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
Warner Bros. rejects Paramount’s hostile bid, accuses Ellison family of failing to put money into the deal
Warner Bros. Discovery has sharply rejected Paramount’s hostile offer, alleging the $108-billion deal carries substantial risks because the Larry Ellison family has failed to put real money behind its bid for Warner’s legendary movie studio, HBO and CNN.
Paramount “has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” Warner Bros. Discovery’s board wrote Wednesday in a letter to its shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.
“It does not, and never has,” the Warner board said.
Warner’s board voted unanimously that Paramount’s hostile bid “was not in the best interests” of its shareholders.
For Warner, what was missing was a clear declaration from Paramount that the Ellison family had agreed to commit funding for the deal. Paramount last week told Warner stockholders that it would pay them $30 a share — or $78 billion for the entire company. Paramount also has said it would absorb Warner’s debt, making the overall deal worth $108-billion.
A Paramount representative was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.
The Warner auction has taken several nasty turns. Last week, Paramount launched its hostile takeover campaign for Warner after losing the bidding war to Netflix. Warner board members on Dec. 4 had unanimously approved Netflix’s $82.7-billion deal for the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max.
In its letter, the Warner board reaffirmed its support for Netflix’s $27.75 a share proposal, saying it represented the best deal for shareholders. Warner board members urged investors not to tender their shares to Paramount.
Board members said they were concerned that Paramount’s financing appeared shaky and the Ellison family’s assurances were far from ironclad. Instead Paramount’s proposal contained “gaps, loopholes and limitations,” Warner said, including troubling caveats, such as saying in documents that Paramount “reserve[d] the right to amend the offer in any respect.”
The Warner board argued that its shareholders could be left holding the bag.
Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has argued his $78-billion deal is superior to Netflix’s proposal.
(Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/invision/ap)
Paramount Chairman David Ellison has championed Paramount’s strength in recent weeks saying his company’s bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and television studios, was backed by his wealthy family, headed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men.
Ellison sent a letter last week to Warner shareholders, asking for their support. The tech scion wrote his family and RedBird Capital Partners would be strong stewards of Warner’s iconic properties, which include Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo, “The Lord of the Rings,” and HBO’s “Game of Thrones.”
Ellison wrote that Paramount delivered “an equity commitment from the Ellison family trust, which contains over $250 billion of assets,” including more than 1 billion Oracle shares.
In regulatory filings, Paramount has disclosed that, for the equity portion of the deal, it planned to rely on $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as well as $11.8 billion from the Ellison family (which also holds the controlling shares in Paramount).
This week, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners private equity firm pulled out of Paramount’s financing team.
Paramount’s bid would also need more than $60 billion in debt financing.
Paramount has made six offers for Warner Bros., and its “most recent proposal includes a $40.65 billion equity commitment, for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind,” the Warner board wrote.
“Instead, they propose that [shareholders] rely on an unknown and opaque revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding,” the board said, noting that a revocable trust could always be changed. “A revocable trust is no replacement for a secured commitment by a controlling stockholder,” the board’s letter said.
Throughout the negotiations, Paramount, which trades under the PSKY ticker, failed to present a solid financing commitment from Larry Ellison — despite Warner’s bankers telling them that one was necessary, the board said.
“Despite … their own ample resources, as well as multiple assurances by PSKY during our strategic review process that such a commitment was forthcoming – the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop the PSKY offer,” Warner’s board wrote.
David Ellison has insisted Paramount’s offer of $30 a share was superior to Netflix’s winning bid.
Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, while Netflix has made a deal to take Warner’s studios, its spacious lot in Burbank, HBO and HBO Max streaming service.
Warner plans to spin off its linear cable channels, including CNN, HGTV, Cartoon Network and TBS, early next year.
Paramount’s lawyers have argued that Warner tipped the auction to favor Netflix.
Paramount, which until recently enjoyed warm relations with President Trump, has long argued that its deal represents a more certain path to gain regulatory approvals. Trump’s Department of Justice would consider any anti-trust ramifications of the deal, and in the past, Trump has spoken highly of the Ellisons.
However, Warner’s board argued that Paramount might be providing too rosy a view.
“Despite PSKY’s media statements to the contrary, the Board does not believe there is a material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger,” the Warner board wrote. “The Board carefully considered the federal, state, and international regulatory risks for both the Netflix merger and the PSKY offer with its regulatory advisors.”
The board noted that Netflix agreed to pay a record $5.8 billion if its deal fails to clear the regulatory hurdles.
Paramount has offered a $5 billion termination fee.
Should Warner abandon the transaction with Netflix, it would owe Netflix a $2.8 billion break-up fee.
Warner also pointed to Paramount’s promises to Wall Street that it would shave $9 billion in costs from the combined companies. Paramount is in the process of making $3 billion in cuts since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners took the helm of the company in August.
Paramount has promised another $6 billion in cuts should it win Warner Bros.
“These targets are both ambitious from an operational perspective and would make Hollywood weaker, not stronger,” the Warner board wrote.
Politics
Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video
new video loaded: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video
transcript
transcript
Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video
Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.
-
“It Is the 22nd bipartisan briefing we’ve had on a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, drugs to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing, able to lay it out very directly to these senators and soon to the House. But it’s all classified. We can’t talk about it now. But in keeping with longstanding Department of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course, we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public. H.A.S.C. and S.A.S.C. and appropriate committees will see it, but not the general public.” “I’ll be introducing a live unanimous consent request to release the video both to the full Congress, but also to the American people. The public should see this, and I hope that we’ll have support to make it public. I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think American people should see this video and all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”
By Meg Felling
December 16, 2025
Politics
HHS probes Minnesota’s use of billions in federal social service funds amid fraud concerns: report
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has launched a review into how Minnesota used billions of dollars in federal social service funding, requesting detailed records from Gov. Tim Walz’s administration and other state entities after reports raised questions about whether portions of the money were misused, according to letters first obtained by the New York Post.
The letters were sent Monday by Alex Adams, assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, to Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and a nonprofit involved in administering Head Start programs, the Post reported.
According to the Post, Adams said HHS is attempting to determine whether federal safety-net funds were diverted or mismanaged and whether such misuse might have “been used to fuel illegal and mass migration” into Minnesota.
Adams told the outlet the review is focused on “accountability for American taxpayers” and on ensuring federal benefit programs were not compromised.
LABOR SECRETARY ANNOUNCES ‘STRIKE TEAM’ GOING TO MINNESOTA TO INVESTIGATE RAMPANT FRAUD
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has said, “Minnesota is a prosperous state, a well-run state.” (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)
The Post reported that Minnesota received more than $8.6 billion in ACF funding between fiscal years 2019 and 2025 through more than 1,000 federal grants. In fiscal year 2025 alone, the state received over $690 million for safety-net programs under President Biden, according to federal spending records reviewed by the Post.
In the letters, Adams requested what the Post described as a “comprehensive list” of all state entities that received ACF funding during that period, along with detailed administrative data. The information sought includes recipient names, addresses, dates of birth and, where applicable, Social Security numbers and immigration A-numbers, the Post reported.
Adams told the Post that HHS has “legitimate reason to think that they’ve been using taxpayer dollars incorrectly,” citing recent fraud investigations and allegations involving Minnesota’s Department of Human Services. According to the Post, the letters referenced public statements from hundreds of DHS employees alleging warnings of fraud were disregarded and whistleblowers faced retaliation.
TRUMP CABINET OFFICIAL CALLS ON WALZ TO RESIGN OVER MASSIVE FRAUD SCANDAL IN SCATHING LETTER: ‘SHAME ON YOU’
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks during a press conference at City Hall following a mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School on Aug. 28, 2025 in Minneapolis. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
The review comes amid heightened scrutiny of Minnesota’s handling of federal funds following multiple high-profile fraud cases. Federal prosecutors have charged dozens of individuals in connection with the Feeding Our Future scheme, in which more than $250 million intended for child nutrition programs was diverted for luxury purchases and real estate. Many of those charged had ties to nonprofits serving Minnesota’s Somali community.
The Post also cited Pew Research Center data showing Minnesota’s unauthorized migrant population increased by roughly 40,000 people between 2019 and 2023, reaching an estimated 130,000 residents, or about 2% of the state’s population.
Men take part in a weekly Friday Jum’ah prayer session at Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center amid a reported ongoing federal immigration operation targeting the Somali community in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. Dec. 5, 2025. (Tim Evans/Reuters)
According to the Post, the ACF review includes several major federal programs, including the Community Services Block Grant, Social Services Block Grant, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Title IV-E Foster Care, Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance, the Child Care and Development Fund, and Parents in Community Action, a Head Start grantee.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“The Trump Administration has made clear its commitment to rooting out fraud, protecting taxpayer dollars, and ensuring program integrity across all federal benefit programs,” Adams wrote in the letters, according to the Post. “This information is necessary for ACF to conduct a thorough review of program operations and to assess the extent of any irregularities that may have occurred.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Gov. Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey and HHS for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
-
Iowa2 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa1 week agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Iowa4 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
-
Maine19 hours agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Technology6 days agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster