Politics
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
The growing list of controversies threatening Democrat Graham Platner’s Maine Senate bid
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has emerged as one of the party’s fastest-rising political figures, drawing national attention for his populist message and outsider image.
But as his profile has grown, so has scrutiny of his past conduct, with controversies ranging from sexually explicit messages and offensive social media posts to a Nazi-linked tattoo and campaign staff upheaval.
PLATNER CONTROVERSIES FUEL SPECULATION ABOUT LITTLE-KNOWN MAINE BALLOT REPLACEMENT PROVISION
In continued clean-up of those scandals, Platner came to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to huddle with party figures at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters just one week before his primary election.
The Marine veteran and oyster farmer has defended himself against the criticism and retained the support of prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Still, some have questioned whether the allegations could complicate Democrats’ efforts to unseat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races.
Here’s a look at the major controversies that have engulfed Platner’s campaign.
Explicit text messages and sexting allegations
Senate candidate Graham Platner is under fire, but it was his wife Amy Gertner coming out with a controversial five-minute social media post by the campaign to denounce the ‘attacks’ while she did not deny the allegations of infidelity in a new marriage. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The most recent controversy surrounding Platner stems from reports that he exchanged sexually explicit messages with multiple women during his marriage, an issue that campaign aides were reportedly aware of as his Senate bid was taking shape.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, informed a campaign aide about the text exchanges shortly after he launched his Senate bid as staffers were assessing potential political liabilities.
According to the report, Gertner discovered the messages months after the couple married in 2024 and disclosed their existence before her husband held a campaign rally alongside progressive Sen. Sanders. The campaign told Politico that the aide viewed the matter as a private issue between the couple and did not raise concerns about it publicly.
SENATE CANDIDATE GRAHAM PLATNER SENT EXPLICIT TEXTS TO MULTIPLE WOMEN WHILE MARRIED, WIFE SAYS: REPORT
Platner’s campaign later confirmed the existence of the text exchanges to Politico.
He also told Fox News Digital in a statement: “Amy and I went through something hard — because of me. We did the work, and I’m grateful for her every hour of every day.”
“I’ve learned throughout this campaign is that people don’t care about gossip or headlines, they care that you’re fighting for their hospitals, their paycheck, their kids… Our opponents want politics to be empty of content and empty of actual change — and beating that is exactly what our movement is about,” he added.
In a statement to the Journal, Gertner criticized the disclosure of the information, saying she had shared “deeply personal details” about her marriage with someone she considered a friend, only to see those details become public.
She revealed that the two attended couple’s counseling, worked through the issues in their marriage and have since emerged as a stronger couple.
“I know who Graham is. I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life,” Gertner said. “That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.”
Nazi-linked tattoo
Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, points to a covered tattoo that was previously recognized as a Nazi symbol during an interview in Portland, Maine, on Oct. 22, 2025. (WGME via AP)
Platner’s campaign also faced intense scrutiny after it was revealed he once had a skull-and-crossbones tattoo on his chest closely resembling the “Totenkopf” symbol used by Hitler’s SS paramilitary forces.
The Maine Democrat said he got the tattoo during a “night of drinking” while on leave in Croatia in 2007 as a Marine and claimed he was entirely unaware of its meaning at the time.
In an Instagram video posted in May, Platner elaborated on the tattoo’s origins. He explained that he merely selected the design from a flash tattoo wall while “carousing” with fellow Marines in Split, Croatia.
“We thought it looked cool,” he downplayed.
Platner said he was later “appalled” to learn the image resembled a Nazi symbol, arguing that his life and career have been defined by opposition to fascism, racism and Nazism. He also noted that he was never questioned about the tattoo during his military service.
MAINE DEM SENATE HOPEFUL BACKED BY BERNIE SANDERS APOLOGIZES FOR NAZI-STYLE TATTOO, VOWS TO STAY IN RACE
Rather than undergo removal, Platner said he chose to cover the tattoo because tattoo removal services were not readily available near his rural Maine home.
“Going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while,” he told The Associated Press. “I wanted this thing off my body.”
The symbol was ultimately covered with a tattoo featuring a Celtic knot and images of dogs, which Platner said were meant to honor his family pets.
Deleted Reddit posts reveal offensive comments
U.S. Senate candidate from Maine Graham Platner speaks during a campaign event on May 17, 2026, in Portland, Maine. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The keystone scrutiny Platner has faced during his bid stemmed from thousands of now-deleted Reddit posts that resurfaced after he launched his Senate campaign.
In posts first reported by CNN and Politico, Platner referred to himself as a “communist” and “socialist” and endorsed the slogan “all cops are b—–ds.”
In other posts, he argued that those who “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history” and said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”
DELETED POSTS URGING VIOLENCE HAUNT DEMOCRATIC SENATE HOPEFUL IN MAINE RACE
The posts under his since-retired username “P-hustle” were deleted before Platner announced his Democratic Senate bid in August.
The candidate has since addressed the posts multiple times, telling CNN and Politico that he was “f—ing around on the internet” during a period when he felt “lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die.”
“I made dumb jokes and picked fights,” Platner said. “But of course I’m not a socialist. I’m a small business owner, a Marine Corps veteran, and a retired s—poster.”
In the posts Platner made crude comments about masturbating in port-a-potties and claimed a U.S. service member who took enemy fire in Afghanistan “didn’t deserve to live.”
GRAHAM PLATNER VOWS TO ‘COME AFTER’ BEZOS AS SENATE HOPEFUL ESCALATES BILLIONAIRE TAX FIGHT
The controversies have done little to erode Platner’s standing within the Democratic Party as he has continued to attract national attention and grassroots support in the Democratic primary bid to challenge Sen. Collins for her seat.
Since former Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills halted her campaign in April, much of the party establishment has consolidated behind Platner, and national Democrats have continued to support his candidacy despite the flurry of scandals.
The steady stream of allegations and past controversies has also drawn attention to a little-known provision in Maine election law that allows political parties to replace a nominee under certain circumstances after a primary election.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Under state law, a candidate who wins a primary and subsequently withdraws by 5 p.m. on July 13 can be replaced by a nominee selected by party officials. Any replacement candidate must then be chosen by 5 p.m. on July 27.
There is currently no indication that Platner plans to withdraw from the race, and the Democratic hopeful has repeatedly vowed to continue his campaign. Still, the provision has drawn renewed interest as questions persist about whether additional revelations could complicate his candidacy.
Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Politics
Commentary: Bass clears first hurdle, but if Pratt holds off Raman, the mayoral race could be a holy war
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass made what sounded like a victory speech Tuesday night.
Councilmember Nithya Raman made what sounded almost like a concession speech.
And former reality TV star Spencer Pratt relayed a message from the heavens.
“Well, obviously God wanted five more months of me exposing all the failures of our mayor, so it’s gonna be a fun ride,” Pratt said. “I hope she’s ready.”
Assuming Pratt holds on to one of the two spots in the Nov. 3 general election as the final votes are tallied in the next few days, the smart money will be on Bass, for reasons I’ll get into in a moment.
But the supreme being and patron of all pontiffs has to be considered a wild card. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that an incumbent mayor in the City of Angels would be running against a challenger whose campaign manager is God Almighty.
So here we go. We could be in for one of the more remarkable electoral adventures in city history, with a complete novice and MAGA conservative going up against a liberal career politician in a deep-blue city and state full of people who are tired of hearing excuses from Democrats. (If Raman ends up ousting Pratt, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. But it’s not my fault. The devil made me do it.)
If you intend to follow closely, as of course you should, maybe you can help me count the number of times Pratt plays the faith card. I went to St. Peter Martyr School and attended the church by the same name, and I don’t recall ever hearing a nun or a priest drop God’s name as often as Pratt does.
In fact, I just watched a clip of Pratt talking to Fox News TV host and Donald Trump disciple Kayleigh McEnany, and over the course of 1 minute and 52 seconds, he mentioned God or Jesus 10 times.
“Thankfully, I married an angel who was very connected with Jesus and has brought me to the light,” Pratt said of his wife and former reality TV co-star Heidi Montag. “It’s been very empowering to just pray and just be on his path and just say, ‘God, if you want me to save these animals, save these humans and protect my city, just keep putting me in the place where I can do that.’”
Is he running for mayor or cardinal?
Look, I totally respect your average true believer. But I’m not entirely comfortable with a mayor who might be sitting around City Hall waiting for signs and smoke signals rather than knowing what to do on his own.
God has a lot on his plate. He might be busy multiplying fishes and loaves so people don’t go hungry thanks to the president’s tariffs and warmongering. Is he going to rush to answer a prayer for guidance about underfunded parks or broken sidewalks in Los Angeles?
How did we get here, you ask?
Well, Pratt is an AI creation, in a way. A composite of sorts. You combine the forces of social media, political rebellion, second-rate celebrity obsession and the Peter Principle, and here’s a little Trump puppet walking around L.A. like he’s the chosen one.
Add to that the very real essence of his appeal to some voters:
Los Angeles has problems. Big problems that don’t get fixed quickly enough or at all, and Pratt represents the angry voter who wants to know why City Hall can’t do better and where all the money went. He’s absolutely right when he says we shouldn’t have people living on the streets, using drugs on the streets and dying on the streets.
But if Pratt is in the general election rather than Raman, we’re in for a national media circus rather than a summit on solutions. Raman is well-versed on matters of relevance and could have pushed back against Bass in substantive, detailed ways. On the other hand, as Pratt has fairly argued, Raman headed City Council’s homelessness committee, so isn’t she partly to blame for the failures she tried to pin on Bass?
As for Pratt’s policy chops, he has not responded to my offers of a get-together. Absent that, and given his careful avoidance of local reporters who know their stuff, I read his platform on his campaign website and I can tell you that while he touches on many of the right issues — public safety, fiscal integrity, homelessness — attention to detail and depth of knowledge are not God-given strengths.
Maybe Pratt can actually deliver on his promise of a “treatment-led recovery model that addresses mental illness and addiction as the primary drivers of chronic homelessness.” But that would require an act of God (which I suppose is possible given their relationship), because those matters are primarily under the direction of the county, not the city.
This is the main problem here. Bass was beatable, and could have been pushed by a serious challenger to do better.
In the last election, Rick Caruso gave her a scare. That was partly because he had some depth on the issues, he was a successful businessman and philanthropist, he had served on the police commission and the water and power board, he had built relationships across the city and, along with his family, he had poured time and millions of dollars into underserved communities.
In this election, it looks as though Bass could get lucky and face off against a guy who lost his house in the Palisades fire, saw a few homeless encampments through his car window, and decided he wanted to be mayor. Some might have questioned his hubris, but only before learning that he was on a mission from God.
If you’re keeping count, that’s nine mentions of God so far in this column.
One more for the tie, with an eye toward five more months of campaign fodder.
Thank you, God.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Politics
Bessent flips script on Dem senator with reminder about his son’s past ties to Epstein
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., suddenly found himself on the defensive at a budget hearing on Wednesday when, amid levying accusations of the Trump administration’s “corrupt” dealings, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent fired back by bringing Wyden’s son’s investments into the exchange.
“We would like to hear what Adam Wyden and Jeffrey Epstein talked about,” Bessent said, referring to unearthed emails drawing a connection between the senator’s son and the disgraced financier.
“Did your son and Jeffrey Epstein talk about pole dancing as he begged him for money?”
The moment continues the political fallout for the many names associated with Epstein that — despite not amounting to proof of wrongdoing — continue to prompt embarrassment and scandal at even the smallest mention.
TOP FIERY MOMENTS AS DEMOCRATS CLASH WITH TREASURY SECRETARY BESSENT IN CHAOTIC HILL HEARINGS
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, left, pictured along Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore, right. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Epstein, a former financier, died while in prison on charges of sex trafficking minors in 2019, leaving behind questions of whether he facilitated illegal sexual encounters for his vast network of rich and powerful figures.
Amid public demands for transparency on the matter, the Department of Justice released troves of documents on Epstein late last year, unveiling a slew of new names with all manner of ties to the infamous figure ranging from purely innocuous to alarming.
Among them, emails surfaced indicating that Adam Wyden, Ron Wyden’s son, went to Epstein, hoping to gain his support for a business venture.
UNEARTHED EMAILS REVEAL DEM SENATOR’S SON WANTED EPSTEIN TO JOIN HIS FUND: ‘ENJOYED OUR CONVERSATION’
Sen. Ron Wyden leaves a Senate Democratic meeting at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 3, 2025, as the federal government shuts down after Congress and the White House failed to reach a funding deal. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“Jeffrey, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and hope my passion and dedication for my business came through in the meeting. I live and breathe this business and take my returns, integrity and reputation quite seriously,” the younger Wyden said in an email in April 2016.
“I intensely appreciate like-minded individuals and would very much look forward to having you join us at the fund.”
The emails came after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution in Florida in 2008.
It’s unclear what the business venture discussed by Adam Wyden and Epstein may have been or what, specifically, had been discussed in their conversations.
Even so, Bessent reminded viewers that the younger Wyden had a history of investing in off-color markets at Wednesday’s hearing.
DEMOCRATS ARE HAMMERING REPUBLICANS ON EPSTEIN, BUT ONE SENATOR BRUSHED OFF THE ISSUE YEARS AGO
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addresses a press conference in Rosenbad after trade talks between the U.S. and China concluded in Stockholm, Sweden, on July 29, 2025. (Magnus Lejhall/TT News Agency/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Your son’s largest investment position was Rick’s Cabaret,” Bessent said, referring to a series of strip clubs.
Wyden, who has widely panned the Trump administration and its many officials for their own connections to Epstein, didn’t respond to Bessent’s jabs.
-
Los Angeles, Ca22 minutes agoOvernight military training brings loud flash bangs, simulated gunfire to quiet Pasadena neighborhood
-
Detroit, MI44 minutes agoDetroit Lions add UDFA rookie WR during OTAs
-
San Francisco, CA52 minutes agoHow to watch San Francisco Giants vs. Milwaukee Brewers
-
Dallas, TX59 minutes ago3 different Cowboys 53-man roster projections pinpoint contested roster spots
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoJeff Hafley suggests Miami Dolphins entertain Malik Willis Tush Push
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoKaren Read sues the police agencies that investigated her Boston police boyfriend’s death
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoPedestrian dies after hit by car on southbound E-470, Aurora police say
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoSeattle paying $2.6M to settle sexual harassment lawsuit filed by four female SPD officers – MyNorthwest.com