ReportWire

Tag: Impeachment

  • Alejandro Mayorkas survives House impeachment vote as GOP lawmakers defect

    Alejandro Mayorkas survives House impeachment vote as GOP lawmakers defect

    [ad_1]

    Washington — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas narrowly survived an impeachment vote on Tuesday in the House after a small group of Republicans helped sink the GOP-led effort. 

    The House voted 216 to 214 against impeaching Mayorkas over his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, with four Republicans voting with all Democrats. 

    Republicans who voted against the impeachment resolution said Mayorkas’ conduct did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense and warned about the precedent the vote would set. 

    Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican, said Tuesday morning that the impeachment articles “fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed” and “stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable for stretching and distorting the law.” 

    Democrats accused Republicans of using the impeachment push to score political points ahead of the 2024 election, with immigration being a top voter concern. They also argued that it failed to meet the bar of a high crime or misdemeanor, a criticism shared by legal experts on both sides of the aisle. 

    Mia Ehrenberg, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that the “baseless impeachment should never have moved forward.” 

    “If House Republicans are serious about border security, they should abandon these political games, and instead support the bipartisan national security agreement in the Senate to get DHS the enforcement resources we need,” she said after the vote. “Secretary Mayorkas remains focused on working across the aisle to promote real solutions at the border and keep our country safe.” 

    Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, one of the Republicans who voted against impeachment, indicated another vote could take place once House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, returns to work. Scalise has been working remotely as he undergoes cancer treatment. 

    GOP Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, teased another vote. 

    “This is not the end of our efforts to hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable,” Green said in a social media post. “I look forward to Leader Scalise’s return.”

    White House spokesperson Ian Sams said the vote’s failure should send the message that “extreme political stunts like this are a waste of time,” and called on House Republicans to work with President Biden on delivering “real solutions that actually strengthen border security.”

    Why did Republicans attempt to impeach Mayorkas?

    Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee sped through impeachment proceedings, holding just two hearings within eight days in January. Republicans unveiled two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas without hearing testimony from him amid a disagreement about when he could appear. 

    The charges accuse Mr. Biden’s top immigration official of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” over the administration’s handling of the migrant crisis at the southern border. 

    The first impeachment article accuses Mayorkas of failing to enforce immigration laws and 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. It also 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. The department also denied Mayorkas lied to lawmakers, pointing to how DHS uses “operational control” internally.

    Green said in a statement that impeachment was necessary because Mayorkas’ “actions created this unprecedented crisis, turning every state into a border state.” 

    In a statement on Monday, the Biden administration said it was “an unprecedented and unconstitutional act of political retribution that would do nothing to solve the challenges our nation faces in securing the border.”

    The road to the Mayorkas impeachment vote 

    Mayorkas has been under threat of impeachment over his handling of the border since Republicans took control of the House in 2023. 

    GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia introduced an impeachment resolution against Mayorkas in early November, saying he had “violated his oath to uphold this constitutional duty” by allowing an “invasion” of undocumented immigrants. The House voted to refer the resolution to the Homeland Security Committee, which was already investigating Mayorkas.

    Greene, outraged by the move, tried to force a vote on a second resolution targeting Mayorkas, but backed off after receiving assurances from House leaders the earlier effort would proceed at the committee level. 

    At the time, several House Republicans expressed concerns about impeaching Mayorkas, saying that his conduct did not amount to impeachable offenses. 

    Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security committee, said on Jan. 29 that the referral should have gone to the House Judiciary Committee. Thompson said it’s “the first-ever impeachment consideration by a committee other than the Judiciary Committee.” 

    “It’s unusual,” Thompson said. “It speaks of a deal being made.”

    Green, the committee chairman, countered that Democrats voted to send it to the Homeland Security panel. 

    The committee announced its first impeachment hearing in early January, with its second and final hearing coming eight days later. Lawmakers heard from the grieving mothers of victims of violent crime and fentanyl overdoses, as well as three state attorneys general who are suing Mayorkas. Two law professors also testified that there was not a constitutional basis for Mayorkas’ impeachment. 

    On Jan. 30, the committee advanced the impeachment articles on a party-line vote after a lengthy markup in which Republicans faulted Mayorkas for not keeping migrants in detention and blamed him for deaths caused by fentanyl, while Democrats called the charges baseless.

    “We’ve heard a lot from my Republican colleagues today about how this is our only option,” Rep. Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat, said during the markup. He said Congress could address the problem by passing legislation, but noted that House Republicans want to sink an immigration deal between a bipartisan group of senators and the Biden administration that is designed to reduce the unprecedented levels of illegal crossings in recent years. 

    House Republicans counter that they passed a border security bill known as H.R. 2 last year, though it had no Democratic support and was dead on arrival in the Senate. 

    Mayorkas defended himself against Republican attacks in a letter sent to the committee ahead of last week’s vote to advance the bill to the House floor. 

    “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,” Mayorkas wrote, also highlighting the department’s efforts to increase migrant deportations and combat trafficking networks. 

    “I will defer a discussion of the constitutionality of your current effort to the many respected scholars and experts across the political spectrum who already have opined that it is contrary to law,” he added. 

    In a statement condemning Republicans after the vote, Thompson praised the “few honorable Republicans” who “stood up for the Constitution and against the extremists running their party.” 

    “If Republicans continue down this path history will judge them, and it won’t be favorably. This nonsense must stop,” he said. 

    Which Republicans voted against impeachment? 

    • Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado 
    • Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin 
    • Rep. Tom McClintock of California 
    • Rep. Blake Moore of Utah

    — Ellis Kim contributed to this report. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mayorkas survives impeachment vote

    Mayorkas survives impeachment vote

    [ad_1]

    Mayorkas survives impeachment vote – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    In a 216-214 vote, House Republicans failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, a move Democrats had decried as a political stunt. Meanwhile, the Senate’s bipartisan immigration deal appears to be crumbling. Scott MacFarlane has the latest.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas fails, thwarted by Republican defections

    House vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas fails, thwarted by Republican defections

    [ad_1]

    n a dramatic setback, House Republicans failed Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, forced to shelve a high-profile priority – for now – after a few GOP lawmakers refused to go along with the party’s plan.

    The stunning roll call fell just a few votes short of impeaching Mayorkas, stalling the Republicans’ drive to punish the Biden administration over its handling of the U.S-Mexico border. With Democrats united against the charges, the Republicans needed almost every vote from their slim majority to approve the articles of impeachment.

    The House is likely to revisit plans to impeach Mayorkas, but next steps are highly uncertain.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, who could lose only a few Republicans from his slim majority, said he personally spoke to the GOP holdouts acknowledging the “heavy, heavy” vote as he sought their support.

    “It’s an extreme measure,” said Johnson, R-La.. “But extreme times call for extreme measures.”

    Not since 1876 has a Cabinet secretary faced impeachment charges and it’s the first time a sitting secretary is being impeached – 148 years ago, Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just before the vote.

    The impeachment charges against Mayorkas come as border security is fast becoming a top political issue in the 2024 election, a particularly potent line of attack being leveled at President Joe Biden by Republicans, led by the party’s front-runner for the presidential nomination, Donald Trump.

    Record numbers of people have been arriving at the southern border, many fleeing countries around the world, in what Mayorkas calls an era of global migration. Many migrants are claiming asylum and being conditionally released into the U.S., arriving in cities that are underequipped to provide housing and other aid while they await judicial proceedings which can take years to determine whether they may remain.

    The House Democrats united against the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, calling the proceedings a sham designed to please Trump, charges that do not rise to the Constitution’s bar of treason, bribery or “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    “A bunch of garbage,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. He called Mayorkas “a good man, a decent man,” who is simply trying to do his job.

    Even if Republicans are able to impeach Mayorkas, he is not expected to be convicted in a Senate trial where Republican senators have been cool to the effort. The Senate could simply refer the matter to a committee for its own investigation, delaying immediate action.

    The impeachment of Mayorkas landed quickly onto the House agenda after Republican efforts to impeach Biden over the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden, hit a lull, and the investigation into the Biden family drags.

    The Committee on Homeland Security under Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., had been investigating the secretary for much of the past year, including probing the flow of deadly fentanyl into the U.S. But a resolution from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a Trump ally, pushed it to the fore. The panel swiftly held a pair of hearings in January before announcing the two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

    Unlike other moments in impeachment history, the arguments played out to an almost empty chamber, without the fervor or solemnity of past proceedings.

    Greene, who was named to be one of the impeachment managers for the Senate trial, rose to blame Mayorkas for the “invasion” of migrants coming to the U.S.

    Republican Rep. Eli Crane if Arizona said Mayorkas had committed a “dereliction of duty.”

    Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Mayorkas impeachment vote was a stunt designed by Republicans to sow “chaos and confusion” and appease Trump – rather than to govern.

    “No reasonable American can conclude that you’re making life better for them by this sham impeachment,” Jeffries said.

    A former federal prosecutor, the secretary never testified on his own behalf, but submitted a rare letter to the panel defending his work.

    Tuesday’s vote arrives at a politically odd juncture for Mayorkas, who has been shuttling to the Senate to negotiate a bipartisan border security package, earning high marks from a group of senators involved.

    But that legislation, which emerged Sunday as one of the most ambitious immigration overhauls in years, is heading toward instant defeat in a Wednesday test vote. Trump sharply criticized the bipartisan effort, other Republicans are panning it and Speaker Johnson says it’s “dead on arrival.”

    One Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Ca., announced his opposition saying the charges “fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed.”

    The conservative McClintock said in a lengthy memo that the articles of impeachment from the committee explain the problems at the border under Biden’s watch. But he said, “they stretch and distort the Constitution.”

    Another Republican, retiring Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, also said he was against impeaching Mayorkas.

    Impeachment, once rare in the U.S., has been used as both a constitutional check on the executive and increasingly as a political weapon.

    The House Republicans have put a priority this session of Congress on impeachments, censures and other rebukes of officials and lawmakers, setting a new standard that is concerning scholars and others for the ways in which they can dole out punishments for perceived transgressions.

    Experts have argued that Mayorkas has simply been snared in a policy dispute with Republicans who disapprove of the Biden administration’s approach to the border situation.

    Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley said impeachment is not to be used for being “a bad Cabinet member.” Lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote, “Whatever else Mayorkas may or may not have done, he has not committed bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    Scholars point out that the Constitution’s framers initially considered “maladministration” as an impeachable offense, but dropped it over concern of giving the legislative branch too much sway over the executive and disrupting the balance of power.

    Three former secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Johnson, said in a letter Tuesday that impeaching the Cabinet official over policy disputes would “jeopardize our national security.”

    Senators have shown little interest in a potential impeachment trial. “I don’t think the House should do anything that’s dead on arrival in the Senate,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.

    Trump as president was twice impeached – first in 2019 on abuse of power over his phone call with the Ukrainian president seeking a favor to dig up dirt on then-rival Biden, and later on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. He was acquitted on both impeachments in the Senate.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Mary Clare Jalonick and Rebecca Santana contributed to this story.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • House Republicans taking a key vote toward impeaching Mayorkas as border becomes 2024 campaign issue

    House Republicans taking a key vote toward impeaching Mayorkas as border becomes 2024 campaign issue

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Republicans are preparing to take a key vote Tuesday toward impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over what they call his “willful and systematic” refusal to enforce immigration laws as border security becomes a top 2024 election issue.

    The Homeland Security Committee is pushing through a day-long hearing on two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, a rare charge against a Cabinet official unseen in nearly 150 years, as Republicans make GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s hard-line deportation approach to immigration their own.

    “The actions and decisions of Secretary Mayorkas have left us with no other option but to proceed with articles of impeachment,” said Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn.

    The articles charge that Mayorkas “willfully and systematically refused to comply with Federal immigration laws” amid a record surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border and that he has “breached the public trust” in his claims to Congress that the border is secure. A committee vote would send the articles to the full House for a vote as soon as next week.

    “We cannot allow this man to remain in office any longer,” Green said.

    With an unusual personal appeal Mayorkas wrote in a letter to the committee that it should be working with the Biden administration to update the nation’s “broken and outdated” immigration laws for the 21st century and an era of record global migration.

    “We need a legislative solution and only Congress can provide it,” Mayorkas wrote in the pointed letter to the panel’s chairman.

    Mayorkas never testified on his own behalf during the rushed impeachment proceedings — he and the committee couldn’t agree on a date — but drew on his own background as a child brought to the U.S. by his parents fleeing Cuba and on his career spent prosecuting criminals.

    “Your false accusations do not rattle me and do not divert me” from public service, he wrote.

    Green, the Republican committee chair, disparaged Mayorkas’s letter as an “11th-hour response” to the committee that was “inadequate and unbecoming of a Cabinet secretary.”

    Rarely has a Cabinet member faced impeachment’s bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and Democrats on the panel called the proceedings a stunt and a sham that could set a chilling precedent for other civil servants snared in policy disputes by lawmakers who disagree with the president’s approach.

    “This is a terrible day for the committee, the United States, the Constitution and our great country,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the committee’s ranking Democrat.

    Referring to Trump’s campaign slogan, Thompson said the “MAGA-led impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas is a baseless sham.”

    The House’s proceedings against Mayorkas have created an oddly split-screen Capitol Hill, as the Senate works intently with the secretary on a bipartisan border security package that is now on life support.

    The package being negotiated by the senators with Mayorkas could emerge as the most consequential bipartisan immigration proposal in a decade. Or it could collapse in political failure as Republicans, and some Democrats, run from the effort.

    Trump, on the campaign trail and in private talks, has tried to squelch the deal. “I’d rather have no bill than a bad bill,” Trump said over the weekend in Las Vegas.

    President Joe Biden, in his own campaign remarks in South Carolina, said if Congress sends him a bill with emergency authority he’ll “shut down the border right now” to get migration under control.

    “I’ve done all I can do,” Biden told reporters Tuesday before departing for a campaign-related trip to Florida. “Give me the power” through legislation, which he said is something he’s asked “from the very day I got in office.”

    The Republicans are focused on the secretary’s handling of the southern border, which has experienced a increasing number of migrants over the past year, many seeking asylum in the U.S., at a time when drug cartels are using the border with Mexico to traffic people and ship deadly fentanyl into the states.

    Republicans contend that the Biden administration and Mayorkas either got rid of policies in place under Trump that had controlled migration or enacted policies of their own that encouraged migrants from around the world to come to the U.S. illegally via the southern border.

    They also accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress, pointing to comments about the border being secure or about vetting of Afghans airlifted to the U.S. after military withdrawal from their country.

    “It’s high time” for impeachment, said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who called Mayorkas the “architect” of the border problems. “He has what’s coming to him.”

    The House impeachment hearings against Mayorkas sprinted ahead in January while the Republicans’ separate impeachment inquiry into Biden over the business dealings over his son Hunter Biden dragged.

    Democrats argue that Mayorkas is acting under his legal authorities at the department and that the criticisms against him do not rise to the level of impeachment.

    House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York called the proceedings a “political stunt” ordered up by Trump and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a Trump ally, who pushed the resolution forward toward the votes.

    During the hearing, Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., pointed to Trump’s comments echoing Adolf Hitler that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the U.S. and to his proposals for militarizing the border as extreme, arguing the impeachment proceedings were “all about trying to get Donald Trump re-elected.”

    It’s unclear if House Republicans will have the support from their ranks to go through with the impeachment after a committee vote, especially with their slim majority and with Democrats expected to vote against it.

    Last year, eight House Republicans voted to shelve the impeachment resolution proposed by Greene rather than send it along to the committee, though many of them have since signaled they would be open to it.

    If the House does agree to impeach Mayorkas, the charges would next to go the Senate for a trial. In 1876, the House impeached Defense Secretary William Belknap over kickbacks in government contracts, but the Senate acquitted him in a trial.

    __

    Associated Press writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House committee set to advance articles of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas

    House committee set to advance articles of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The House Homeland Security Committee is on track to advance articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Tuesday, which would pave the way for a full House vote in the coming days. 

    House Republicans on Sunday released two articles of impeachment against President Biden’s top immigration official, accusing him of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” over the administration’s handling of the migrant crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

    GOP Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, the committee’s chairman, said the panel had “exhausted all other options” to hold Mayorkas accountable. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the committee, characterized the impeachment effort as a “sham” and said the articles lack “even a shred of evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors.” 

    The impeachment push comes as the GOP has made border security a central theme of the 2024 campaign and as House Republicans have come out against a border security-immigration deal that Mayorkas helped negotiate with a bipartisan group of senators. House Republican opposition has threatened its chances of passage in the lower chamber. 

    The first impeachment article accuses Mayorkas of repeatedly violating the law by allowing the release of migrants who are awaiting court proceedings. The second article alleges Mayorkas lied to lawmakers about whether the southern border was secure and obstructed congressional oversight of the department. 

    House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said last week the House would vote on the impeachment articles “as soon as possible.” 

    The charges against Mayorkas face an all but certain failure in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority to convict and remove him. But his impeachment would be historic given that he’d be the first cabinet official to be impeached in almost 150 years. 

    The impeachment fight 

    On the eve of the committee’s vote to advance the articles, Democrats released a report defending Mayorkas’ actions and accusing Republicans of abusing their impeachment power. 

    “Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy under the United States Constitution. It is not a tool for policy or political differences, and constitutional scholars and even some Republicans agree,” Democrats said in the 29-page report, which slammed the proceedings as a political exercise meant to “satiate the extreme MAGA base.” 

    The committee sped through impeachment proceedings this month, holding just two hearings in which lawmakers heard testimony from three state attorneys general, as well as from people whose family members have died as a result of fentanyl overdoses or violent crime. 

    Democrats said Republicans failed to give Mayorkas a chance to testify, denying him of “a meaningful opportunity to respond to the baseless charges against him.” 

    Republicans and the Homeland Security Department clashed over whether Mayorkas would appear in person during the impeachment proceedings. Mayorkas declined to attend the hearing on Jan. 18, citing a conflicting meeting with Mexican officials about border enforcement, but agreed to testify at a later date. Green accused Mayorkas of playing a game of “cat and mouse,” and the border chief was instead instructed to submit written testimony before the end of the month. 

    But the committee’s 18 Republican members then decided they did not need to wait to hear from Mayorkas, announcing after the final hearing that they all supported impeaching him. 

    In a letter to lawmakers ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Mayorkas called on Congress to step up and provide a legislative solution to the border crisis. He said the policies negotiated by senators would “make a substantial difference at our border.”

    He also hit back at Republican attacks, calling their accusations “politically motivated.” 

    “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,” Mayorkas said. 

    In response to the release of the impeachment articles, the department on Sunday said the effort was a “distraction from other vital national security priorities and the work Congress should be doing to actually fix our broken immigration laws.” 

    “They don’t want to fix the problem; they want to campaign on it,” the department said in a memo. 

    Nicole Sganga contributed reporting. 


    How to watch the Mayorkas impeachment articles markup 

    • What: House Homeland Security Committee votes to advance articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas 
    • Date: Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2024 
    • Time: 10 a.m. ET
    • Online stream: Live on CBS News in the player above and on your mobile or streaming device.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans Unveil Impeachment Charges Against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

    House Republicans Unveil Impeachment Charges Against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

    [ad_1]

    House Republicans released two impeachment charges against Alejandro Mayorkas Sunday, accusing the Department of Homeland Security Secretary of high crimes and misdemeanors for his implementation of US immigration policy.

    The first article charges Mayorkas with “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” by implementing a so-called “catch and release” policy, which allows many migrants awaiting court proceedings to remain in the United States without being detained.

    The second article accuses him of having “knowingly made false statements, and knowingly obstructed lawful oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.”

    “These articles lay out a clear, compelling and irrefutable case for Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s impeachment,” Tennessee Representative Mark Green, who chaired the House Homeland Security panel that released the impeachment articles, said in a statement. “Congress has a duty to see that the executive branch implements and enforces the laws we have passed.”

    The DHS immediately hit back against the impeachment articles Sunday, accusing Republicans of having “undermined efforts to achieve bipartisan solutions and ignored the facts, legal scholars and experts, and even the Constitution itself in their quest to baselessly impeach Secretary Mayorkas.” The memo argued that Republicans “don’t want to fix the problem; they want to campaign on it.”

    Mississippi Representative Bennie Johnson, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, called on the House to “reject this sham resolution” in a statement. Describing the committee’s investigation a “remarkably fact-free affair,” Johnson accused Republicans of “abusing Congress’s impeachment power to appease their MAGA members, score political points and deflect Americans’ attention from their do-nothing Congress.”

    The committee will officially take up the charges on Tuesday, and if approved, a House impeachment vote could come as soon as early February. In a Friday letter to his House colleagues, Speaker Mike Johnson vowed to hold an impeachment vote “as soon as possible.”

    While there’s practically no chance the charges will ultimately make it past the Democratic-led Senate, where a two-thirds majority is necessary to convict, the impeachment proceedings are sure to create a spectacle of the immigration issue in this election year. 

    The effort to impeach Mayorkas comes as President Joe Biden is working to cement a bipartisan border bill in the Senate, which Mayorkas has helped organize.

    On Friday, Biden, whose campaign has warned of the return of “extreme, racist, cruel” immigration policies in a second Trump term, significantly escalated his rhetoric on the issue. In a statement, he promised to “shut down” the border and argued that, if passed, the bipartisan bill would “be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country.”

    Standing in the way of the bill’s passage through Congress is a group of House Republicans, who, with the backing of former President Donald Trump, are staunchly opposed to any bipartisan deal. In his Friday letter, Johnson said that any Senate deal would be “dead on arrival” in the House.

    The GOP frontrunner, who is hoping to make immigration a key issue of his re-election bid, has campaigned vociferously against the deal, to the consternation of some Senate Republicans. “I’ll fight it all the way,” Trump said of the deal during a Saturday evening rally in Nevada. “A lot of the Senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I say, that’s okay. Please blame it on me. Please.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • House GOP releases impeachment articles in bid to oust Homeland Security’s Mayorkas over the border

    House GOP releases impeachment articles in bid to oust Homeland Security’s Mayorkas over the border

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Sunday released two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as they vowed to swiftly push forward with efforts to oust the Cabinet member over what they call his failure to manage the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats and the agency slammed the move as a politically motivated stunt lacking the constitutional basis to remove him from office.

    Republicans contend Mayorkas is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that amount to a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” on immigration and a “breach of the public trust.” Impeachment, they say, is “Congress’s only viable option.”

    “Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully and systemically refused to comply with the immigration laws, failed to control the border to the detriment of national security, compromised public safety, and violated the rule of law and separation of powers in the Constitution, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” the impeachment resolution says.

    Ever since taking control of the House in 2023, Republicans have pushed to impeach Mayorkas. Sunday’s announcement comes as their other impeachment drive — to impeach Democratic President Joe Biden in relation to his son Hunter’s business dealings — has struggled to advance.

    But Republicans have moved with rapid speed against Mayorkas after a series of hearings in recent weeks. It all comes at a time when border security and immigration are key issues in the 2024 campaign and as Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, is promising to launch the “largest deportation operation” in U.S. history if he returns to the White House.

    The GOP push also comes at a curious time for Mayorkas.

    Even as the House is taking steps to try remove him from office, Mayorkas has been engaged in arduous negotiations with senators seeking to reach a bipartisan deal on border policy. He has won praise from senators for his engagement in the process.

    The Republican-controlled House Homeland Security Committee is set to vote Tuesday on the articles of impeachment, aiming to send them to the full House for consideration. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said the House will move forward as soon as possible with a vote after that.

    Passage requires only a House majority. The Senate would hold a trial, and a two-thirds vote is required for conviction, an exceedingly unlikely outcome in the Democratic-run Senate.

    Democrats say Republicans have held a sham of an impeachment process against Mayorkas and lack the constitutional grounds to impeach the secretary. They also say Republicans are part of the problems at the border, with Republicans attacking Mayorkas even as they have failed to give his department the tools it needs to manage the situation.

    “They don’t want to fix the problem; they want to campaign on it. That’s why they have undermined efforts to achieve bipartisan solutions and ignored the facts, legal scholars and experts, and even the Constitution itself in their quest to baselessly impeach Secretary Mayorkas,” the department said in a statement Sunday.

    The two articles mark the culmination of a roughly yearlong examination by Republicans of the secretary’s handling of the border and what they describe as a crisis of the administration’s own making. Republicans contend that the administration and Mayorkas specifically either got rid of policies in place under Trump that had controlled migration or enacted policies of their own that encouraged migrants from around the world to come to the U.S. illegally via the southern border.

    They cite growing numbers of migrants who have at times overwhelmed the capacity of Customs and Border Protection authorities to care and process them. Arrests for illegal crossings topped 2 million in each of the U.S. government’s past two budget years. Some days last December, illegal crossings topped 10,000. The backlog of people in immigration court has grown by 1 million over the past budget year.

    In the articles, Republicans argue that Mayorkas is deliberately violating immigration laws passed by Congress, such as those requiring detention of migrants, and that through his policies, a crisis has arisen at the border. They accuse him of releasing migrants without effective ways to make sure they show up for court or are removed from the country. They cited an Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo written by Mayorkas that sets priorities for whom the agency should target for enforcement proceedings as proof that he is letting people stay in the country who don’t have the right to do so.

    They also attacked the administration’s use of the humanitarian parole authority, which allows the DHS secretary to admit certain migrants into the country. Republicans said the Biden administration has essentially created a mass parole program that bypasses Congress. They cited cities such as New York that have struggled with high numbers of migrants, taxing housing and education systems, as proof of the financial costs immigration is taking.

    Democrats say Republicans simply disagree with the administration’s policies and that policy differences aren’t grounds for impeachment. They have lambasted the proceedings, calling them a waste of time when lawmakers should be working together to solve the problems.

    Democrats, as well as Mayorkas, have argued that it’s not the administration’s policies that are causing people to attempt to migrate to America but that the movement is part of a global mass migration of people fleeing wars, economic instability and political repression. They have argued that Mayorkas is doing the best he can to manage border security but with a system that hasn’t been updated in decades and is chronically underfunded.

    The department on Sunday cited high numbers of people being removed from the country, especially over roughly the last six months and its efforts to tackle fentanyl smuggling as proof that DHS is not shirking its border duties. And, they said, no administration has been able to detain every person who crosses the border illegally, citing space capacities. Instead, they focus on those who pose security threats.

    “A standard requiring 100% detention would mean that Congress should have impeached every DHS Secretary since the Department was founded,” the agency said in the statement.

    The last Cabinet secretary to be impeached was William Belknap, the war secretary under President Ulysses Grant, over corruption issues.

    The House voted unanimously March 2, 1876, to impeach Belknap on five articles of impeachment that he’d criminally disregarded his Cabinet duties and used his office for private gain. Belknap had resigned earlier that same day. After a trial in the Senate, a majority of senators vote to convict him but they didn’t have enough votes to hit the the necessary two-thirds majority and Belknap was acquitted.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Impeach Paxton Again? Not Likely, but the Texas AG’s Latest Move Isn’t Helping His Cause

    Impeach Paxton Again? Not Likely, but the Texas AG’s Latest Move Isn’t Helping His Cause

    [ad_1]

    When Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reached a settlement with whistleblowers in February 2023 he unwittingly initiated a House investigation into accusations of corruption and bribery. The House impeached him, but in September, the Senate, for the most part, voted along party lines to reinstate him to the position to which he’s been elected three times.

    Now, more recent legal move by the Lone Star State’s top lawyer might’ve just tickled the tripwire for yet another round of impeachment discussions, if one GOP senator has his way.

    On Jan. 18 Paxton announced his office would no longer contest the whistleblower lawsuit and requested a final judgment. The McKinney resident used the occasion to present himself as a Texas-defending martyr of sorts.

    “Now, in the best interests of the State of Texas, the Office of the Attorney General is moving on from an employment lawsuit against the agency by four employees that presents the same issues brought against Attorney General Paxton in the impeachment trial,” the release stated. “The OAG has made the determination that these bad-faith efforts to prolong legal proceedings are an unjustifiable waste of taxpayer resources and an intolerable distraction that risks compromising critical state business.”

    Perhaps it was a case of hoping to manifest an outcome, but the headline of the news release announcing his intentions seemed to be more wishful thinking than legal fact, stating “Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Releas­es State­ment End­ing Lit­i­ga­tion with For­mer Employees.”

    Just to refresh your memory, a group that included some of Paxton’s top aides filed a wrongful termination suit against their former boss in 2020 under the Texas Whistleblower Act. The suit claimed the plaintiffs were fired by Paxton in retaliation for reporting him to the FBI for what they felt were misdeeds amounting to abuse of his office, especially as they pertained to helping real estate developer and Paxton campaign contributor Nate Paul.

    Immediately after Paxton’s latest attempt to somehow bring the case to a close, an attorney representing the whistleblowers said the matter isn’t over, regardless of the AG’s legal maneuvering.

    “[T]his is but another desperate stunt by Ken Paxton to try to avoid a court order compelling him to answer questions about his grimy behavior,” attorney Tom Nesbitt told Austin’s Fox 7 immediately after Paxton’s Jan. 18 announcement.

    It’s important to note here that in his announcement, the AG didn’t mention his apparent allergy to being deposed, something a Travis County judge recently ruled that Paxton must do. As of now, he’s set to be deposed on Feb. 1. Paxton has a long history of finding ways to lengthen court cases, and University of North Texas political science professor Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha told the Observer via email that this latest move is likely “a useful delay.”

    On Thursday night, the party line broke up a bit, if only just symbolically. State Sen. Drew Springer, a Republican from Muenster, one of the GOP state senators who was unmoved by nearly two weeks of eyewitness testimony detailing in highly specific terms just how severe Paxton’s alleged abuse of power was during the impeachment trial, admitted he was finally moved.

    “At this stage, and the point of this letter, I am asking the Senate whether there is a legal mechanism to reopen the impeachment proceedings,” Springer wrote in a statement posted to X. “Failure to at least consider this possibility runs the risk of AG Paxton making a mockery of the Texas Senate.”

    To be clear, according to Springer, now, four months after the fact, is the time to consider the possibility of removing Paxton, rather than in September 2023 when a real, live Senate impeachment trial was underway.

    Springer is not seeking re-election this year, so perhaps there’s a hint of “What are they gonna do, not vote for me?” attitude in play. After all, he is not facing any of the Paxton-backed challengers that now dot the state’s GOP primaries. But it is still significant in that the question is being asked by a one-time Paxton backer after this latest offering of the AG’s signature opaque, obtuse brand of legalese.

    Of course, Paxton replied with a shot of his own, calling Springer “a bad senator,” according to Texas Tribune reporter Patrick Svitek on Thursday night.

    The outgoing senator’s call for another impeachment trial is eye-catching, but it’s difficult to imagine that it will go very far, given how the September trial played out. UNT’s Eshbaugh-Soha isn’t convinced the climate is ripe for such a move.

    “This seems risky, especially right now,” he stated. “Perhaps from an electoral standpoint, impeachment proceedings after the primaries (and after any incumbent Republican legislators have fought off any primary challenges from the right) is a possibility. But everyone spent a lot of political capital on the first round. Why would Springer think that a conviction is more likely now than a few months ago? The Legislature has not become more opposed to Paxton (in terms of new membership or any changes of heart), and so the needle has not moved much, if at all, even with the judge’s decision to depose Paxton.”



    [ad_2]

    Kelly Dearmore

    Source link

  • New Mexico governor threatened with impeachment by Republican lawmakers over gun restrictions

    New Mexico governor threatened with impeachment by Republican lawmakers over gun restrictions

    [ad_1]

    Two Republican legislators filed a resolution Wednesday aimed at initiating impeachment proceedings against Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over her emergency public health orders suspending the right to carry firearms in some public places in greater Albuquerque, such as parks and playgrounds.

    The resolution from Reps. Stefani Lord of Sandia Park and John Block of Alamogordo accuses the governor of violating her oath of office to uphold the state and federal constitutions.

    “The point is that she has too much power,” said Lord, founder of the advocacy group Pro-Gun Women. “We’re just trying to say to her, ‘You have too much power, you’re acting like a dictator. … And we’re going to impeach you.’”

    In a statement obtained by CBS News, Lord called Lujan Grisham a disgrace to New Mexico. “The rights of New Mexicans are not up for debate,” said Lord. “No matter how hard Lujan Grisham tries to violate the constitution, she will never succeed.”

    Block accused the governor of “violating the Constitution to make a political statement,” noting that Lujan Grisham said she expected legal challenges from the outset.

    Lujan Grisham spokesperson Maddy Hayden said in an email that the two sponsors of the resolution are more interested in political stunts than crafting meaningful legislation, citing their bills to criminalize necrophilia and offer sex offenders an early release from prison if they agree to chemical castration procedures.

    “There’s not much to say in direct response to this inane effort” at impeachment, Hayden said.

    Following Wednesday’s filings Representative Stefani Lord posted a statement on X saying, “The rights of the New Mexicans are not up for debate, and no matter how hard Lujan Grisham tries to violate the constitution, I will be there to stand firm against her tyranny.”  

    It’s unclear whether the resolution, which outlines articles of impeachment, will advance to public committee deliberations in the state House, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 45 to 25.

    Lujan Grisham, a second-term Democrat, invoked the emergency orders last year in response to a spate of gun violence including the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium.

    Gun rights advocates have filed legal challenges to the orders and are urging the New Mexico Supreme Court to block them. The court recently heard oral arguments in the lawsuit brought by Republican state legislators, the National Rifle Association and several residents of the Albuquerque area, who include retired law enforcement officers, former federal agents, licensed firearms instructors and a gun shop owner.

    In the federal court system, a judge has allowed enforcement of the gun provision to continue while legal challenges run their course.

    Lujan Grisham delivered her second State of the State address on Tuesday, where she called for the following: a gun safety package that bans assault weapons, raises the legal purchase age for all guns to 21, institutes a 14-day waiting period, increasing penalties for felons in possession of a firearm, keeps guns out of parks and playgrounds, and allows law enforcement officers to file Extreme Risk Protection Orders to keep firearms away from people who are a danger to themselves or others. 

    New Mexico lawmakers convened Tuesday for a 30-day session and could take up a broad slate of firearms proposals from the governor that aim to reduce gun violence, including a permanent statewide ban on firearms in public parks and playgrounds.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Watch Live: House committee holds first impeachment hearing for DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

    Watch Live: House committee holds first impeachment hearing for DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

    [ad_1]

    Washington — House Republicans are moving forward with their effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his handling of the situation along the U.S.-Mexico border, holding their first hearing on the matter Wednesday morning.

    “Today is a solemn occasion as this committee begins official impeachment proceedings in the matter of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his handling of America’s borders since taking office in February 2021,” GOP Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, the committee’s chairman said. “Our evidence makes it clear: Secretary Mayorkas is the architect of the devastation that we have witnessed for nearly three years.”

    House Republicans argue that Mayorkas has failed to perform his duties and neglected to act in accordance with laws passed by Congress. The impeachment push also comes as the GOP has made border security a central theme ahead of the 2024 elections, seeking to capitalize on the issue after an unprecedented number of migrants crossed the southern border at the end of last year. 

    Attorneys general from Montana, Oklahoma and Missouri testified at Wednesday’s hearing to highlight the impact of migration on their states under Mayorkas’ leadership. The secretary did not attend. The Department of Homeland Security called the impeachment effort “baseless and pointless” and called on Congress to reform the nation’s immigration laws.

    The Mayorkas impeachment hearing

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas speaks at the State Department in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 13, 2022.
    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas speaks at the State Department in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 13, 2022.

    OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images


    Green argued in his opening statement that impeachment was designed not only to remove officials “engaged in criminal behavior,” but also those “guilty of such gross incompetence that their conduct had endangered their fellow Americans, betrayed the public trust or represented a neglect of duty.” He suggested that Mayorkas’ handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border had met the standard.

    Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers decried the impeachment effort, calling it a political exercise with no reasonable basis. 

    “It is now campaign season and Republicans recently rolled out their impeachment proceedings against the secretary like a pre-planned, predetermined political stunt it is,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the committee. “This is not a legitimate impeachment.”

    Thompson said House Republicans are pushing the impeachment inquiry “to distract from their own failures,” while highlighting that some are opposing funding for the border in the White House’s supplemental funding request despite their push to enhance border security.

    “Democrats want to strengthen border security. We want to keep fentanyl off the street. We want to keep communities safe,” Thompson said. “This circus side-show impeachment does none of that.”

    The attorneys general railed against Mayorkas’ leadership on Wednesday, testifying that the situation has grown dire in their states under the secretary’s tenure, attributing local drug and trafficking incidents to the flow of migrants at the southern border.

    “The Trump administration overcame fierce opposition at every turn and was able to gain control of our southern border as no previous administration could. But all of that progress has been destroyed,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said. “Secretary Mayorkas is the architect of that destruction.”

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey accused Mayorkas of facilitating an “orchestrated lack of enforcement” of the country’s immigration laws, which he said has led to the impeachment proceedings. 

    “Rather than find ways to secure our border, Secretary Mayorkas has been busy enacting policies to make it easier to enter our country illegally,” Bailey said, adding that states are “forced to bear the enormous cost of Secretary Mayorkas’ failure.”

    Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri’s law school, appeared before the committee at the invitation of Democratic members. He stressed that impeachment “is not supposed to be a routine tool to resolve ordinary public policy debates.”

    Bowman explained that the Constitution defines impeachable conduct as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and argued that policy disputes between Congress and a Cabinet secretary do not rise to that level.

    “The most commonly encountered categories of impeachable conduct are official corruption, abuse of power, betrayal of the nation’s foreign policy interests and subversion of the Constitution,” Bowman said. “There is no serious allegation of which I’m aware that the secretary has done any of those things.”

    Republicans’ impeachment push

    The hearing comes after House leaders last year stalled an effort by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to force a vote on impeaching Mayorkas. The Georgia Republican pulled her impeachment resolution after she said she received assurances from House leaders that her earlier effort would move forward at the committee level. 

    Greene’s resolution accused Mayorkas of violating federal law and the Constitution by failing to “maintain operational control of the border” and prevent an “invasion.” 

    Some Republicans voiced doubt about impeachment at the time, saying Mayorkas’ actions did not amount to impeachable offenses. Others said they wanted to wait for the committee’s investigation to be completed before holding an impeachment vote. 

    Green, the committee chairman, said last week that the panel recently concluded a nearly yearlong investigation into the situation at the border. 

    “Our investigation made clear that this crisis finds its foundation in Secretary Mayorkas’ decision-making and refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and that his failure to fulfill his oath of office demands accountability,” he said in a statement announcing the hearing. 

    House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana led a delegation of more than 60 Republicans to the border last week. He called the trip an “eye opener,” saying they got a “first-hand look at the damage and chaos the border catastrophe is causing in all of our communities.” 

    Even if the GOP-controlled House impeaches Mayorkas, it is highly unlikely that he would be convicted in a trial in the Senate, which has a Democratic majority and would require a vote of two-thirds of senators to remove him from office. Still, his impeachment would be historic, given that he would be the first Cabinet official to be impeached in almost 150 years. 

    During a visit to the border on Monday, Mayorkas called on Congress to take action to fix the nation’s immigration system and said accusations that he has not enforced the nation’s laws “could not be further from the truth.” 

    “There is nothing I take more seriously than our responsibility to uphold the law,” Mayorkas said, later adding that “the majority of all migrants encountered at the Southwest border throughout this administration have been removed, returned or expelled — a majority of them.” 

    Mayorkas has been part of talks between the White House and a small bipartisan group of senators who have been negotiating a potential deal on immigration policy and border security. 

    In a memo released ahead of the impeachment hearing, the Department of Homeland Security pointed to those talks and contrasted them with the impeachment effort in the House.

    “After decades of Congressional inaction on our broken immigration laws, Secretary Mayorkas and a bipartisan group of Senators are working hard to try and find real solutions to address these challenges,” the DHS memo said. “Instead of working in a bipartisan way to fix our broken immigration laws, the House Majority is wasting time on baseless and pointless political attacks by trying to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.” 

    Nikole Killion and Nicole Sganga contributed reporting. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maine secretary of state who opted to keep Trump off primary ballot is facing threat of impeachment

    Maine secretary of state who opted to keep Trump off primary ballot is facing threat of impeachment

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s top election official could face an impeachment attempt in the state Legislature over her decision to keep former President Donald Trump off the Republican primary ballot.

    At least one Republican lawmaker has vowed to pursue impeachment against Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows despite long odds in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

    Bellows said Friday that she had no comment on the impeachment effort, but said she was duty-bound by state law to make a determination on three challenges brought by registered Maine voters. She reiterated that she suspended her decision pending an anticipated appeal by Trump in Superior Court.

    “Under Maine law, I have not only the authority but the obligation to act,” she said. “I will follow the Constitution and the rule of law as directed by the courts,” she added.

    Bellows’ decision Thursday followed a ruling earlier this month by the Colorado Supreme Court that removed Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That decision is on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether Trump violated the Civil War-era provision prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

    “In 150 years, no candidate was kept off a ballot for engaging in an insurrection. It’s now happened twice to Donald Trump in the last two weeks. There will be major pressure on the Supreme Court to offer clarity very soon,” said Derek Muller, a Notre Dame Law School professor and election law scholar.

    In Maine, state Rep. John Andrews, who sits on the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee, called the decision “hyper-partisanship on full display” as he pressed for an impeachment proceeding. He said he sent a notice to the state revisor’s office for a joint order to set the wheels in motion ahead of lawmakers’ return to Augusta next week.

    “There is bipartisan opposition to the extreme decision made by the secretary of state. She has clearly overstepped her authority. It remains to be seen if her effort at voter suppression will garner enough Democrat support to remove her from her position,” said House Republican leader Billy Bob Faulkingham.

    The decision exposed Bellows to hate and vitriol on social media — along with posts showing support — and her office said Bellows and members of her staff were subjected to threats, something she called “unacceptable.”

    “My obligation is to the Constitution and the rule of law. It’s the Constitution and the rule of law that make our Democratic Republic so great. No one should be threatened for doing their job,” she said Friday evening.

    “I hope those people who are engaging in angry and threatening communications consider the impact of their words and actions,” she added.

    Among Maine’s congressional delegation, only Democratic U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, who represents the liberal 1st Congressional District, supported Bellows’ conclusion that Trump incited an insurrection, justifying his removal from the March 5 primary ballot.

    U.S. Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said Friday that absent a final judicial determination on the issue of insurrection, the decision on whether Trump should be considered for president “should rest with the people as expressed in free and fair elections.”

    U.S. Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat representing the 2nd Congressional District, agreed that “until (Trump) is found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot.”

    U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, the state’s senior senator, was one of a handful of Republicans to vote to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial, and she criticized him in a floor speech for failing to obey his oath of office.

    But she nonetheless disagreed with Bellows’ decision. “Maine voters should decide who wins the election, not a secretary of state chosen by the Legislature,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dilma Rousseff Fast Facts | CNN

    Dilma Rousseff Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

    Birth date: December 14, 1947

    Birth place: Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Birth name: Dilma Vana Rousseff

    Father: Pedro Rousseff, construction entrepreneur

    Mother: Dilma Jane (da Silva) Rousseff, teacher

    Marriages: Carlos Araujo (1973-2000, divorced); Claudio Galeno Linhares (1968-early 1970s, divorced)

    Children: with Carlos Araujo: Paula, 1976

    Education: Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, B.A. Economics, 1977

    Prior to running for president, she had never run for an elected office.

    Joined the resistance movement against the military dictatorship and was jailed and allegedly tortured in the early 1970s.

    Rousseff democratized Brazil’s electricity sector through the “Luz Para Todos” (Light for All) program, which made electricity widely available, even in rural areas.

    1986 – Finance secretary for the city of Porto Alegre.

    2003 – Is named minister of mines and energy by President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva.

    2003-2010 – Serves as chair of Petrobras, Brazil’s state-run oil company.

    June 2005-March 2010 – Lula da Silva’s chief of staff.

    April 2009 – Is diagnosed with stage one lymphoma and begins treatment. By September, she is declared cancer free.

    October 31, 2010 – Wins a run-off election to become Brazil’s first female president.

    September 21, 2011 – Becomes the first female leader to kick off the annual United Nations General Assembly debates.

    2011 – Allegations of corruption are the basis of her dismissal of six cabinet ministers in her first year in office. Between June and December, her chief of staff, ministers of tourism, agriculture, transportation, sports and labor along with 20 transportation employees resign as a result of the scandal.

    September 17, 2013 – The United States and Brazil jointly agree to postpone Rousseff’s state visit to Washington next month due to controversy over reports the US government was spying on her communications.

    September 24, 2013 – In a speech before the UN General Assembly, Rousseff speaks about allegations that the US National Security Agency spied on her. “Tampering in such a manner in the lives and affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and, as such, it is an affront to the principles that should otherwise govern relations among countries, especially among friendly nations.”

    2014 – Executives at Petrobras are accused of illegally “diverting” billions from the company’s accounts for their personal use or to pay off officials. Rousseff served as chair of Petrobras during many of the years when the alleged corruption took place. She denies any knowledge of the corruption.

    October 26, 2014 – Is reelected president.

    December 2, 2015 – A bid to impeach Rousseff is launched by the speaker of the country’s lower house of Congress, Eduardo Cunha. Rousseff has been accused of hiding a budgetary deficit to win reelection in 2014, and opponents blame her for the worst recession in decades.

    April 17, 2016 – A total of 367 lawmakers in the Brazilian parliament’s lower house vote to impeach Rousseff, comfortably more than the two-thirds majority required by law. The impeachment motion will next go to the country’s Senate.

    May 12, 2016 – The Brazilian Senate votes 55-22 to begin an impeachment trial against Rousseff. Rousseff will step down for 180 days and Vice President Michel Temer will serve as interim president while the trial takes place.

    August 4, 2016 – After a final report concludes that reasons exist to proceed with formally removing Rousseff, the Brazilian Senate impeachment commission votes in favor of trying the suspended president in front of the full senate chamber.

    August 25, 2016 – Rousseff’s impeachment trial begins.

    August 31, 2016 – Brazil’s Senate votes 61-20 in favor of removing Rousseff from office.

    September 5, 2017 – Corruption charges are filed against Rousseff, her predecessor Lula da Silva, and six Workers’ Party members. They are accused of running a criminal organization, to divert funds from state-owned oil firm Petrobras. The charges are related to Operation Car Wash, a lengthy money laundering investigation conducted by the Brazilian government. Lula da Silva, Rousseff, and the Workers’ party deny the allegations.

    October 7, 2018 – Rousseff only receives 15% of the vote for senator in the general election.

    March 24, 2023 – The New Development Bank announces its board of governors elected Rousseff as its new president.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Republican leading the probe of Hunter Biden has his own shell company and complicated friends

    The Republican leading the probe of Hunter Biden has his own shell company and complicated friends

    [ad_1]

    TOMPKINSVILLE, Ky. — Rep. James Comer, a multimillionaire farmer, boasts of being one of the largest landholders near his rural Kentucky hometown, and he has meticulously documented nearly all of his landholdings on congressional financial disclosure documents – roughly 1,600 acres in all.

    But there are six acres that he bought in 2015 and co-owns with a longtime campaign contributor that he has treated differently, transferring his ownership to Farm Team Properties, a shell company he co-owns with his wife.

    Interviews and records reviewed by The Associated Press provide new insights into the financial deal, which risks undercutting the force of some of Comer’s central arguments in his impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden. For months, the chairman of the House Oversight committee and his Republican colleagues have been pounding Biden for how his relatives traded on their famous name to secure business deals.

    In particular, Comer has attacked some Biden family members, including the president’s son Hunter, over their use of “shell companies” that appear designed to obscure millions of dollars in earnings they received from shadowy middlemen and foreign interests.

    Such companies typically exist only on paper and are formed to hold an asset, like real estate. Their opaque structures are often designed to help hide ownership of property and other assets.

    The companies used by the Bidens are already playing a central role in the impeachment investigation, which is expected to gain velocity after House Republicans voted Wednesday to formally authorize the probe. The vote follows the federal indictment last week of Biden’s son Hunter on charges he engaged in a scheme to avoid paying taxes on his earnings through the companies.

    But as Comer works to “deliver the transparency and accountability that the American people demand” through the GOP’s investigation, his own finances and relationships have begun to draw notice, too, including his ties to prominent local figures who have complicated pasts not all that dissimilar to some of those caught up in his Biden probe.

    Comer declined to comment through a spokesman, but has aggressively denied any wrongdoing in establishing a shell company.

    After Democrats blasted him for being a hypocrite following the Daily Beast ’s disclosure of the company last month, Comer countered by calling a Democratic lawmaker a “smurf” and saying that the criticism was the kind of thing “only dumb, financially illiterate people pick up on.”

    The AP found that Farm Team Properties functions in a similarly opaque way as the companies used by the Bidens, masking his stake in the land that he co-owns with the donor from being revealed on his financial disclosure forms. Those records describe Farm Team Properties as his wife’s “land management and real estate speculation” company without providing further details.

    It’s not clear why Comer decided to put those six acres in a shell company, or what other assets Farm Team Properties may hold. On his most recent financial disclosure forms, Comer lists its value as being as much as $1 million, a substantial sum but a fraction of his overall wealth.

    Ethics experts say House rules require members of Congress to disclose all assets held by such companies that are worth more than $1,000.

    “It seems pretty clear to me that he should be disclosing the individual land assets that are held by” the shell company, said Delaney Marsco, a senior attorney who specializes in congressional ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington.

    Marsco and other experts were perplexed as to why Comer would place such assets in a shell company, especially since he disclosed his other holdings and does not appear to have taken other efforts to hide his wealth.

    “This is actually a real problem that anti-corruption activists would love to get legislative reform on,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in government ethics. “It is hard to trace assets held in shell companies. His is a good example.”

    Comer created the company in 2017 to hold his stake in the six acres that he purchased two years earlier in a joint venture with Darren Cleary, a major campaign contributor and construction contractor from Monroe County, Kentucky, where the congressman was born and raised.

    It’s not clear how Comer came to invest with Cleary, who did not respond to an interview request. They have offered mutual praise for each other over the years, including Comer having called Cleary “my friend” and “the epitome of a successful businessperson” from the House floor.

    Cleary, his businesses and family have donated roughly $70,000 to Comer’s various campaigns, records show. He has also lauded Comer on social media for “For Fighting For Us Everyday” and has posted photos of the two on a golf course together.

    At the time he and Comer entered their venture, Cleary was selling an acre of his family’s land to Kentucky so it could build a highway bypass near Tompkinsville, which was completed in 2020. He sold Comer a 50% stake for $128,000 in six acres he owned that would end up being adjacent to the highway.

    Comer, a powerful political figure in this rural part of Kentucky, announced his bid for Congress days after purchasing the land.

    Marketing materials described the land as “choice” property and play up its proximity to the bypass. The partnership sold off about an acre last year for $150,000, a substantial increase over its value when purchased, property records show.

    Farm Team Properties has also become more valuable. On Comer’s financial disclosure forms, it has risen in value from between $50,000 and $100,000 in 2016 to between $500,001 and $1 million in 2022, records show.

    As House Oversight Committee chairman, Comer has presented himself as a bipartisan ethics crusader only interested in uncovering the truth. As evidence, he has pointed to a long career as a state legislator and official who sought to build bridges with Democrats and to “clean up scandal, restore confidence, and crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse.”

    Interviews with allies, critics and constituents, however, reveal a fierce partisan who has ignored wrongdoing by friends and supporters if they can help him advance in business and politics.

    “The Jamie Comer I knew was light and sunshine and looking for common ground. Now he’s Nixonian,” said Adam Edelen, a former Democratic state auditor and friend, comparing the lawmaker to a disgraced former president who resigned from office amid the Watergate scandal.

    In Comer’s telling, he is a man of self-made wealth who founded his first farm while still enrolled at Western Kentucky University and shrewdly invested in land.

    After graduating in 1993, Comer got into the insurance business with Billy D. Poston, a family friend.

    The two later had a falling out. When poor health prevented Polston from running for reelection as a state representative in 2000, Comer, then 27, took on Polston’s wife in the GOP primary, winning that race and the general election. For years, Comer took credit in interviews for defeating the ‘incumbent.”

    Comer cut his teeth in the bare-knuckled machine politics of Monroe County, Kentucky, and knew how to win allies, according to those who knew him.

    When he was barely out of high school, Comer was writing campaign checks to state politicians, including a $4,000 contribution to a Republican candidate for governor in 1990, followed by another check in 1991 for $1,050, according to campaign finance disclosures published in local news stories. Both contributions listed Comer’s occupation as “student.”

    Comer followed in the footsteps of his paternal grandfather, Harlin Comer, who was a leading figure in local Republican politics, as well as a construction contractor and bank officer.

    When Harlin Comer died in 1993, the 21-year-old Comer took over as chairman of the Monroe County GOP. A wave of indictments against local Republican office holders, some of whom helped launch Comer’s political career and became close friends, soon followed.

    Mitchell Page and Larry Pitcock were among those charged in the sweep. Page, then the county’s chief executive, and Pitcock, the former county clerk, were sentenced in 1996 to 18 months in prison for tampering with a state computer database so that they and their families could avoid paying vehicle taxes.

    Rather than turning on Pitcock and Page, Comer has remained close to the men. He praised Page on the House floor in 2020 for his “principled leadership.”

    Page did not respond to a request for comment. Pitcock could not be reached at phone numbers listed to him.

    Pitcock and his family members have donated about $9,000 to Comer’s political campaigns and held one of Comer’s first fundraisers when he ran to become state agriculture commissioner, records show. Comer dismissed questions about the propriety of having Pitcock sponsor a fundraiser for him, noting to CN2 News that it helped him raise nearly $60,000.

    Comer eventually hired Pitcock’s son to work for him in the agriculture commissioner’s office, records show. Members of the Pitcock family have since attended a House Republican fundraiser with Comer in Washington and posed for photographs with him inside the U.S. Capitol.

    In 2011, a voter fraud case roiled local politics and swept up Billy Proffitt, Comer’s longtime friend and former college roommate. Proffitt pleaded guilty in December 2011 and was sentenced to probation.

    A few years later, Proffitt came to Comer’s defense from allegations that nearly derailed the future congressman’s political career. During the 2015 Republican primary for governor, a local blogger began posting about accusations that Comer had abused a college girlfriend.

    Comer vehemently denied the allegations. And in the hopes of discrediting the stories, he leaked emails to a local paper that suggested a rival campaign had been coordinating the coverage with the blogger, according to The New York Times. The leak allegation may have discredited the other candidate, Hal Heiner, but ended up hurting Comer’s campaign.

    The coverage angered the former girlfriend, who wrote a letter to the Louisville Courier-Journal in which she asserted that Comer had hit her and that their relationship had been “toxic.” She also told the newspaper that Comer became “enraged” in 1991 after he learned she had used his name on a form she submitted before receiving an abortion at a Louisville clinic.

    Proffitt, however, told the newspaper that he had never seen Comer be abusive toward Thomas.

    “That doesn’t sound like Jamie at all,” said Proffitt, using Comer’s nickname, adding that he had never heard about the allegations of Thomas getting an abortion.

    Comer ended up losing the primary by 83 votes to Matt Bevin, who went on to win the general election. It was the only campaign that Comer has lost.

    The lawmaker and Proffitt remain close friends and business associates.

    Profitt’s family’s real estate company is spearheading the efforts to sell the land held by Farm Team Properties.

    In a brief interview, Proffitt called the focus on Comer’s shell company “much ado about nothing,” adding that the lawmaker “is a loyal friend and a good man who comes from a really, really good family.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – With Biden impeachment probe now authorized, what’s next?

    PolitiFact – With Biden impeachment probe now authorized, what’s next?

    [ad_1]

    The U.S House of Representatives voted Dec. 13 to formally authorize an impeachment investigation into President Joe Biden. On party lines, with all Republican and no Democratic support, the measure passed, 221-212. 

    The vote did not address the merits of whether Biden should be impeached. Instead, it formalized the House’s decision to undertake an investigation that could lead to Biden’s impeachment next year.

    Here’s a recap of where a possible Biden impeachment stands after this vote.

    What is being investigated?

    House Republicans have been investigating Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, for months. These efforts have focused on money Hunter received while serving on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. At the time, Joe Biden was serving as U.S. vice president and helping shape Ukraine policy. Bribery is specifically listed in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment.

    Also receiving scrutiny from House Republicans are payments overseas entities made to James Biden, the president’s brother; statements the president has made about Hunter Biden’s work; evidence of contact between the president and his son’s business partners; and reimbursements Joe Biden received for loans he made to family members.

    So far, none of these inquiries has produced clear evidence of wrongdoing by the president. And the White House has cast the impeachment effort as a way for Republicans to create false equivalence with the four indictments of Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who is the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination.

    Separately, Hunter Biden has been federally indicted on tax and gun charges.

    Why did the authorization vote take place now?

    Initially it was unclear whether House Republicans could get enough votes to pass a formal impeachment authorization, given the GOP’s narrow majority in the chamber and Democratic opposition.

    Seventeen House Republicans who serve in districts that Joe Biden won in 2020, compared with five Democrats who serve in districts Donald Trump won. 

    Voting for an impeachment investigation could be politically risky for any of those Republicans. But party leaders appear to have calmed concerns among those members, emphasizing that this is simply a procedural step. 

    “As we have said numerous times before, voting in favor of an impeachment inquiry does not equal impeachment,” Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., speaking for the GOP leadership, said in a Dec. 12 news conference.

    What does it mean that a formal inquiry has been authorized?

    Before a vote to launch an inquiry, specific charges do not need to be presented. The inquiry is designed to collect evidence.

    “The scope can change in the course of an investigation,” Stephen Griffin, a Tulane University law professor, told PolitiFact in September, when an impeachment inquiry vote was initially considered.

    “The scope of the inquiry could be very broad and even amorphous at the outset, but by the time a committee takes a vote on impeachment articles, it tends to be more focused,” Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, told PolitiFact in September.

    Formally impeaching the president would require another vote, after the investigation has been completed and after the committee responsible for the inquiry advances specific impeachment charges — such as obstruction of justice or bribery — to the full House.

    Does this vote meaningfully change how the process will unfold?

    The Dec. 13 resolution authorizes three House committees to continue the investigations that are already underway; to seek grand jury materials; to pursue subpoenas and approve others retroactively; and to hire outside counsel.

    Scholars disagree about how much difference it could make. 

    A formal inquiry could increase investigators’ ability to demand and receive documents from the White House.

    “It’s clear that the investigative power of the House is stronger in an impeachment inquiry,” Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of a book about the history of impeachment told PolitiFact in September. “If you’re the House, it behooves you to get your investigation under that umbrella if you can.”

    The White House made this argument in a November letter from White House special counsel Richard Sauber to two Republicans who are key to the impeachment effort, House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

    Republicans, Sauber wrote, “claim the mantle of an ‘impeachment inquiry’ knowing full well that the Constitution requires that the full House authorize an impeachment inquiry before a committee may utilize compulsory process pursuant to the impeachment power — a step the Republican House Majority has so far refused to take.”

    Not everyone agrees that a formal vote is necessary, though.

    On the eve of the vote, Matt Glassman, a Georgetown University congressional scholar and former Congressional Research Service staffer, posted on X, “I am going to remain a broken record and say the House committees have all the authority they need to investigate an impeachment. This resolution doesn’t add anything; the Trump and Biden (White Houses) were/are wrong about this; and a bipartisan House should tell them to pound sand.”

    Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, talks to reporters Dec. 13, 2023, at the U.S. Capitol. (AP)

    Investigators already had collected a large amount of information even without official authorization, including “more than 36,000 pages of bank records; 2,000 pages of suspicious activity reports from the Treasury Department; and dozens of hours of testimony from two of Hunter Biden’s business partners, a senior official from the National Archives and Records Administration, seven federal agents and three U.S. attorneys,” The New York Times reported.

    Testimony from one key witness, Hunter Biden himself, was in limbo as the impeachment authorization vote loomed. Hunter Biden’s legal team offered to have him testify in public, but Republicans leading the investigation said they would meet him only privately. Biden’s camp refused, arguing that this would enable Republicans to leak selected portions of his testimony without full context.

    On the day of the impeachment vote, Comer and Jordan said that with Hunter Biden’s refusal to testify privately, they would pursue contempt of Congress proceedings

    RELATED: What’s behind Republicans’ claim that Joe Biden received $40,000 of ‘laundered Chinese money’?

    RELATED: Largest share of foreign payments went to Biden associates, not kin, House GOP memos show

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans Can’t Believe Fox News Keeps Calling Them Out on Their Impeachment Bulls–t

    Republicans Can’t Believe Fox News Keeps Calling Them Out on Their Impeachment Bulls–t

    [ad_1]

    That Republicans will likely vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden on Wednesday should not come as a surprise to anyone given the GOP’s history of (1) being obsessed with the unproven claim that the president sits at the top of a sprawling family crime ring (2) doing everything Donald Trump tells it to do, and (3) having no shame. What is surprising—and downright hilarious—is that Fox News, which the GOP thought had its back, keeps telling viewers that Republicans have zero basis to impeach the president and are also hypocrites to boot.

    The hypocrisy callout came on Tuesday night, when anchor Bret Baier played a 2019 clip of Mike Johnson, then a little-known congressman, declaring that the founding fathers were rolling over in their graves on account of Trump facing impeachment so close to an election year. “The founders of this country warned against a single-party impeachment—for good reason. They feared that it would bitterly, and perhaps irreparably, divide our nation,” Johnson said almost exactly four years ago. “As the next election in 2020 is drawing so close now, and their candidates for president are so terribly weak, they obviously met somewhere at liberal high command about 75 days ago and convinced Nancy Pelosi they had to pull the trigger. I hope and pray that future Congresses can and will exercise greater restraint.”

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Noting that 17 House Republicans who represent districts Biden won in 2020 would probably love for Johnson to “exercise greater restraint” now, Baier asked the House Speaker to square away the blatant double standard on display. Naturally, the House leader rebutted by saying that this time is totally, totally different, and that his party has followed proper procedure, something he claimed Democrats failed to do when impeaching Trump for trying to extort Ukraine.

    “We’ve shown great restraint,” Johnson insisted. “I mean, there are a lot of people who are frustrated that this hasn’t moved faster. But there’s a big distinction. I stand by every word I said in that video. There’s a big distinction between what’s happening now and what the Democrats do. Those were rushed, sham impeachments.”

    Johnson’s about-face—and Baier’s callout—came days after two other Fox News stars, father and son Steve Doocy and Peter Doocy, reminded viewers that Republicans have been investigating Biden for more than a year and have still come up with no evidence to impeach him. As in zero, zilch, nada. “The House Oversight Committee has been at this for years,” Boy Doocy said Friday, “and they have so far not been able to provide any concrete evidence that Joe Biden personally profited from his son Hunter’s overseas business.” On Monday, Peter’s father informed the Fox & Friends audience that “at this point…[Republicans] have not connected the dots” between Hunter’s alleged crimes and Joe Biden. “They’ve connected the dots—the Department of Justice did on Hunter. But they have not shown where Joe Biden did anything illegally.”

    Which was apparently a bridge too far for House Oversight chair James Comer, who whined to Newsmax on Tuesday about Steve Doocy not falling in line, explaining that the host’s insistence on calling out Republicans is why he stopped going on the guy’s show.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • House to vote on whether to continue impeachment inquiry into President Biden

    House to vote on whether to continue impeachment inquiry into President Biden

    [ad_1]

    House to vote on whether to continue impeachment inquiry into President Biden – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Republican-led House of Representatives is set to vote Wednesday on whether to push forward with the impeachment inquiry into President Biden. It follows a monthslong investigation into the president and his family’s business affairs that so far has failed to produce any evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors. Nikole Killion reports.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News Hosts Say Republicans Have No Evidence to Impeach Joe Biden

    Fox News Hosts Say Republicans Have No Evidence to Impeach Joe Biden

    [ad_1]

    Unless you’ve been living under a rock without access to basic cable, you likely know that Fox News mainly operates as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Over the last several years, that’s meant a significant amount of the network’s programming has involved painting Joe Biden as a cognitively impaired criminal who is deliberately destroying the country and is either “a puppet or he’s being blackmailed.” So the fact that not one, but two of the network’s hosts have declared in the last three days that the Republican Party has zero evidence to impeach the president is pretty, pretty, pretty embarrassing for the GOP.

    On Monday, Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy told viewers that despite months of probing, “Republicans at this point…they have not connected the dots” between Hunter Biden’s alleged crimes and Joe Biden. “They’ve connected the dots, the Department of Justice did on Hunter, but they have not shown where Joe Biden did anything illegally.”

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Doocy’s remarks came just days after his son, White House reporter Peter Doocy, called bullshit on Republicans’ attempts to tie Joe Biden to his son, whose overseas activities have been an obsession of the right since Donald Trump tried to extort Ukraine into digging up dirt on the family. “The House Oversight Committee has been at this for years, and they have so far not been able to provide any concrete evidence that Joe Biden personally profited from his son Hunter’s overseas business,” Doocy the younger said.

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Despite pushback from Doocy & Son, Republicans appear to be full steam ahead with authorizing a formal impeachment inquiry into the president. Politico reported on Monday that a whip count “shows that a single Republican, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), opposes a vote scheduled for this week to formalize the impeachment inquiry,” with other lawmakers, previously thought to be on the fence, “now either supportive or likely to support it, according to the tally, including a majority of Republicans who represent districts Biden carried in 2020.” Speaking to reporters last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he expected unanimous support from House Republicans despite the lack of evidence against the president. “This vote is not a vote to impeach President Biden,” Johnson said. “This is a vote to continue the inquiry of impeachment, and that’s a necessary constitutional step. I believe we’ll get every vote that we have.”

    Last month, The Washington Post reported that Johnson effectively admitted, during a closed-door meeting with GOP lawmakers, that the impeachment push against Biden is entirely political and not actually based on evidence that the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Later, Republican representative Troy Nehls told USA Today that attempting to impeach Joe Biden is merely about giving Donald Trump “a little bit of ammo to fire back” should the two men meet again in the general election.

    In a podcast interview released last week one day after he was indicted, Hunter Biden said, of his father’s critics in the GOP: “In their most base way, what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to kill me, knowing that it will be a pain greater than my father could be able to handle, and so therefore destroying a presidency in that way.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Mike Johnson Predicts Full GOP Support for Biden Impeachment Inquiry, Despite Republicans Not Having Any Actual Evidence Against Biden

    Mike Johnson Predicts Full GOP Support for Biden Impeachment Inquiry, Despite Republicans Not Having Any Actual Evidence Against Biden

    [ad_1]

    Since retaking control of the House earlier this year, Republican lawmakers have devoted a significant amount of their time—when they haven’t been fighting amongst themselves—to attempting to prove President Joe Biden accepted bribes and should be impeached and removed from office. Unfortunately for said Republicans, they haven’t turned up squat—as a number of their colleagues will tell you—and instead have merely succeeded in making themselves look stupid. Which, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson, can only mean one thing: They should double down.

    Speaking to reporters on Tuesday about an upcoming vote to authorize a formal impeachment against the president, Johnson said he expected every single House Republican to vote in favor of it. Yes, despite an astonishing lack of evidence against Biden, Johnson believes the GOP should and will dig themselves further into this hole. “This vote is not a vote to impeach President Biden,” the House Speaker said. “This is a vote to continue the inquiry of impeachment, and that’s a necessary constitutional step. I believe we’ll get every vote that we have.” (An aide to the Speaker told The New York Times that a vote would likely happen next week, though things could change.)

    To date, the GOP investigation into the president has focused primarily on the work his son Hunter Biden did for companies in China, Ukraine, and other countries. And as the Times notes, that hasn’t worked out so well for them, vis-à-vis proving their claims of a Biden family crime ring.

    Per the Times:

    Republicans have labored to prove that President Biden was enriched by his son’s business dealings. Many of the documents they have produced thus far have, in fact, demonstrated the opposite: that Mr. Biden lent money to his son and brother, James Biden, when they were in need, and they later paid him back.

    On Monday, the House Oversight Committee released documents that showed that one of Hunter Biden’s businesses, Owasco PC, made three payments of $1,380 to Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2018 when he was not in office. Republicans said the payments were evidence of corruption. Other documents indicate the money was to pay back his father for helping to cover the cost of a Ford truck.

    Representative James Comer, the chair of the Oversight Committee, appeared on Newsmax this week to demonstrate that he has no idea how loans, or math, for that matter, work:

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Last week, Hunter Biden told Congress that he would happily comply with a subpoena for testimony, but only in public. In response, the committee rejected the offer and insisted he must testify in private, leading Representative Jamie Raskin to issue a statement calling the GOP’s rejection “an epic humiliation” and “a frank confession that they are simply not interested in the facts and have no confidence in their own case or the ability of their own Members to pursue it.” 

    Last month, The Washington Post reported that Johnson effectively admitted, during a closed-door meeting with Republicans, that the impeachment push against Biden is entirely political and not actually based on a belief the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors. This week, Republican representative Troy Nehls told USA Today that attempting to impeach Biden is all about giving Donald Trump “a little bit of ammo to fire back” should the two men meet again in the general election.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden tells Congress he’d testify publicly, but Republicans demand closed-door session

    Hunter Biden tells Congress he’d testify publicly, but Republicans demand closed-door session

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Hunter Biden offered Tuesday to testify publicly before Congress, striking a defiant note in response to a subpoena from Republicans and setting up a potential high-stakes faceoff even as a separate special counsel probe unfolds and his father, President Joe Biden, campaigns for reelection.

    The Democratic president’s son slammed the subpoena’s request for closed-door testimony, saying it can be manipulated. But Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, stood firm, saying Republicans expect “full cooperation” with their original demand for a deposition.

    Hunter Biden’s lawyer called the inquiry a “fishing expedition,” a response in line with the more forceful legal approach he’s taken in recent months as congressional Republicans pursue an impeachment inquiry seeking to tie his father to his business dealings.

    The early-November subpoenas to Hunter Biden and others from Comer were the inquiry’s most aggressive steps yet, testing the reach of congressional oversight powers.

    Republicans have so far failed to uncover evidence directly implicating President Biden in any wrongdoing. But questions have arisen about the ethics surrounding the Biden family’s international business, and lawmakers insist their evidence paints a troubling picture of “influence peddling” in their business dealings, particularly with clients overseas.

    Comer said Tuesday that the president’s son could testify publicly in the future, but he expects him to sit for a deposition on Dec. 13 as outlined in the subpoena.

    “Hunter Biden is trying to play by his own rules instead of following the rules required of everyone else. That won’t stand with House Republicans,” he said. Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said Republicans will stick with a private deposition first and then a public hearing. “We’re happy he wants to talk,” he said.

    Hunter Biden, for his part, said his business dealings are legitimate and accused Republicans of seeking to contort his past struggles with addiction. His attorney Abbe Lowell said in Tuesday’s letter that his client had previously offered to speak with the committee without a response. He’s willing to appear publicly rather than behind closed doors because those sessions can be selectively leaked and used to manipulate the facts, Lowell said.

    “If, as you claim, your efforts are important and involve issues that Americans should know about, then let the light shine on these proceedings,” Lowell wrote.

    Hunter Biden offered to appear on Dec. 13, the date named in the subpoena, or another day next month. Republicans have also spoken with an attorney for his uncle James Biden to determine a date for his subpoenaed testimony, Jordan said. The subpoenas to the Biden family members and others, including former business associate Rob Walker, are bitterly opposed by Democrats, and the White House has called for them to be withdrawn.

    “House Republicans should really focus on American families instead of the president’s family. That’s what Americans want to see,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, blasted the GOP rejection of Hunter Biden’s offer to testify publicly on Dec. 13, saying, “What the Republicans fear most is sunlight and the truth.”

    Hunter Biden’s response comes as he pushes back against his detractors in court, pursuing a flurry of lawsuits against Republican allies of former President Donald Trump who have traded and passed around private data from a laptop that purportedly belonged to him.

    President Biden, for his part, has had little to say about his son’s legal woes beyond that Hunter did nothing wrong and he loves his son. The White House strategy has generally been to keep the elder Biden focused on governing and voters focused on his policy achievements.

    That could prove more difficult as Hunter Biden continues to fight both the congressional probe and a criminal case into the next year, and there are indications it’s politically fraught territory for the president.

    An October poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 35% of U.S. adults believe Joe Biden personally has done something illegal with regard to the business dealings of his son. An additional 33% say the president acted unethically but did not violate the law. Just 30% say Joe Biden did nothing wrong.

    Hunter Biden is charged with three firearms felonies related to the 2018 purchase of a gun during a period he has acknowledged being addicted to drugs. The case was filed after an expected plea deal on tax evasion and gun charges imploded during a July hearing.

    No new tax charges have been filed, but the Justice Department special counsel overseeing the long-running investigation has indicated they are possible in California, where he now lives.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri and Colleen Long contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans issue a subpoena to federal prosecutor in Hunter Biden’s case

    House Republicans issue a subpoena to federal prosecutor in Hunter Biden’s case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Republicans issued a subpoena Tuesday to a federal prosecutor involved in the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, demanding answers for what they allege is Justice Department interference in the yearslong case into the president’s son.

    Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Lesley Wolf, the assistant U.S. attorney for Delaware, to appear before the committee by Dec. 7, according to a copy of the congressional subpoena obtained by The Associated Press.

    “Based on the Committee’s investigation to date, it is clear that you possess specialized and unique information that is unavailable to the Committee through other sources and without which the Committee’s inquiry would be incomplete,” Jordan wrote in an accompanying letter to Wolf.

    The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The subpoena to Wolf is the latest in a series of demands Jordan and fellow Republican chairmen have made as part of their sprawling impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. His youngest son Hunter and brother James received subpoenas last week as Republicans look to gain ground in their nearly yearlong investigation, which has so failed to uncover evidence directly implicating the president in any wrongdoing.

    The inquiry is focused both on the Biden family’s international business affairs and the Justice Department’s investigation into Hunter Biden, which Republicans claim has been slow-walked and stonewalled since the case was opened in 2018.

    Wolf, who serves with David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware in charge of the case, has been accused by whistleblowers from the Internal Revenue Service of “deviating from standard investigative protocol” and showing preferential treatment because Hunter Biden is the president’s son.

    Republicans have claimed that it was clear that the prosecutors didn’t want to touch anything that would include Hunter Biden’s father. In one instance, Gary Shapley, an IRS employee assigned to the case, testified that in a meeting with Weiss and Wolf after the 2020 election, he and other agents wanted to discuss an email between Hunter Biden associates where one person made reference to the “big guy.” Shapley said Wolf refused to do so, saying she did not want to ask questions about “dad.”

    Other claims relate to an August 2020 email in which Wolf ordered investigators to remove any mention of “Political Figure 1,” who was known to be Biden, from a search warrant. In another incident, FBI officials notified Hunter Biden’s Secret Service detail in advance of an effort to interview him and several of his business associates in order to avoid a potential shoot-out between two law enforcement bodies.

    Justice Department officials have countered these claims by pointing to the extraordinary set of circumstances surrounding a criminal case into a subject who at the time was the son of a leading presidential candidate. Department policy has long warned prosecutors to take care in charging cases with potential political overtones around the time of an election, to avoid any possible influence on the outcome.

    Weiss himself appeared for a closed-door interview this month and denied accusations of political interference.

    “Political considerations played no part in our decision-making,” he told the committee.

    Nonetheless, Republicans are demanding Wolf appear before lawmakers as she has “first-hand knowledge of the Department’s criminal inquiry of Hunter Biden,” and refused a voluntary request to come in over the summer.

    Jordan wrote in the letter to Wolf.: “Given your critical role you played in the investigation of Hunter Biden, you are uniquely situated to shed light on whether President Biden played any role in the Department’s investigation and whether he attempted, in any way, to directly or indirectly obstruct either that investigation or our investigation.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link