficient grounds to arrest Flores-Ruiz.

    After the agents left, she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a private jury door. Agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, followed him outside and arrested him after a foot chase. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in November he had been deported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. Stevens moves to impeach RFK Jr. for ‘putting lives at risk,’ spreading conspiracies – Detroit Metro Times

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, who is running for an open Senate seat in Michigan, introduced articles of impeachment Tuesday against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., accusing him of endangering public health, dismantling scientific institutions, and slashing critical medical research.

    Stevens, a fourth-term moderate Democrat who represents portions of Oakland County, said Kennedy has “turned his back on science, on public health, and on the American people – spreading conspiracies and lies, driving up costs, and putting lives at risk.” 

    “Under his watch, families are less safe and less healthy, people are paying more for care, lifesaving research has been gutted, and vaccines have been restricted,” she said. “He has driven up health care costs while tearing down the scientific institutions that keep Michiganders and families across America safe. His actions are reckless, his leadership is harmful, and his tenure has become a direct threat to our nation’s health and security. Congress cannot and will not stand by while one man dismantles decades of medical progress.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Credit: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    The articles charge Kennedy with “abuse of authority and undermining public health,” pointing to deep cuts to cancer and childhood-cancer research, studies into sudden infant death syndrome and addiction, and the elimination of mRNA and vaccine-hesitancy studies. Stevens also accuses Kennedy of restricting access to vaccines, withdrawing federal recommendations for COVID shots for pregnant women and healthy children, and pushing “wild and unfounded claims” to limit access to Tylenol.

    But the impeachment effort is likely to fail because Republicans control the U.S. House. 

    Stand Up for Science, a group that supports stronger scientific standards in government, has backed Stevens and said it’s “ready ready to hold Secretary Kennedy accountable.”

    “RFK Jr.’s actions are negligent and will result in harm and loss of life. He must be impeached and removed,” Colette Delawalla, the organization’s founder and CEO, said. “As a scientist and a mother, I am not willing to go back to a time before robust public health interventions. For the first time in human history, we progressed from 30% of babies not making it to adulthood to over 98% surviving to adulthood because of modern medicine and vaccines. Eliminating effective public health interventions with proven track records and dismantling evidence-based science is not the way to promote health and reduce chronic illness.”

    The articles also accuse Kennedy of mismanaging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by firing the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, calling the FDA a “sock puppet” agency, and overseeing staffing shortages that slowed the agency’s work. Stevens says Kennedy ended public comment for federal rulemaking, which public health and transparency advocates widely oppose.

    Stevens previously called for Kennedy’s resignation and introduced legislation to reverse some of the research cuts. Her impeachment push comes as she campaigns for the seat currently held by U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who is retiring.

    In June, Stevens introduced a bill to prevent President Donald Trump from unilaterally deploying active-duty military forces within the United States without approval from state or territorial leaders.

    Another member of Congress from Michigan, Shri Thanedar, D-Detroit, introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing the former Fox News host of Hegseth “murder and conspiracy to murder” for authorizing deadly strikes against boats allegedly carrying narcotics in international waters. 

    Thanedar also introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump, including allegations of corruption, freedom of speech violations, obstruction of justice, unlawfully gutting government agencies, and more.


    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Milei’s Overhaul of Argentina Has Another Problem: He Isn’t Great at Politics

    [ad_1]

    Argentine President Javier Milei’s problem heading into midterm elections Sunday isn’t just the pain caused by his radical free-market experiment. It is that, for all the force of his personality, he hasn’t mastered the art of politics.

    Milei has alienated so many important allies that, even though his Freedom Advances party is set to double its share of congressional seats, he might not win a big-enough coalition to govern, protect his veto or avoid impeachment.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Ryan Dubé

    Source link

  • A walk through a Smithsonian museum reveals American genius and cruelty as Trump presses for change

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — In an afternoon’s walk through ground zero of Americana — the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History — objects around every corner invite one question: What could possibly be more American than this?

    What could be more American than that enormous Star-Spangled Banner in all its timeworn glory? Or more American than Dorothy’s ruby slippers from “The Wizard of Oz”?

    And what could be more American than a reckoning with the nation’s sins, as illustrated by shackles representing slavery and photos of Japanese Americans confined to detention camps in World War II? It’s in authoritarian countries, like Russia, where history is scrubbed.

    In myriad ways, the museum explores “the complexity of our past,” in accord with its mission statement. President Donald Trump wants a simpler tale told. He wants this and the other Smithsonian museums to mirror American pride, power and achievement without all the darkness, and he threatens to hold back money if they don’t get with that program.

    On social media, Trump complained that at the Smithsonian museums, which are free to visit and get most of their money from the government, “everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.”

    In fact, the history museum reflects bountiful successes, whether on the battlefield, from the kitchens and factories of food pioneers, on the musical stage, in the movies or on other fronts of creativity and industriousness. The American Enterprise exhibit, for one, has a wall filled with the stories of successful Americans.

    On this wandering tour you can see navigational implements used by Blackbeard, the terrifying pirate, from his early 1700s raids on the Atlantic coast. You see the hat Abraham Lincoln wore to Ford’s Theatre the night of his assassination, George Washington’s ceremonial uniform, Warren Harding’s fine red silk pajamas from the early 1900s, the first car to travel across the country, and a $100,000 bill.

    You can see the original light bulbs of the American genius, Thomas Edison. A much earlier genius, the founding father Benjamin Franklin, is presented both as a gifted inventor and a slave owner who publicly came to denounce slavery yet never freed his own.

    Those nuances and ambiguities may not be long for this world. Still on display at the history museum are artifacts and documents of American ingenuity, subjugation, generosity, racism, grit, cruelty, verve, playfulness, corruption, heroism, and cultural appropriation.

    Like most museums, the focus is not on the future.

    Even so, there is plenty to provoke the Republican president.

    In the “Great Debate” of an American democracy exhibition, a wall is emblazoned with large words such as “Privilege” and “Slavery.” The museum presents fulsome tributes to the contributions of immigrants and narratives about the racist landscape that many encountered.

    Exhibits address “food justice,” the exploitation of Filipinos after the United States annexed their land and the network of oppressive Native American boarding schools from which Jim Thorpe emerged and became one of the greatest athletes of all time.

    Hawaii’s last sovereign before its annexation by the U..S. in the 1890s, Queen Lili‘uokalani, is quoted on a banner as asking: “Is the AMERICAN REPUBLIC of STATES to DEGENERATE and become a COLONIZER?”

    A ukulele on display was made around 1890 by a sugar laborer who worked on the kingdom’s American plantations before a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the monarchy. Museum visitors are told the new instrument was held up by the monarchs as a symbol of anti-colonial independence.

    “Ukuleles are both a product of U.S. imperialism and a potent symbol of Native Hawaiian resistance,” says the accompanying text.

    At the Greek-godlike statue of George Washington, the text hints at his complexities and stops short of the total reverence that totalitarian leaders get.

    Noting that “modern scholarship focuses on the fallible man rather than the marble hero,” the text says Washington’s image “is still used for inspiration, patriotism and commercial gain” and that “he continues to hold a place for many as a symbolic ‘father’ of the country.”

    On this visit, conservators behind a big window are seen sweeping tiny brushes on ancient wooden pieces. Their patriotic work proceeds at a snail’s pace.

    The team is restoring the gunboat Philadelphia, part of a small fleet that engaged the British navy at the Battle of Valcour Island in Lake Champlain in 1776, delaying Britain’s effort to cut off the New England colonies and buying time for the Continental Army to prepare for its decisive victory at Saratoga.

    The commander of the gunboats in the Valcour battle later became America’s greatest traitor, Benedict Arnold. The British damaged the Philadelphia so badly it sank an hour after the battle, then lay underwater for 160 years. It’s being restored for next year’s celebrations of America’s 250th year.

    “The Philadelphia is a symbol of how citizens of a newly formed nation came together, despite overwhelming odds against their success,” said Jennifer Jones, the project’s director. “This boat’s fragile condition is symbolic of our democracy; it requires the nation’s attention and vigilance to preserve it for future generations.”

    Democracy’s fragility is considered in a section of the museum about the limits of presidential power. That’s where references to Trump’s two impeachments were removed in July for updating, and were restored this month.

    “On December 18, 2019, the House impeached Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” one label now states. “On January 13, 2021, Donald Trump became the first president to be impeached twice,” says another. “The charge was incitement of insurrection based on his challenge of the 2020 election results and on his speech on January 6.” His Senate acquittals are duly noted.

    It’s a just-the-facts take on a matter that has driven the country so deeply apart. The history museum doesn’t offer answers for that predicament. Instead, it asks questions throughout its halls on the fundamentals of Americanism.

    “How should Americans remember their Revolution and the founding of the nation?”

    “What does patriotism look like?”

    “How diverse should the citizenry be?”

    “Do we need to share a common national story?”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Lynn Berry contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 1 of last GOP congressmen who voted to impeach Trump advances in Washington’s US House race

    1 of last GOP congressmen who voted to impeach Trump advances in Washington’s US House race

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE (AP) — One of the last remaining U.S. House Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump and a candidate endorsed by the former president have advanced in Tuesday’s primary to the general election in Washington state’s 4th Congressional District.

    U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse is seeking a sixth term in the conservative Washington district that runs from the Canadian border to the Columbia River. He will face Republican Jerrod Sessler, a Navy veteran and former NASCAR driver, in November.

    This was a rematch for the pair from 2022, when Sessler earned a distant fourth in the primary. This time, Sessler said things have gone his way. He was endorsed by the Washington State Republican Party and nabbed Trump’s backing early on, which he called a “game changer.” He said he communicates regularly with Trump’s team, referencing a text he said he received from the GOP presidential candidate this year saying, “The country is counting on you.”

    “In ninety days, this district is going to vote overwhelmingly for President Trump,” Sessler said in a statement. “I will work hard to make sure we also elect a member of Congress who will be his greatest ally in our fight to enact a pro-Constitution, pro-MAGA agenda and heal our nation from the disaster of the Biden-Harris administration.”

    Newhouse has mostly steered clear of the subject of Trump. The third-generation farmer has instead focused on agriculture and border security in a state with millions of acres of pastures, orchards and cereal grain lands where immigrant labor is extremely important.

    In the lead-up to the primary, Newhouse’s opponents repeatedly touted his vote to impeach Trump as a huge liability. But political experts have cautioned that it’s difficult to say whether the endorsement will sway voters who already stuck with Newhouse two years ago.

    Newhouse and U.S. Rep. David Valadao, of California, are the only Republican Congressional lawmakers left among the 10 who voted to impeach Trump in 2021. Others retired or were defeated by Trump-endorsed primary challengers.

    As of July 17, Newhouse, who was endorsed by the NRA and the National Right to Life, had raised $1.6 million – far more than the $409,000 raised by Sessler.

    They prevailed over Tiffany Smiley, a former nurse who entered the race after losing to U.S. Sen. Patty Murray two years ago. She received a backing from Trump just three days before the primary, marking a unique, though not unprecedented, dual endorsement by the former president. But the backing for Smiley likely came too late to impact many voters in the vote-by-mail state.

    Under the state’s primary system, the top two vote-getters in each of the contests advance to the November election, regardless of party.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 4/17: CBS Evening News

    4/17: CBS Evening News

    [ad_1]

    4/17: CBS Evening News – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Justice Department nears settlement with Larry Nassar victims; Caitlin Clark’s salary highlights pay disparity between NBA and WNBA

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate will convene the Mayorkas impeachment trial as Democrats plot a quick dismissal

    Senate will convene the Mayorkas impeachment trial as Democrats plot a quick dismissal

    [ad_1]

    Senate Democrats could end the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday before arguments even begin.Video above: GOP lawmakers hold presser after Mayorkas impeachment articles sent to SenateSenate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is expected to call votes to dismiss two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas after senators are sworn in as jurors midday, a move that could scuttle the trial and frustrate Republicans who have demanded that House prosecutors be able to make their case. Democrats appear to be united in opposition to moving forward.Mayorkas said Wednesday that he’s focused on his work running the massive department.”As they work on impeachment, I work on advancing the mission of the Department of Homeland Security. That’s what I’ve done throughout this process,” he said during an appearance on CBS’ “CBS Mornings” show to discuss the department’s new campaign to help children stay safe online.The House narrowly voted in February to impeach Mayorkas for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, arguing in the two articles that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce immigration laws. House impeachment managers appointed by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., delivered the charges to the Senate on Tuesday, standing in the well of the Senate and reading them aloud to a captive audience of senators.The entire process could be done within hours on Wednesday. Majority Democrats have said the GOP case against Mayorkas doesn’t rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” laid out as a bar for impeachment in the Constitution, and Schumer probably has enough votes to end the trial immediately if he decides to do so.Schumer has said he wants to “address this issue as expeditiously as possible.”“Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement,” Schumer said. “That would set a horrible precedent for the Congress.”Video below: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell urges Democrats not to dismiss Mayorkas’ impeachment caseAs Johnson signed the articles Monday in preparation for sending them across the Capitol, he said Schumer should convene a trial to “hold those who engineered this crisis to full account.”Schumer “is the only impediment to delivering accountability for the American people,” Johnson said. “Pursuant to the Constitution, the House demands a trial.”Once the senators are sworn in on Wednesday, the chamber will turn into the court of impeachment, with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington presiding. Murray is the president pro tempore of the Senate, or the senior-most member of the majority party who sits in for the vice president.Exactly how Democrats will proceed on Wednesday is still unclear. Impeachment rules generally allow the Senate majority to decide how to manage the trial, and Schumer has not said exactly what he will do.Senate Republicans are likely to try to raise a series of objections if Schumer calls votes to dismiss or table. But ultimately they cannot block a dismissal if majority Democrats have the votes.In any case, Republicans would not be able to win the support of the two-thirds of the Senate that is needed to convict and remove Mayorkas from office — Democrats control the Senate, 51-49, and they appear to be united against the impeachment effort. Not one House Democrat supported it, either.While most Republicans oppose quick dismissal, some have hinted they could vote with Democrats.Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said last week he wasn’t sure what he would do if there were a move to dismiss the trial. “I think it’s virtually certain that there will not be the conviction of someone when the constitutional test has not been met,” he said.At the same time, Romney said he wants to at least express his view that “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the president and has not met the constitutional test of a high crime or misdemeanor.”The two articles argue that Mayorkas not only refused to enforce existing law but also breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure. The House vote was the first time in nearly 150 years that a Cabinet secretary was impeached.Since then, Johnson has delayed sending the articles to the Senate for weeks while both chambers finished work on government funding legislation and took a two-week recess. Johnson had said he would send them to the Senate last week, but he punted again after Senate Republicans said they wanted more time to prepare.House impeachment managers previewed some of their arguments at a hearing with Mayorkas on Tuesday morning about President Joe Biden’s budget request for the department.Tennessee Rep. Mark Green, the chairman of the House Homeland Security panel, told the secretary that he has a duty under the law to control and guard U.S. borders, and “during your three years as secretary, you have failed to fulfill this oath. You have refused to comply with the laws passed by Congress, and you have breached the public trust.”Mayorkas defended the department’s efforts but said the nation’s immigration system is “fundamentally broken, and only Congress can fix it.”Other impeachment managers are Michael McCaul of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ben Cline of Virginia, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Michael Guest of Mississippi, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Laurel Lee of Florida, August Plfuger of Texas and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.At a news conference with a group of Republican senators after the articles were delivered, the impeachment managers demanded that Schumer move forward with their case.“The voice of the people is very clear,” said McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Secure the border and impeach this man, this criminal.”If Democrats are unable to dismiss or table the articles, they could follow the precedent of several impeachment trials for federal judges over the last century and hold a vote to create a trial committee that would investigate the charges. While there is sufficient precedent for this approach, Democrats may prefer to end the process completely, especially in a presidential election year when immigration and border security are top issues.If the Senate were to proceed to an impeachment trial, it would be the third in five years. Democrats impeached President Donald Trump twice, once over his dealings with Ukraine and a second time in the days after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times.At a trial, senators would be forced to sit in their seats for the duration, maybe weeks, while the House impeachment managers and lawyers representing Mayorkas make their cases. The Senate is allowed to call witnesses, as well, if it so decides, and it can ask questions of both sides after the opening arguments are finished.

    WASHINGTON —

    Senate Democrats could end the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday before arguments even begin.

    Video above: GOP lawmakers hold presser after Mayorkas impeachment articles sent to Senate

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is expected to call votes to dismiss two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas after senators are sworn in as jurors midday, a move that could scuttle the trial and frustrate Republicans who have demanded that House prosecutors be able to make their case. Democrats appear to be united in opposition to moving forward.

    Mayorkas said Wednesday that he’s focused on his work running the massive department.

    “As they work on impeachment, I work on advancing the mission of the Department of Homeland Security. That’s what I’ve done throughout this process,” he said during an appearance on CBS’ “CBS Mornings” show to discuss the department’s new campaign to help children stay safe online.

    The House narrowly voted in February to impeach Mayorkas for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, arguing in the two articles that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce immigration laws. House impeachment managers appointed by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., delivered the charges to the Senate on Tuesday, standing in the well of the Senate and reading them aloud to a captive audience of senators.

    The entire process could be done within hours on Wednesday. Majority Democrats have said the GOP case against Mayorkas doesn’t rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” laid out as a bar for impeachment in the Constitution, and Schumer probably has enough votes to end the trial immediately if he decides to do so.

    Schumer has said he wants to “address this issue as expeditiously as possible.”

    “Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement,” Schumer said. “That would set a horrible precedent for the Congress.”

    Video below: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell urges Democrats not to dismiss Mayorkas’ impeachment case

    As Johnson signed the articles Monday in preparation for sending them across the Capitol, he said Schumer should convene a trial to “hold those who engineered this crisis to full account.”

    Schumer “is the only impediment to delivering accountability for the American people,” Johnson said. “Pursuant to the Constitution, the House demands a trial.”

    Once the senators are sworn in on Wednesday, the chamber will turn into the court of impeachment, with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington presiding. Murray is the president pro tempore of the Senate, or the senior-most member of the majority party who sits in for the vice president.

    Exactly how Democrats will proceed on Wednesday is still unclear. Impeachment rules generally allow the Senate majority to decide how to manage the trial, and Schumer has not said exactly what he will do.

    Senate Republicans are likely to try to raise a series of objections if Schumer calls votes to dismiss or table. But ultimately they cannot block a dismissal if majority Democrats have the votes.

    In any case, Republicans would not be able to win the support of the two-thirds of the Senate that is needed to convict and remove Mayorkas from office — Democrats control the Senate, 51-49, and they appear to be united against the impeachment effort. Not one House Democrat supported it, either.

    While most Republicans oppose quick dismissal, some have hinted they could vote with Democrats.

    Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said last week he wasn’t sure what he would do if there were a move to dismiss the trial. “I think it’s virtually certain that there will not be the conviction of someone when the constitutional test has not been met,” he said.

    At the same time, Romney said he wants to at least express his view that “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the president and has not met the constitutional test of a high crime or misdemeanor.”

    The two articles argue that Mayorkas not only refused to enforce existing law but also breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure. The House vote was the first time in nearly 150 years that a Cabinet secretary was impeached.

    Since then, Johnson has delayed sending the articles to the Senate for weeks while both chambers finished work on government funding legislation and took a two-week recess. Johnson had said he would send them to the Senate last week, but he punted again after Senate Republicans said they wanted more time to prepare.

    House impeachment managers previewed some of their arguments at a hearing with Mayorkas on Tuesday morning about President Joe Biden’s budget request for the department.

    Tennessee Rep. Mark Green, the chairman of the House Homeland Security panel, told the secretary that he has a duty under the law to control and guard U.S. borders, and “during your three years as secretary, you have failed to fulfill this oath. You have refused to comply with the laws passed by Congress, and you have breached the public trust.”

    Mayorkas defended the department’s efforts but said the nation’s immigration system is “fundamentally broken, and only Congress can fix it.”

    Other impeachment managers are Michael McCaul of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ben Cline of Virginia, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Michael Guest of Mississippi, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Laurel Lee of Florida, August Plfuger of Texas and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

    At a news conference with a group of Republican senators after the articles were delivered, the impeachment managers demanded that Schumer move forward with their case.

    “The voice of the people is very clear,” said McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Secure the border and impeach this man, this criminal.”

    If Democrats are unable to dismiss or table the articles, they could follow the precedent of several impeachment trials for federal judges over the last century and hold a vote to create a trial committee that would investigate the charges. While there is sufficient precedent for this approach, Democrats may prefer to end the process completely, especially in a presidential election year when immigration and border security are top issues.

    If the Senate were to proceed to an impeachment trial, it would be the third in five years. Democrats impeached President Donald Trump twice, once over his dealings with Ukraine and a second time in the days after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times.

    At a trial, senators would be forced to sit in their seats for the duration, maybe weeks, while the House impeachment managers and lawyers representing Mayorkas make their cases. The Senate is allowed to call witnesses, as well, if it so decides, and it can ask questions of both sides after the opening arguments are finished.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House to delay sending Mayorkas impeachment articles to Senate

    House to delay sending Mayorkas impeachment articles to Senate

    [ad_1]

    Speaker Mike Johnson will delay sending the House’s articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate this week as previously planned after Republican senators requested more time Tuesday to build support for holding a full trial.The sudden change of plans cast fresh doubts on the proceedings, the historic first impeachment of a Cabinet secretary in roughly 150 years. Seeking to rebuke the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border, House Republicans impeached Mayorkas in February, but delayed sending the articles while they finished work on government funding legislation.Johnson had planned to send the impeachment charges to the Senate on Wednesday evening. But as it became clear that Democrats, who hold majority control of the chamber, had the votes to quickly dismiss them, Senate Republicans requested that Johnson delay until next week. They hoped the tactic would prolong the process.While Republicans have argued against a speedy dismissal of charges, most Senate Republicans did just that when Donald Trump, the former president, was impeached a second time on charges he incited an insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He was ultimately acquitted.“Our members want to have an opportunity not only to debate but also to have some votes on issues they want to raise,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the second-ranking Republican Senate leader. Under procedural rules, senators are required to convene as jurors the day after the articles of impeachment are transmitted for a trial.“There is no reason whatsoever for the Senate to abdicate its responsibility to hold an impeachment trial,” Johnson’s spokesman, Taylor Haulsee, said in a statement announcing the delay.Video below: Securing the southern border continues to be a challengeSenate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. D-N.Y., who has decried the impeachment push as a “sham,” suggested Democrats still plan to deal with the charges quickly.”We’re ready to go whenever they are. We are sticking with our plan. We’re going to move this as expeditiously as possible,” Schumer said.“Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements,” he told reporters earlier Tuesday.House Republicans charged in two articles of impeachment that Mayorkas has not only refused to enforce existing law but also breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure.Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the charges amount to a policy dispute, not the Constitution’s bar of high crimes and misdemeanors.“Ultimately, I think it’s virtually certain that there will not be the conviction of someone when the constitutional test has not been met,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.Romney said he was not sure how he would vote on the Senate’s process but wanted to at least express his view that “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the president and has not met the constitutional test of a high crime or misdemeanor.”Still, with elections approaching, Republicans want to force Congress to grapple with the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border as long as possible.“I think there are a lot of Democrats who really want to avoid the vote. I don’t blame them. I mean, this is the number one issue on the minds of Americans,” Thune said.Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is facing a tough reelection bid in Ohio, called the impeachment trial a “distraction” and pointed to Republican senators rejecting a bipartisan deal aimed at tamping down the number of illegal border crossings from Mexico.“Instead of doing this impeachment — the first one in 100 years — why are we not doing a bipartisan border deal?” Brown said.

    WASHINGTON —

    Speaker Mike Johnson will delay sending the House’s articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate this week as previously planned after Republican senators requested more time Tuesday to build support for holding a full trial.

    The sudden change of plans cast fresh doubts on the proceedings, the historic first impeachment of a Cabinet secretary in roughly 150 years. Seeking to rebuke the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border, House Republicans impeached Mayorkas in February, but delayed sending the articles while they finished work on government funding legislation.

    Johnson had planned to send the impeachment charges to the Senate on Wednesday evening. But as it became clear that Democrats, who hold majority control of the chamber, had the votes to quickly dismiss them, Senate Republicans requested that Johnson delay until next week. They hoped the tactic would prolong the process.

    While Republicans have argued against a speedy dismissal of charges, most Senate Republicans did just that when Donald Trump, the former president, was impeached a second time on charges he incited an insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He was ultimately acquitted.

    “Our members want to have an opportunity not only to debate but also to have some votes on issues they want to raise,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the second-ranking Republican Senate leader. Under procedural rules, senators are required to convene as jurors the day after the articles of impeachment are transmitted for a trial.

    “There is no reason whatsoever for the Senate to abdicate its responsibility to hold an impeachment trial,” Johnson’s spokesman, Taylor Haulsee, said in a statement announcing the delay.

    Video below: Securing the southern border continues to be a challenge

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. D-N.Y., who has decried the impeachment push as a “sham,” suggested Democrats still plan to deal with the charges quickly.

    “We’re ready to go whenever they are. We are sticking with our plan. We’re going to move this as expeditiously as possible,” Schumer said.

    “Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements,” he told reporters earlier Tuesday.

    House Republicans charged in two articles of impeachment that Mayorkas has not only refused to enforce existing law but also breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure.

    Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the charges amount to a policy dispute, not the Constitution’s bar of high crimes and misdemeanors.

    “Ultimately, I think it’s virtually certain that there will not be the conviction of someone when the constitutional test has not been met,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.

    Romney said he was not sure how he would vote on the Senate’s process but wanted to at least express his view that “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the president and has not met the constitutional test of a high crime or misdemeanor.”

    Still, with elections approaching, Republicans want to force Congress to grapple with the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border as long as possible.

    “I think there are a lot of Democrats who really want to avoid the vote. I don’t blame them. I mean, this is the number one issue on the minds of Americans,” Thune said.

    Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is facing a tough reelection bid in Ohio, called the impeachment trial a “distraction” and pointed to Republican senators rejecting a bipartisan deal aimed at tamping down the number of illegal border crossings from Mexico.

    “Instead of doing this impeachment — the first one in 100 years — why are we not doing a bipartisan border deal?” Brown said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans postpone sending Mayorkas impeachment articles to Senate

    House Republicans postpone sending Mayorkas impeachment articles to Senate

    [ad_1]

    Washington — House Republicans postponed sending the articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate until next week, amid concerns over the timing of an impeachment trial that Senate Democrats are expected to quickly move to dismiss.

    “To ensure the Senate has adequate time to perform its constitutional duty, the House will transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week,” a spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement.

    Johnson and the 11 impeachment managers penned a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer last month saying they would present the articles of impeachment to the upper chamber on Wednesday, April 10, urging the Senate leader to schedule a trial “expeditiously.” Senators were expected to be sworn in the next day, under Senate rules. But concerns about GOP attendance for what would likely be a late vote on Thursday seemed to give Republicans pause. 

    Schumer said Tuesday afternoon that “we’re going to try and resolve this issue as quickly as possible.” And With Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents controlling 51 seats in the Senate, they’re expected to vote to dismiss or delay the proceedings with a simple majority, if they can remain united. Any Republican absences would make it easier for Democrats to do so. 

    Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, told reporters that the impeachment articles were now set to be transmitted from the House next Monday. 

    “We don’t want this to come over on the eve of the moment when members might be operating under the influence of jet-fume intoxication,” Lee added at a news conference, saying it’s better for the Senate to take up the issue at the beginning of the week. 

    GOP Senate Whip John Thune told reporters Tuesday afternoon that if Republicans want to have the opportunity to have a “more fulsome discussion” once the articles come over from the House, “there are times when that could probably happen better than having it come over tomorrow night and then trying to deal with it Thursday afternoon.”

    Nikole Killion, Alejandro Alvarez contributed reporting. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP lays out next steps in impeachment probe after Hunter Biden testifies

    GOP lays out next steps in impeachment probe after Hunter Biden testifies

    [ad_1]

    GOP lays out next steps in impeachment probe after Hunter Biden testifies – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Hunter Biden testified Wednesday before two House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into his father. CBS News investigative reporter Erica Brown has the latest on where things stand.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP Rep. Gaetz Clashes With CNN’s Phillip Over Hunter Biden: ‘Do You Think They Were Paying Him To Figure Out Where To Go Buy Crack?’

    GOP Rep. Gaetz Clashes With CNN’s Phillip Over Hunter Biden: ‘Do You Think They Were Paying Him To Figure Out Where To Go Buy Crack?’

    [ad_1]

    Politics

    Screenshot/CNN

    House Republicans are attempting to impeach Joe Biden.

    Why? They believe there is enough evidence to suggest the president and his son Hunter Biden were accepting bribes or at least engaged in pay-to-play schemes with various countries, and in particular Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

    An impeachment inquiry source, Alexander Smirnov, was recently charged with making false statements to the FBI on the matter. Republicans had previously called Smirnov “highly credible” and said that his claims were “direct evidence of naked corruption and bribery.”

    This caused CNN host Abby Phillip to grill Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz over Smirnov and his credibility.

    And things got interesting.

    RELATED: Donald Trump Teases Tim Scott As Running Mate

    ‘If you want to bribe a 75-year-old man, you pay their kids’

    It was an exchange where Phillips appeared to think she had gotten Gaetz, but the congressman had some good – and undeniable – retorts.

    Mediate reports, “After grilling Gaetz about the arrest of impeachment inquiry source Alexander Smirnov, who was charged with making false statements to the FBI after claiming that the Ukrainian energy company Burisma had paid President Biden and his son Hunter Biden $5 million each, Phillip then played a compilation of Gaetz’s colleagues calling Smirnov ‘highly credible’ and his claims ‘direct evidence of naked corruption and bribery.’”

    “Asked whether the remarks from his colleagues had been ‘irresponsible,’ Gaetz replied, ‘A few of those characterizations might have been a little, a little over sauced, but I do think that the bribery can also go to a family member,” Mediaite noted.

    The story continued:

    He argued, “If you want to bribe a 75-year-old man, you pay their kids…”

    The CNN host then asked, “Given that, according to Jim Jordan, this was the most corroborating piece of evidence that they had, should they drop this impeachment?”

    Gaetz replied:

    I disagree with Jordan that this is what’s most corroborating. I think what’s most corroborating are the payments to Hunter Biden and Frank Biden and James Biden. I was deposing James Biden and the way that they took money from the Chinese government would make your skin crawl. Now, that’s admittedly James Biden, not Joe Biden, but I do believe when these foreign governments are loading up the entire Biden family apparatus with cash, they’re not doing so to extract some sort of skill or service from these ne’er-do-well Bidens, they doing it to influence Joe Biden.

    But it wasn’t this smackdown that got the attention of the ever-watching internet.

    RELATED: CBS Seizes Materials Of Fired Journalist Who Was Investigating Hunter Biden

    Why Was Burisma Paying Hunter Biden Such a Large Amount of Money?

    “Everything that you’ve described is an inference,” said Phillip. “You actually haven’t given any proof of what you’re alleging.”

    Gaetz replied, “But Abby, why do you think Burisma was paying Hunter Biden? Do you think they were paying him to figure out where to go buy crack in LA? I mean, they were paying him because he had access to Joe.”

    It was a testy discussion but Gaetz point was still hard to get around – why exactly would Burisma be paying Hunter Biden such a large amount of money.

    It was certainly not to buy crack.

    7.2 Million Illegal Aliens Entered the U.S. Under Biden. That’s A Larger Population Than 36 States

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    is a professional writer and editor with over 15 years of experience in conservative media and Republican politics. He… More about John Hanson

    [ad_2]

    John Hanson

    Source link

  • James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, tells lawmakers the president had no involvement in family’s business dealings

    James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, tells lawmakers the president had no involvement in family’s business dealings

    [ad_1]

    Washington — President Biden “never had any involvement” in the business dealings of other members of his family, his brother James Biden testified Wednesday as he appeared for a voluntary private interview on Capitol Hill as part of House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry.

    “I have had a 50-year career in a variety of business ventures. Joe Biden has never had any involvement or any direct or indirect financial interest in those activities,” the president’s younger brother said in a 10-page opening statement to lawmakers obtained by CBS News. “None.”

    The interview with James Biden is the latest in a series that GOP lawmakers have conducted recently as they seek to rebuild momentum for an impeachment process surrounding the Biden family’s overseas finances that has stalled in recent months.

    Criticism over the lack of evidence directly related to the president has grown among those in the Republican Party who have thrown cold water on allegations that Mr. Biden was directly involved in his family members’ supposed efforts to leverage the last name into corporate paydays domestically and abroad. The GOP investigation was undercut again last week when an FBI informant who claimed there was a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving the president, his son Hunter, and a Ukrainian energy company was charged with fabricating the story.

    The informant’s claims had been central to the Republican effort in Congress to investigate the president and his family, with investigators even making mention of the unsubstantiated claim in letters to prospective witnesses. An attorney for Hunter Biden, who is expected to give a deposition next week, said the charges show the probe is “based on dishonest, uncredible allegations and witnesses.”

    James Biden, a consultant and brother of President Biden, arrives for a closed door deposition with the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 21, 2024, in Washington.
    James Biden, a consultant and brother of President Biden, arrives for a closed door deposition with the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 21, 2024, in Washington.

    Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images


    Both James and Hunter Biden were subpoenaed by the committee in November. Lawyers for James Biden have said that there was no justification for the subpoena because the committee had already reviewed private bank records and transactions between the two brothers. The committee found records of two loans that were made when President Biden was not in office or a candidate for president.

    The impeachment inquiry, which began in September under the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, has included the recent depositions of several former Biden family associates. In nearly every one of those interviews, the witnesses have stated that they have seen no evidence that President Biden was directly involved in his son or brother’s business ventures.

    Nonetheless, Republicans, led by the Oversight chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, have said they are pushing ahead with an inquiry that could result in impeachment charges against the president, the ultimate penalty for what the Constitution describes as “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    There had been private discussions about bringing articles of impeachment against Mr. Biden to the House floor for a vote in February but those conversations have stalled as support for the effort has waned among the majority. House Republicans instead shifted their focus in the new year to holding Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas accountable for his handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. Last week, the razor-thin GOP majority barely managed to impeach Mayorkas, reflecting political desperation as Republicans struggle to make good on the priorities they campaigned on.

    The attention is now expected to shift back to the impeachment of Mr. Biden as Republicans look to detract attention from the various legal challenges plaguing former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner for reelection in November.

    House Democrats have remained united against the monthslong impeachment effort and have called on Republicans to end what they call a “sham process.” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said that James Biden is the latest example of Republicans playing political games with no sign of tangible evidence that would rise to the level of impeaching a president.

    “We obviously again have heard nothing indicating that Joe Biden had anything to do with business ventures of Hunter Biden, or James Biden, and nothing has contradicted that basic understanding we’ve had for many, many months now,” Raskin told reporters when the interview broke for lunch.

    But Republicans have pushed back on the Biden family’s defense, saying the evidence they have gathered since early last year paints a troubling picture of “influence peddling” in the family’s business dealings, particularly with international clients.

    “With my appearance here today, the committees will have the information to conclude that the negative and destructive assumptions about me and my relationship with my brother Joe are wrong,” James Biden said in his statement. “There is no basis for this inquiry to continue.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mayorkas is first cabinet member to be impeached since 1876

    Mayorkas is first cabinet member to be impeached since 1876

    [ad_1]

    Mayorkas is first cabinet member to be impeached since 1876 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The House of Representatives voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Tuesday by a slim majority after a failed first attempt last week. The effort will move to the Senate, which seems unlikely to convict and remove Mayorkas from office. CBS News senior White House correspondent Nancy Cordes has more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House impeaches Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas

    House impeaches Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. House voted Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, with the Republican majority determined to punish the Biden administration over its handling of the U.S-Mexico border after failing last week in a politically embarrassing setback.

    The evening roll call proved tight, with Speaker Mike Johnson’s threadbare GOP majority unable to handle many defectors or absences in the face of staunch Democratic opposition to impeaching Mayorkas, the first Cabinet secretary charged in nearly 150 years.

    In a historic rebuke, the House impeached Mayorkas 214-213. With the return of Majority Leader Steve Scalise to bolster the GOP’s numbers after being away from Washington for cancer care and a Northeastern storm impacting some others, Republicans recouped — despite dissent from their own ranks.

    President Joe Biden called it a “blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games.”

    The charges against Mayorkas next go to the Senate for a trial, but neither Democratic nor even some Republican senators have shown interest in the matter and it may be indefinitely shelved to a committee. The Senate is expected to receive the articles of impeachment from the House after returning to session Feb. 26.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the case against Mayorkas a “sham impeachment” and a “new low for House Republicans.”

    In a frantic scene of vote-tallying on the House floor, the GOP effort to impeach Mayorkas over his handling of the southern border took on an air of political desperation as Republicans struggle to make good on their priorities.

    Mayorkas faced two articles of impeachment filed by the Homeland Security Committee arguing that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce existing immigration laws and that he breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure.

    But critics of the impeachment effort said the charges against Mayorkas amount to a policy dispute over Biden’s border strategy, hardly rising to the Constitution’s bar of high crimes and misdemeanors.

    The House had initially launched an impeachment inquiry into Biden over his son’s business dealings, but instead turned its attention to Mayorkas after Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an ally of former President Donald Trump, pushed the debate forward following the panel’s months-long investigation.

    Greene, who will serve as an impeachment manager in a potential Senate trial, hugged Scalise afterward and posed for photos with other lawmakers. She said senators “better pay attention to the American people and how they feel, and then they need to read our articles of impeachment.”

    Border security has shot to the top of campaign issues, with Trump, the Republican front-runner for the presidential nomination, insisting he will launch “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” if he retakes the White House.

    Various House Republicans have prepared legislation to begin deporting migrants who were temporarily allowed into the U.S. under the Biden administration’s policies, many as they await adjudication of asylum claims.

    “We have no choice,” Trump said in stark language at a weekend rally in South Carolina.

    At the same time, Johnson rejected a bipartisan Senate border security package Mayorkas had spent weeks negotiating. But the speaker has been unable to advance his Republicans’ own proposal, which is a nonstarter in the Senate.

    “Congress needs to act,” Biden said in a statement after the vote, “to give me, Secretary Mayorkas, and my administration the tools and resources needed to address the situation at the border.”

    Three Republican representatives who broke ranks last week over the Mayorkas impeachment — Ken Buck of Colorado, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Tom McClintock of California — all did so again Tuesday. With a 219-212 majority, Johnson had few votes to spare. His margin got even smaller later Tuesday night when New York Democrat Thomas Suozzi won a special election to the seat once held by Republican George Santos before his expulsion from Congress.

    Several leading conservative scholars along with former Homeland Security secretaries from both Republican and Democratic administrations have dismissed the Mayorkas impeachment as unwarranted or a waste of time.

    Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said what the Republicans “have succeeded in doing is degrading and tarnishing the constitutional meaning of impeachment.”

    But Scalise told reporters after the vote, “It sends a message that we’re not just going to sit by while the secretary of homeland security fails to do his job at keeping our homeland safe.”

    Mayorkas is not the only Biden administration official the House Republicans want to impeach. They have filed legislation to impeach a long list including Vice President Kamala Harris, Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

    Never before has a sitting Cabinet secretary been impeached, and it was nearly 150 years ago that the House voted to impeach President Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, over a kickback scheme in government contracts. He resigned before the vote.

    Mayorkas, who did not appear to testify before the impeachment proceedings, put the border crisis squarely on Congress for failing to update immigration laws during a time of global migration.

    “There is no question that we have a challenge, a crisis at the border,” Mayorkas said over the weekend on NBC. “And there is no question that Congress needs to fix it.”

    Johnson and the Republicans have pushed back, arguing that the Biden administration could take executive actions, as Trump did, to stop the number of crossings — though the courts have questioned and turned back some of those efforts.

    “We always explore what options are available to us that are permissible under the law,” Mayorkas said.

    Last week’s failed vote to impeach Mayorkas — a surprise outcome rarely seen on such a high-profile issue — was a stunning display in the chamber that has been churning through months of GOP chaos since the ouster of the previous House speaker.

    At the time, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who had been hospitalized for emergency abdominal surgery, made a surprise arrival, wheeled into the chamber in scrubs and socks to vote against it — leaving the vote tied and leading to its failure.

    “Obviously, you feel good when you can make a difference,” said Green, describing his painstaking route from hospital bed to the House floor. “All I did was what I was elected to do, and that was to cast my vote on the issues of our time, using the best judgment available to me.”

    Republican holdout Gallagher, who had served as a Marine, announced over the weekend he would not be seeking reelection in the fall, joining a growing list of serious-minded Republican lawmakers heading for the exits.

    [ad_2]

    By LISA MASCARO – AP Congressional Correspondent

    Source link

  • House to vote on Alejandro Mayorkas impeachment again after failed first attempt

    House to vote on Alejandro Mayorkas impeachment again after failed first attempt

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The House on Tuesday is expected to vote for a second time in a week to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas after Republican leaders suffered an embarrassing defeat in their first effort. 

    Mayorkas narrowly survived last week’s vote after a small group of Republicans, who said President Biden’s border chief did not commit impeachable offenses for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border crisis, voted with all Democrats to sink it. 

    Republicans vowed they would try again once House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who had been undergoing cancer treatment, returned to Washington. The Louisiana Republican will be back at work this week, giving them another vote that is expected to tip the scale in their favor, barring any absences. 

    The vote comes the same day as a special election in New York’s third congressional district to replace former GOP Rep. George Santos, which could further narrow the House’s Republican majority. The possibility of Democrats picking up the swing seat puts pressure on Republicans to move quickly with another vote. 

    In a statement Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security said the impeachment push was “pointless,” “unconstitutional” and “baseless.” 

    The impeachment case against Mayorkas

    Republicans assert Mayorkas should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors for not enforcing immigration laws. They’ve focused much of their arguments on the failure to detain all migrants while they await court proceedings. 

    Mayorkas and Democrats have contended that it’s a matter of policy differences, arguing that Republicans are using impeachment to score political points during an election year. They say it’s up to Congress to fix the “broken” immigration system and allocate more resources to border security. 

    Legal experts on both sides of the aisle have also criticized the effort, saying Mayorkas’ actions fail to meet the threshold for impeachment. 

    Last month, Republicans unveiled two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas after speeding through impeachment proceedings. 

    The first impeachment article accuses Mayorkas of releasing migrants into the U.S. who should have been detained. The second article alleges he lied to lawmakers about whether the southern border was secure when he previously testified that his department had “operational control” of the border, and accuses Mayorkas of obstructing congressional oversight of his department. 

    The Department of Homeland Security has said Congress has never given the executive branch the resources and personnel needed to detain every migrant as required by federal immigration law. It also denied Mayorkas lied to lawmakers, pointing to how the department uses “operational control” internally. 

    “The problems with our broken and outdated immigration system are not new,” Mayorkas wrote last month in a letter to Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. “We need a legislative solution and only Congress can provide it.” 

    Mayorkas also said the push to impeach him had not shaken him. 

    “I assure you that your false accusations do not rattle me and do not divert me from the law enforcement and broader public service mission to which I have devoted most of my career and to which I remain devoted,” he previously wrote in a letter to the committee.

    Republican leaders went ahead with last week’s nail-biter of a floor vote amid uncertainty about whether they had enough support to impeach Mayorkas. 

    It looked like the vote was going to succeed, with three GOP defections, until Rep. Al Green was unexpectedly wheeled onto the floor in his hospital scrubs after intestinal surgery. The Texas Democrat tied the vote at 215-215, defeating the resolution.

    A fourth Republican also switched his vote at the last minute to give GOP leaders the opportunity to bring up the vote again, making the final vote 214 in favor to 216 against. 

    Scalise was the only lawmaker absent from the vote. 

    One of the Republican lawmakers who broke with his party, Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, said in a Wall Street Journal piece last week that the GOP is setting “a dangerous new precedent that would be used against future Republican administrations.” Gallagher announced days after the impeachment vote that he would not seek reelection. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House GOP will try again to impeach Mayorkas after failing once. But outcome is still uncertain

    House GOP will try again to impeach Mayorkas after failing once. But outcome is still uncertain

    [ad_1]

    Having failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas the first time, House Republicans are determined to try again Tuesday, but it’s not at all certain the do-over vote will produce a better tally after last week’s politically embarrassing setback.The evening vote is expected to be tight with Speaker Mike Johnson’s threadbare GOP majority unable to handle many defectors or absences in the face of staunch Democratic opposition to impeaching Mayorkas, the first Cabinet secretary facing charges in nearly 150 years.Despite the expected arrival of Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who will bolster the GOP numbers after being away from Washington for cancer care, even one other missing or weather-delayed lawmaker could imperil the Mayorkas impeachment. If the vote pushes later into the week, the outcome of Tuesday’s special election in New York to replace ousted Rep. George Santos could tip the balance further.Johnson posted a fists-clenched photo with Scalise, announcing his remission from cancer, saying, “looking forward to having him back in the trenches this week!”The GOP effort to impeach Mayorkas over border security has taken on an air of political desperation as Republicans try to make good on their priorities after last week’s mishap and after Republicans rejected a bipartisan Senate border security package.Border security has shot to the top of campaign issues, with Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner for the presidential nomination, insisting he will launch “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” on day one if he retakes the White House.In stark language over the weekend, Trump debased immigrant arrivals. even going so far as to suggest without evidence they bring disease into the U.S. Trump reiterated his plans of a second-term roundup to remove potentially millions of newcomers from the U.S., a spectacle practically unseen in modern times.”We have no choice,” Trump said at a rally in South Carolina.The House, which launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden over his son’s business dealings, has instead turned its attention to Mayorkas after Trump ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia pushed the debate forward.If the House succeeds in impeaching Mayorkas, the charges against him would go to the Senate for a trial, but neither Democratic nor Republican senators have shown interest in the matter and it may be indefinitely shelved to a committee. After a months-long investigation, the House Homeland Security Committee filed two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas — arguing that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce existing immigration laws and that he breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure.Never before has a sitting Cabinet secretary been impeached, and it was nearly 150 years ago that the House voted to impeach President Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, over a kickback scheme in government contracts. He resigned moments before the vote.Mayorkas, who did not appear to testify before the impeachment proceedings, put the border crisis squarely on Congress for failing to update immigration laws during a time of global migration.”There is no question that we have a challenge, a crisis at the border,” Mayorkas said over the weekend on NBC. “And there is no question that Congress needs to fix it.”Johnson and the Republicans have pushed back, arguing that the Biden administration could take executive actions, as Trump did, to stop the number of crossings — though the courts have questioned and turned back some of those efforts.”We always explore what options are available to us that are permissible under the law,” Mayorkas said in the interview. Last week’s failed vote to impeach Mayorkas — a surprise outcome rarely seen on such a high-profile issue — was a stunning display in the chamber that has been churning through months of GOP chaos since the ouster of the previous House speaker. As the clock ticked down, three Republicans opposed impeaching Mayorkas, leaving the tally at razor’s edge. With a 219-212 majority and Scalise absent, Johnson had just a few votes to spare.One Democrat, Rep, Al Green of Texas, who had been hospitalized for emergency abdominal surgery, made a surprise arrival, wheeled into the chamber in scrubs and socks to vote against it — leaving the vote tied.One of the Republican holdouts, Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who had served as a Marine and is now a committee chairman, was quickly encircled by colleagues, including the impeachment’s chief sponsor, Georgia’s Greene. He refused to change his vote.Gallagher announced over the weekend he would not be seeking reelection in the fall. Once a rising star as a next generation of the GOP, he now joins a growing list of serious-minded Republican lawmakers heading for the exits.Republicans are hopeful the New York special election will boost their ranks further, but the outcome of that race is uncertain.Democrat Green of Texas is now out of the hospital and recuperating from surgery, and was amazed at how critics suggested he was sneaked into the Capitol to vote. He described the painstaking effort to get from his hospital bed to the House floor.”Obviously, you feel good when you can make a difference,” said Green. “All I did was what I was elected to do, and that was to cast my vote on the issues of our time, using the best judgment available to me.”He plans to be there again this week to vote against Mayorkas’ impeachment.

    WASHINGTON —

    Having failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas the first time, House Republicans are determined to try again Tuesday, but it’s not at all certain the do-over vote will produce a better tally after last week’s politically embarrassing setback.

    The evening vote is expected to be tight with Speaker Mike Johnson’s threadbare GOP majority unable to handle many defectors or absences in the face of staunch Democratic opposition to impeaching Mayorkas, the first Cabinet secretary facing charges in nearly 150 years.

    Despite the expected arrival of Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who will bolster the GOP numbers after being away from Washington for cancer care, even one other missing or weather-delayed lawmaker could imperil the Mayorkas impeachment. If the vote pushes later into the week, the outcome of Tuesday’s special election in New York to replace ousted Rep. George Santos could tip the balance further.

    Johnson posted a fists-clenched photo with Scalise, announcing his remission from cancer, saying, “looking forward to having him back in the trenches this week!”

    The GOP effort to impeach Mayorkas over border security has taken on an air of political desperation as Republicans try to make good on their priorities after last week’s mishap and after Republicans rejected a bipartisan Senate border security package.

    Border security has shot to the top of campaign issues, with Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner for the presidential nomination, insisting he will launch “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” on day one if he retakes the White House.

    In stark language over the weekend, Trump debased immigrant arrivals. even going so far as to suggest without evidence they bring disease into the U.S. Trump reiterated his plans of a second-term roundup to remove potentially millions of newcomers from the U.S., a spectacle practically unseen in modern times.

    “We have no choice,” Trump said at a rally in South Carolina.

    The House, which launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden over his son’s business dealings, has instead turned its attention to Mayorkas after Trump ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia pushed the debate forward.

    If the House succeeds in impeaching Mayorkas, the charges against him would go to the Senate for a trial, but neither Democratic nor Republican senators have shown interest in the matter and it may be indefinitely shelved to a committee.

    After a months-long investigation, the House Homeland Security Committee filed two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas — arguing that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce existing immigration laws and that he breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure.

    Never before has a sitting Cabinet secretary been impeached, and it was nearly 150 years ago that the House voted to impeach President Ulysses S. Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, over a kickback scheme in government contracts. He resigned moments before the vote.

    Mayorkas, who did not appear to testify before the impeachment proceedings, put the border crisis squarely on Congress for failing to update immigration laws during a time of global migration.

    “There is no question that we have a challenge, a crisis at the border,” Mayorkas said over the weekend on NBC. “And there is no question that Congress needs to fix it.”

    Johnson and the Republicans have pushed back, arguing that the Biden administration could take executive actions, as Trump did, to stop the number of crossings — though the courts have questioned and turned back some of those efforts.

    “We always explore what options are available to us that are permissible under the law,” Mayorkas said in the interview.

    Last week’s failed vote to impeach Mayorkas — a surprise outcome rarely seen on such a high-profile issue — was a stunning display in the chamber that has been churning through months of GOP chaos since the ouster of the previous House speaker.

    As the clock ticked down, three Republicans opposed impeaching Mayorkas, leaving the tally at razor’s edge. With a 219-212 majority and Scalise absent, Johnson had just a few votes to spare.

    One Democrat, Rep, Al Green of Texas, who had been hospitalized for emergency abdominal surgery, made a surprise arrival, wheeled into the chamber in scrubs and socks to vote against it — leaving the vote tied.

    One of the Republican holdouts, Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who had served as a Marine and is now a committee chairman, was quickly encircled by colleagues, including the impeachment’s chief sponsor, Georgia’s Greene. He refused to change his vote.

    Gallagher announced over the weekend he would not be seeking reelection in the fall. Once a rising star as a next generation of the GOP, he now joins a growing list of serious-minded Republican lawmakers heading for the exits.

    Republicans are hopeful the New York special election will boost their ranks further, but the outcome of that race is uncertain.

    Democrat Green of Texas is now out of the hospital and recuperating from surgery, and was amazed at how critics suggested he was sneaked into the Capitol to vote. He described the painstaking effort to get from his hospital bed to the House floor.

    “Obviously, you feel good when you can make a difference,” said Green. “All I did was what I was elected to do, and that was to cast my vote on the issues of our time, using the best judgment available to me.”

    He plans to be there again this week to vote against Mayorkas’ impeachment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link