Connect with us

Politics

The practical politics of impeachment: What the math says about the House GOP's report on Biden

Published

on

The practical politics of impeachment: What the math says about the House GOP's report on Biden

“Impeachable conduct.”

“The totality of the corrupt conduct uncovered by the Committees is egregious.” 

“A concerted effort to conceal President Biden’s involvement in the family’s influence peddling scheme.”

These are the findings of a trio of House committees – led by Republicans – into the conduct of President Biden. It’s the final report of the GOP’s impeachment inquiry into Mr. Biden. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., initiated the inquest verbally last summer, trying to quash an uprising from his right flank. The House finally formalized the probe through a roll call vote in December.

BIDEN COMMITTED ‘IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT,’ ‘DEFRAUDED UNITED STATES TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY’: HOUSE GOP REPORT

Advertisement

Note that many Republicans wanted any impeachment investigation wrapped up by the start of last fall, not a couple of months before the 2024 election.

“Republicans have worked to impede and obstruct any effort to investigate Mr. Trump’s actual and proven corruption, including his unconstitutional receipt, while Commander-in-Chief, of millions of dollars from foreign governments that sought, and often received, favors from his Administration,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, in his own “counter” report. 

House Republicans released their 292-page report hours before the president was scheduled to speak to the Democratic convention in Chicago.

The document argues that Mr. Biden’s conduct warranted sanctions, saying his “flagrant abuse of office is clear: impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate.”

US President Joe Biden walks over to talk to reporters after stepping off Air Force One at Hagerstown Regional Airport in Hagerstown, Maryland, on August 16, 2024, on his way to camp David for the weekend. (Photo by SAMUEL CORUM/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., encouraged “all Americans to read this report.” But besides thanking the committees for their work, Johnson didn’t signal there would be a vote on impeachment or imply that the House Republican leadership brass would entertain such a possibility. 

That’s because, at this stage, a prospective vote to impeach President Biden would likely fail on the floor.

Why? It’s about the math. There are at least a dozen House Republicans who oppose impeachment. One senior House GOP leadership source characterized a vote now as “moot.”

Fox is told Republicans soured further on impeachment when President Biden decided against seeking reelection. Plus, Mr. Biden only has five more months before the end of his term. Moreover, a vote on impeachment would put moderate Republicans from swing districts in a bind as the GOP tries to maintain its slim majority. Trotting out a vote on impeachment – just to have a vote on impeachment at this stage – would likely produce a loss on the floor. Democrats could then boomerang the failed impeachment vote on those vulnerable Republicans. Democrats would underscore how Republicans tried for more than a year to impeach President Biden. And it culminated in a failed vote on the floor.

POLITICAL PARALLELS BETWEEN 1968 AND 2024 AS THE DEMOCRATS RETURN TO CHICAGO

Advertisement

A botched impeachment vote would undercut the Republicans’ report itself and constitute an unforced error for the GOP.

It would also mean Republicans may have placed the emphasis on the wrong syllable – just before the election. Mr. Biden’s issues should be old news to Republicans. But focusing on President Biden, right or wrong, is not where the GOP needs to spend its time. Anything tied to impeachment simply steals the spotlight from the narrative Republicans are trying to craft about Vice President Harris. Republicans are still trying to define Harris. Backpedaling to President Biden diminishes that strategy. 

US President Joe Biden during the White House Creator Economy Conference in the Indian Treaty Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2024. Biden said prices are still too high, though underlying US inflation eased for a fourth month on an annual basis in July. (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

If House Republicans truly want to impeach the president – and do it by the book – they would likely need at least another public hearing or two. That would also entail a “markup” session by the Judiciary Committee before sending the matter to the House floor. 

The measure would then go to the House Rules Committee. Then the floor for debate and vote.

Advertisement

And how many articles of impeachment could the GOP engineer for President Biden? One? Two? Four?

COMMENTATOR ON LEFT-LEANING SQUAWK BOX BLASTS DEMS FOR HAVING CLINTON AT DNC

The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas earlier this year, slapping him with two articles of impeachment: breaking the law and breaching the public trust.

The House levied a singular article of impeachment against former President Trump in 2021 for “incitement of insurrection” after the riot at the Capitol.

In 1998, the House Judiciary Committee prepared four articles of impeachment for former President Clinton after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The House only approved two articles, lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The House rejected the other articles.

Advertisement

House Republicans will read and consider the impeachment report over the remainder of the congressional recess. Expect some internal debate when House Republicans first meet in a GOP Conference meeting on the morning of September 10.  

But just because House Republican leaders don’t want the House to tangle with impeachment doesn’t mean there won’t be pressure to do so. It’s possible there could be an attempt by hardline conservatives to force a vote on the floor. Fox is told that Republican leaders are bracing for that possibility when the House returns. A rank-and-file Republican member could compel a vote on impeachment via a “privileged” resolution. Such specialized resolutions must come to the floor right away or within two legislative days. Democrats would likely move to table or kill the resolution. Republicans are then placed in the dubious position of voting against tabling the resolution to bring it to the floor – or voting to kill it.

Former President Bill Clinton.  (GEORGE BRIDGES/AFP via Getty Images)

One senior House Democratic source even speculated to Fox that since it was doubtful the House could impeach President Biden, maybe Democrats wouldn’t try to table impeachment. They’d leave that up to Republicans. Imagine this scenario: Republicans moving to table their own impeachment measure. That would certainly slather some egg on the face of the GOP.

But that’s the least of the problems for Republicans. A vote to table the impeachment resolution is one step removed from actually voting on impeachment itself. A failure to table the resolution prompts the House to vote, up or down, on impeachment itself. A vote where Republicans reject impeachment – after they talked about it for the better part of this Congress – looks ham-fisted. It also underscores the problem Republicans struggled with since early 2023 – under both McCarthy and Johnson: ultra-conservative members create headaches for the rest of the party. That includes fights over who should be Speaker to battles over government funding.

Advertisement

In its “conclusion” section of its report, the trifecta of House committees declare the President’s deeds amount “to impeachable conduct.” The committees add that it’s now up to the full House for “evaluation and consideration of appropriate next steps.”

Most Republicans don’t want to wrestle with the impeachment of an elderly president who is partly out the door. Especially as Republicans try to maintain a threadbare House majority – and as former President Trump faces a serious challenge from Vice President Harris. The macro politics of the 2024 election may dictate that impeachment dies quietly on the vine. But the micro politics of the House Republican Conference could suggest something else. 

Politics

Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Published

on

Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats

Virginia voters approved a new map that could flip four House seats away from Republicans going into the 2026 midterm elections. It was the latest fight in the national redistricting war.

By Shawn Paik

April 22, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

Published

on

WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.

Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.

WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?

Advertisement

Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.

She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.

“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”

She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.

Advertisement

The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.

WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?

Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.

Advertisement

Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.

Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.

Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?

Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.

Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.

Advertisement

Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.

Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?

Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.

Warren: I’ll take that as a no.

Advertisement

In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.

She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.

THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO

Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.

Advertisement

Warren: I’m asking a factual question.

Warsh: This body certified the election.

Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?

Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.

Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.

Warren: Just one place where you disagree.

Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.

Advertisement

Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

Published

on

Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him

On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.

The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”

After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.

That’s when things took a curious turn.

A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”

Advertisement

Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.

That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.

Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.

“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”

He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.

Advertisement

But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.

Or should be.

Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

Advertisement

St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.

It’s also Trump Country.

Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.

St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.

“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”

Advertisement

He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.

“Right?” he called out.

“No!” a voice hollered back.

Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.

Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.

Advertisement

Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)

He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.

A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.

“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”

And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”

Advertisement

The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.

A pair of hands resting on a traffic citation given for alleged excessive honking

Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.

(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)

As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”

Advertisement

Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending