Politics
Multiple venues on the 2024 presidential campaign trail
It would be like playing the Super Bowl at Churchill Downs.
The Stanley Cup Finals at Fenway Park.
Running the Indianapolis 500 in the old Boston Garden.
The 2024 presidential campaign likely won’t unfold in all the old familiar places.
THE SPEAKER’S LOBBY: LEGISLATION ON COLLEGE SPORTS RELEGATED TO THE JV
The presidential proving ground for former President Trump may be in various courthouses, ranging from New York to Atlanta.
But House Republicans hope the presidential validation field for President Biden in 2024 is in the halls of Congress.
House Republicans didn’t accomplish much in 2023. But in mid-December, House GOPers finally conjured up the votes to formalize an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. That dynamic — emerging in an election year — could expose whether voters buy the GOP narrative that Mr. Biden, Hunter Biden and his family have something to hide about overseas business entanglements and financial dealings.
Or, the maneuver could reveal whether Republicans came up with blanks.
There is also the risk that voters believe the GOP is just engineering a not-so-shadow campaign to knife President Biden politically in 2024.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., began inching toward a House impeachment inquiry in late June and early July. But McCarthy never had the votes to officially launch an inquiry. And we all know what happened to McCarthy.
There were two camps of Republicans in the House when it came to impeachment. Not so much on whether the House should impeach Mr. Biden, but on how long an impeachment investigation should take.
Republican presidential candidate and former President Trump speaks at a campaign event last month in Waterloo, Iowa. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
One cohort of GOPers argued last summer they could wrap up the investigation soon and determine by fall whether they should impeach President Biden. They fretted about dragging things out into an election year. The other group didn’t set a timetable. Lawmakers appeared determined to let any inquiry run its course.
And so, here we are in 2024 — a presidential election year. Republicans burned valuable time through 2023 fighting over who should be Speaker of the House and potential rendezvous with government shutdowns and the debt ceiling. So is there any surprise impeachment drifted into 2024?
And therein lies possible trouble.
Of course, any impeachment investigation is dangerous for a sitting president. But historically, it has been just as dangerous for the party undertaking the impeachment investigation.
Consider for a moment: what political benefit has any party ever reaped from an impeachment? Ever? And that includes the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.
What do Democrats have to show with their two impeachments of former President Trump? Few consequences. Mr. Trump roared back stronger than ever after the Capitol riot and is the presumptive Republican nominee.
CONGRESS’ FIGHT OVER IMMIGRATION REFORM COULD LAST A WHILE
What did House Republicans get from their impeachment of former President Clinton in 1998? Well, Republicans almost lost control of the House. And the Republicans of 1998 churned through two House Speakers. The Clinton impeachment signaled the end for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. Gingrich’s intended successor — former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., never became Speaker. It was revealed the night before the House impeached former President Clinton for deeds related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky that Livingston had also had an affair. So Livingston stepped aside.
This is why impeachments are risky. They often backfire. And while there’s a lot of turmoil, they don’t shift the political landscape.
“Without evidence, you simply cannot persuade those suburban voters who will sometimes vote Republican and sometimes vote Democratic, that the Republicans are doing the right thing in the House,” said University of Mary Washington political scientist Stephen Farnsworth. “As much as the far right conservatives in the safe seats are going to want this impeachment inquiry to move forward, the reality is that doing so may very well cost the Republicans their majority.”
We have no idea how or if House Republicans will actually impeach President Biden.
It’s about the math.
Rioters descend on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/John Minchillo/File)
Republicans begin 2024 with a 220-213 advantage in the House. The already meager GOP majority could dwindle further. Republicans cannot lose more than three votes on any roll call and still pass something without assistance from the other side.
Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, will resign in mid-January. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., is out until February recovering from cancer treatment. That means that in late January, Republicans effectively will have 218 operational votes in a 432-member House. They can lose two votes on any given roll call. Otherwise, the Democrats will prevail.
So, it’s unclear if Republicans will ever have the votes to impeach President Biden.
That presents the worst case scenario for the GOP.
Here are three problems:
If Republicans fail to impeach President Biden, the conservative base will be apoplectic.
That’s because Republicans have talked and talked about impeachment since President Biden took office. They potentially raised the bar and failed to deliver. Their voters could turn tail on them.
Then you have this mid-December impeachment inquiry vote. The average voter doesn’t follow the grand details of “impeachment” and the difference between an inquiry and actually impeaching the president. But all House Republicans — including those from battleground districts or the 18 districts President Biden won — are on the hook. That vote alone could be enough to torpedo many of those Republicans in the general election, regardless of how they try to finesse it.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said a “formal impeachment inquiry vote on the floor will allow [Republicans] to take it to the next necessary step.” (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Finally, imagine Republicans not impeaching President Biden, but keeping impeachment on the table with regular hearings and days of closed-door depositions. The public wonders why Republicans are dithering. Their base is displeased that they didn’t impeach the President. Skeptics ask what Republicans are spending all of their time on.
It could be a lose-lose-lose scenario.
Never mind that Republicans run headlong into a legislative jumble later this month and February with possible government shutdowns. And utterly nothing is figured out about securing the border despite weeks of talks. That hamstrings the release of potential aid to Ukraine and Israel. Republicans linked President Biden’s international assistance package to border security. That may work politically. But now it’s looking like it’s imperiling any way to get Ukraine and Israel the money they need.
This is why Republicans are now teeing up a potential impeachment inquiry against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. And Republicans are planning to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for skipping out on a subpoena for a deposition last month.
A contempt of Congress citation cuts two ways.
Republicans will wail that Hunter Biden didn’t comply with a subpoena. But McCarthy, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Scott Perry, R-Penn., and Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., all defied subpoenas in 2022 from the House committee investigation the Capitol riot.
That said, it is hard for the House to enforce a subpoena against a sitting member from one of its committees.
However, watch to see if the Justice Department prosecutes Hunter Biden if the House holds him in contempt. The DoJ prosecuted former Trump aides Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for not complying with subpoenas. If the DoJ doesn’t prosecute, Republicans will argue that the Biden Justice Department is shielding the President’s son. Former President Trump will assert that he’s getting unfair treatment facing prosecution from Special Counsel Jack Smith.
So there are two venues for the 2024 campaign trail.
Yes. States like Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and New Hampshire could determine who is president.
But the battlefield is in the halls of Congress and courtrooms across the nation.
Politics
Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
transcript
transcript
Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.
-
“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”
By Jackeline Luna
February 27, 2026
Politics
ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.
Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.
“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement.
“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”
ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”
Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)
ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”
“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”
“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.
DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”
“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”
The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.
BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE
Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)
It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.
Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.
The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)
“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting. ”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”
Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.
Politics
Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.
The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.
Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.
To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.
“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.
Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.
The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.
Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.
“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”
Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.
Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.
Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.
David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.
David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.
(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.
Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.
Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.
“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”
Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”
Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.
“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.
“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.
Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.
The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.
“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.
In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.
Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.
Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.
(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)
Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.
The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.
That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.
Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.
During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.
First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.
Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”
The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.
Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.
Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.
This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.
“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”
Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.
In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.
On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.
On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.
“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”
On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.
It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.
“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”
Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT