The State Department is so far refusing to comment on a growing corruption crisis engulfing the Balkan nation of Albania, a vital U.S. ally in the region. 

Following an Albanian court’s decision to remove Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku from her position on allegations she interfered in two construction bids, socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama took the issue to the country’s Constitutional Court, which on Friday reinstated Balluku until a ‘final decision’ could be made, according to media reports.

The Special Anti-Corruption and Organized Crime Structure (SPAK) issued a criminal indictment against Balluku on Oct. 31, alleging she had been improperly influenced in her decision to favor one company in a tender for the construction of a 3.7-mile tunnel in southern Albania, Reuters reported. SPAK delivered an additional charge for violating rules in a Tirana road construction project on Nov. 21, the date when Balluku was removed from office.

The day before her November court appearance, Balluku told the country’s parliament the accusations against her amounted to ‘mudslinging, insinuations, half-truths and lies.’

As the second member of Rama’s cabinet to face corruption accusations since 2023, her charges have drawn the ire of Rama opponents.

Agim Nesho, former Albanian ambassador to the U.S. and the United Nations, told Fox News Digital that Balluku’s case demonstrates ‘the Rama government shows no sign of assuming moral responsibility or allowing justice the space to act independently. Instead, it appears intent on shielding Ms. Balluku, portraying the judiciary’s actions as an attack on the executive.’

Tirana’s ex-ambassador to Washington argued that ‘influencing the Constitutional Court may be an attempt to set a protective precedent — one that could prove useful if investigators ever seek to involve Mr. Rama himself in their investigations.’

‘It’s becoming increasingly clear that the emperor has no clothes,’ Nesho said, adding that Rama’s rule has amounted to ‘state capture’ as the ‘lack of checks and balances has enabled a recurring system of corruption across multiple of his terms.’

Nesho also claimed that Balluku had pointed to broader involvement of the Rama government in decision-making. Former Deputy Prime Minister Arben Ahmetaj, allegedly on the run after coming under SPAK investigation, has likewise alleged that Rama ‘directed all key decisions on tenders, finances and public assets,’ according to Nesho’s claims.

Ahmetaj’s accusations included allegations that Rama is involved with mafia bosses. Rama responded to these insinuations by saying Ahmetaj ‘should not be taken seriously. Albanian politics is not tainted by the mafia,’ Balkanweb reported.

The U.S. has funded efforts for judicial reforms in Albania to aid its efforts toward accession into the European Union by cutting down on corruption. However, those reforms have led to legal backlogs that have drawn frustration and violence from the public.

Nesho said ‘it is hard to see how a government that behaves like a banana republic gains accession to the EU.’ He said, ‘Albania is a living contradiction in terms of law and order.’ 

While Nesho says Rama’s opposition has been ‘decimated by ‘lawfare’ and the compromising of legal institutions,’ Rama remains in office despite ‘documented multibillion-dollar corruption scandals, documented electoral thefts across multiple voting cycles, and, most concerning, documented links to international drug cartels like the Sinaloa Cartel.’

Allegations that Rama is linked to the Sinaloa Cartel emerged after the prime minister met with Sinaloa-connected Luftar Hysa, who is sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Rama told an Albanian news outlet he met with Hysa just once.

With Balluku’s removal, Nesho says ‘public anger is directed not only at [her] but also at the irresponsible conduct of a regime that rules without accountability, abuses public property and finances, and faces no consequences despite society’s reaction.’ 

Nesho said many in the country have given the prime minister the nickname ‘Ramaduro,’ saying it’s ‘a direct comparison to the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.’

Rama’s press office told Fox News Digital it declined to comment on Nesho’s allegations against him.

In May 2021, the State Department sanctioned former Prime Minister Sali Berisha over corruption allegations, which forbade him from traveling to the U.S. Fox News Digital asked the State Department whether it had plans to issue similar sanctions against Balluku.

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘We have no comment on ongoing legal matters.’

The U.S. Embassy in Tirana issued the same response to Fox News Digital when asked whether it would suspend Balluku’s visa as a result of her removal from office.

The Trump administration’s latest offensive move against Venezuela, the seizure of a tanker carrying U.S.-sanctioned oil, has triggered predictable outrage from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government. 

But behind the rhetorical fire, analysts say the regime has few practical ways to hit back without doing even more damage to itself.

Experts say that Maduro could target U.S. oil interests in Venezuela, but doing so would almost certainly inflict more pain on his own cash-starved regime than on the United States.

Maduro could also halt U.S.-chartered deportation flights, but again, would be harming his own interests, experts say. 

‘Venezuelans are just leaving the country because of the terrible conditions the regime has created,’ said Connor Pfeiffer, a Western Hemisphere analyst at FDD Action. ‘By having people come back, even if they’re on U.S. charter deportation flights, it kind of counters that narrative.’

Western oil firms have significantly decreased their presence in Venezuela, home to world’s largest proven oil reserves, in recent years due to sanctions. 

But U.S.-owned Chevron does still maintain a license to operate there, on the condition that the Maduro regime does not financially benefit from its operations. Instead, Chevron hands over to Maduro half of its oil production as payment, according to multiple reports.

‘Chevron’s operations in Venezuela continue in full compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government,’ a Chevron spokesperson told Fox News Digital.  

Imports of Venezuelan crude have declined to roughly 130,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 150,000 bpd in recent months, below the nearly 300,000 bpd seen under the prior petroleum licensing regime under the Biden administration. Most of Venezuela’s exports are now routed to Asia, with the bulk ultimately landing in China through intermediaries, according to data from Kplr. 

Despite that flow of crude, analysts say the idea of Caracas striking back at Chevron is more potent as a talking point than as a viable policy option.

Shutting down or seizing the company’s operations would instantly cut off one of the few lifelines still feeding Venezuela’s collapsing oil sector. It also would risk triggering a swift and politically difficult American response, including a full reinstatement of the sanctions relief the regime has quietly relied on.

Pfeiffer noted that the Maduro government has been ‘very supportive of Chevron continuing to operate’ because the arrangement provides tens of thousands of barrels a day of oil with minimal investment from Venezuelan-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. Other analysts say that reality sharply limits Maduro’s room to maneuver: any attack on Chevron would strike at his own revenue stream first.

Another theoretical lever — military or maritime escalation — is widely viewed as even less credible. Venezuela has taken delivery of small Iranian-built fast attack craft equipped with anti-ship missiles, a fact that has fueled speculation Maduro could threaten U.S. or allied vessels.

But Venezuela’s navy suffers from years of maintenance failures and lacks the ability to sustain operations against American forces deployed in the Caribbean. Any aggressive move at sea would almost certainly invite a U.S. military response the regime is in no position to absorb.

Diplomatically, Caracas could suspend remaining channels with Washington, or file legal challenges in U.S. courts or international forums. Yet previous efforts to contest sanctions-related seizures have gone nowhere, and Venezuela’s relationships in the hemisphere offer limited leverage. 

Regional bodies have little sway over U.S. sanctions law, and even supportive governments in Russia, China, or Iran are unlikely to intervene beyond issuing critical statements. Beijing, now the primary destination for Venezuelan crude, has economic interests at stake but few practical avenues to challenge U.S. enforcement actions.

Absent direct military strikes, cracking down on sanctioned oil exports is one of the most potent ways the U.S. can weaken the regime, according to Pfeiffer. 

‘This is one of his main sources of revenue keeping the regime afloat.’

The Trump administration’s latest offensive move against Venezuela, the seizure of a tanker carrying U.S.-sanctioned oil, has triggered predictable outrage from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government. 

But behind the rhetorical fire, analysts say the regime has few practical ways to hit back without doing even more damage to itself.

Experts say that Maduro could target U.S. oil interests in Venezuela, but doing so would almost certainly inflict more pain on his own cash-starved regime than on the United States.

Maduro could also halt U.S.-chartered deportation flights but again would be harming his own interests, experts say. 

‘Venezuelans are just leaving the country because of the terrible conditions the regime has created,’ said Connor Pfeiffer, a Western Hemisphere analyst at FDD Action. ‘By having people come back, even if they’re on U.S. charter deportation flights, it kind of counters that narrative.’

Western oil firms have significantly decreased their presence in Venezuela, home to world’s largest proven oil reserves, in recent years due to sanctions. 

But U.S.-owned Chevron does still maintain a license to operate there, on the condition that the Maduro regime does not financially benefit from its operations. Instead, Chevron hands over to Maduro half of its oil production as payment, according to multiple reports.

‘Chevron’s operations in Venezuela continue in full compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government,’ a Chevron spokesperson told Fox News Digital.  

Imports of Venezuelan crude have declined to roughly 130,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 150,000 bpd in recent months, below the nearly 300,000 bpd imported under the prior petroleum licensing regime under the Biden administration. Most of Venezuela’s exports are now routed to Asia, with the bulk landing in China through intermediaries, according to data from Kpler. 

Despite that flow of crude, analysts say the idea of Caracas striking back at Chevron is more potent as a talking point than as a viable policy option.

Shutting down or seizing the company’s operations would instantly cut off one of the few lifelines still feeding Venezuela’s collapsing oil sector. It also would risk triggering a swift and politically difficult American response, including a full reinstatement of the sanctions relief the regime has quietly relied on.

Pfeiffer noted that the Maduro government has been ‘very supportive of Chevron continuing to operate’ because the arrangement provides tens of thousands of barrels a day of oil with minimal investment from Venezuelan-owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. Other analysts say that reality sharply limits Maduro’s room to maneuver, and that any attack on Chevron would strike at his own revenue stream first.

Another theoretical lever — military or maritime escalation — is widely viewed as even less credible. Venezuela has taken delivery of small Iranian-built fast attack craft equipped with anti-ship missiles, a fact that has fueled speculation Maduro could threaten U.S. or allied vessels.

But Venezuela’s navy suffers from years of maintenance failures and lacks the ability to sustain operations against American forces deployed in the Caribbean. Any aggressive move at sea would almost certainly invite a U.S. military response the regime is in no position to absorb.

Diplomatically, Caracas could suspend remaining channels with Washington or file legal challenges in U.S. courts or international forums. Yet previous efforts to contest sanctions-related seizures have gone nowhere, and Venezuela’s relationships in the hemisphere offer limited leverage. 

Regional bodies have little sway over U.S. sanctions law, and even supportive governments in Russia, China or Iran are unlikely to intervene beyond issuing critical statements. Beijing, now the primary destination for Venezuelan crude, has economic interests at stake but few practical avenues to challenge U.S. enforcement actions.

Absent direct military strikes, cracking down on sanctioned oil exports is one of the most potent ways the U.S. can weaken the regime, according to Pfeiffer. 

‘This is one of his main sources of revenue keeping the regime afloat,’ he said. 

House Republicans have released a 111-page plan for reforming healthcare that they hope to vote on next week.

House GOP leadership aides also told reporters on Friday afternoon that they expected a vote on extending enhanced Obamacare subsidies to also happen next week as part of the amendment process to the final bill, called the ‘Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.’ The subsidies have been the subject of fierce inter-party debate for Republicans.

‘We expect that there will be an amendment that I believe is being worked on, so the process will allow for that amendment,’ aides said.

The plan as-is includes provisions to codify association health plans, which allow small businesses and people who are self-employed to band together to purchase healthcare coverage plans, giving them access to greater bargaining power.

Republicans also plan to appropriate funding for cost-sharing reductions beginning in 2027, which are designed to lower out-of-pocket medical costs in the individual healthcare market. House GOP leadership aides said it would bring down the cost of premiums by 12%.

New transparency requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are also in the legislation, aimed at forcing PBMs to be more upfront about costs to employers.

PBMs are third parties that act as intermediaries between pharmaceutical companies and those responsible for insurance coverage, often responsible for administrative tasks and negotiating drug prices.

PBMs have also been the subject of bipartisan ire in Congress, with both Republicans and Democrats accusing them of being part of a broken system to inflate health costs.

But the most divisive measure for Republicans is likely not yet fleshed out. 

A majority of House Republicans are against extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, which were designed to get affordable health insurance for more Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democrats voted to pass the enhanced subsidies in 2021 and extended them through 2022 when they controlled Congress.

A group of moderate House Republicans has joined Democrats now in vehemently pushing for those subsidies to be extended again, as millions of Americans face near-certain healthcare price hikes beginning in January.

Two separate bipartisan efforts have been launched to force a vote on extending the subsidies in some form. But any such push would require support from virtually all House Democrats to succeed, and their leaders have not given their blessing to either plan.

‘We’re going to evaluate every single good faith proposal. But it has to meaningfully provide certainty to the American people who are at risk of having their health care ripped away from them,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters on Friday.

But conservatives have warned they would not support any such extension unless paired with significant reforms to what they view as a long-broken system that fuels healthcare price inflation.

‘I think that would be a disastrous plan. I mean, we’ve clearly seen that Obamacare is the Titanic. It’s going down. I think throwing money after it is just going to be wasteful,’ House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox News’ Chad Pergram on Friday.

A top Senate Republican argued that if allegations against ‘Squad’ member Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., that she married her brother to enter the U.S. were true, she’d be breaking several laws.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined the long-standing scrutiny against Omar Friday after President Donald Trump revived the allegations during a rally pushing his affordability agenda in Pennsylvania earlier this week.

In a post on X responding to a White House social media account that charged, ‘Yes, [Omar] married her brother,’ Cruz listed a trio of federal and state laws the progressive lawmaker may have violated.

‘If this is true, then Omar faces criminal liability under three different statutes,’ Cruz said.

Cruz argued that Omar could have committed federal marriage fraud, which stipulates that it is a felony to knowingly enter into a marriage to evade immigration laws, and could lead to up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and deportation.

Omar was born in Somalia and came to the U.S. in 1995 after her family was granted asylum. She became a citizen in 2000. Omar, who is Muslim, has been married legally three times, first in a religious marriage to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi in 2002, then to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 before later divorcing and legally marrying Hirsi. In 2020, she married political aide Tim Mynett. 

Cruz noted that Omar could also be breaking Minnesota’s state incest law, a felony in the state punishable by jail time up to 10 years. He also contended that she could be liable for tax fraud, specifically if joint tax returns were filed while she was not legally married.

That violation would levy up to a $100,000 fine and up to three years in prison.

The Senate Republican’s legal analysis of the situation comes after Trump resurrected the unsubstantiated claims that Omar had married her brother for immigration purposes that have dogged the lawmaker since she entered politics nearly a decade ago. She has denied the allegations.

Still, Trump charged, ‘She married her brother to get in, right?’

‘If I married my sister to get my citizenship, do you think I’d last for about two hours or something less than that? She married her brother to get in,’ he said. ‘Therefore, she’s here illegally. She should get the hell out.’

Fox News Digital did not immediately hear back for comment from Omar’s office.

GOP House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said he plans to commence contempt of Congress proceedings against Bill and Hillary Clinton for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas related to its ongoing probe into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. 

In July, a bipartisan House Oversight Subcommittee approved motions to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton and a slew of other high-profile political figures to aid its investigation looking into how the federal government handled Epstein’s sex trafficking case. 

The subpoenas were then sent out in early August, and the Clinton’s were scheduled to testify Dec. 17-18. 

‘It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes. Throughout that time, the former president and former secretary of state have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony,’ Comer said in a press release issued Friday evening.

‘If the Clintons fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January, the Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings to hold them accountable.’

Comer’s threats come as Democrats from the House Oversight Committee released a new batch of photos obtained from Epstein’s estate, which included further images of the disgraced financier with powerful figures like President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Thousands of images were reportedly released, with potentially more to come.

Other high-profile figures subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee include James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.

In addition to testimony from these individuals, Comer and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for all documents and communications pertaining to the case against Epstein.

In September, the committee released tens of thousands of pages of Epstein-related records in compliance with the subpoena, and the Oversight Committee indicated the DOJ would continue producing even more records as it works through needed redactions and other measures that must occur before they are released.

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a Biden appointee, is a judicial disgrace. Boasberg’s recent rulings show he is unfit for the bench.

His repeated abuse of judicial power, whether undermining national security, releasing violent threats, or enabling unlawful surveillance, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the Constitution and a dangerous partisan agenda that disqualifies him from holding a lifetime appointment.

The time has come for the House of Representatives to do its job and impeach him.

The Constitution fixes the term of service for a judge as ‘during good Behaviour.’ The Constitution also dictates that impeachment is proper for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’  House Democrats in 2020 argued an official can get impeached for an abuse of power even without a statutory crime, setting an important precedent. The Constitution draws no distinction between the requirements for impeaching Executive Branch and Judicial Branch officials. What is good for the Executive Branch goose is just as good for the Judicial Branch gander, so the House should not hesitate to pursue a judicial impeachment.

Boasberg’s first act of misconduct occurred during a judicial conference. During the earliest stages of President Trump’s second term, Boasberg expressed the view to Chief Justice John Roberts that President Trump would not follow court orders. The President has not violated a court order. Boasberg’s claim had no basis and was plainly partisan. Boasberg baselessly told Chief Justice Roberts that Trump wouldn’t follow court orders, an unfounded partisan claim that undermines any expectation of impartiality.

Tren de Aragua is a barbaric international state-sponsored terrorist organization from Venezuela. MS-13 is an animalistic gang based in El Salvador.  Thousands of these gang members have come to the United States and perpetrated horrific acts. In March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of these barbarians to El Salvador, where they were sent to a maximum security prison. Boasberg issued a highly illegal and dangerous order directing the government to turn around planes as they were in international airspace, flying over the Gulf of America. In doing so, Boasberg exposed an ongoing military operation and gave an order that could have endangered Americans.

Why would we have security in place in the United States to deal with an unexpected influx of hundreds of dangerous terrorist, because some rabidly partisan judge just illegally opened his courtroom and stunningly attempted to sabotage an ongoing military operation? Rather, the security footprint was in El Salvador—hundreds of military, intel, and law-enforcement officials—where the terrorists were expected to land. There was also a serious risk to the personnel on the planes, given that they had a limited fuel supply and were in the middle of the Gulf of America. Boasberg showed a blatant disregard for these serious risks in issuing a highly illegal and dangerous order that he lacked jurisdiction to give.

The planes landed in El Salvador, and Boasberg began contempt proceedings. Even after a D.C. Circuit panel rejected his reasoning, Boasberg pressed ahead, ordering the administration to detail its deliberations that March day. The Justice Department is objecting, asserting that Boasberg is violating the foundational principle of separation of powers by having executive branch officials illegally divulge privileged internal discussions.

Moreover, Boasberg played a key role in Operation Arctic Frost—one of the most dangerous spy scandals in our history. Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith, a political scud missile sent to take out President Trump via lawfare with the full blessing of Biden and his Justice Department, subpoenaed the phone records of nearly a dozen U.S. senators. Boasberg issued a gag order preventing the phone companies from disclosing the information for a year. With no basis, he reasoned that disclosure could lead to destruction of evidence and witness intimidation. The relevant statute, 2 U.S.C. § 6628, explicitly requires disclosure to the Senate when such spying occurs. Boasberg now is attempting to weasel his way out of this jam, claiming that he did not know that Smith was seeking the senators’ records. Either Boasberg is lying, or he was an illegal rubber stamp who signed whatever Smith put under his nose. It is disgraceful, and Boasberg, citing the same separation-of-powers claim that the Justice Department is using in the contempt proceeding, refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last week.

Finally, Boasberg has shown a flippant concern for the security of President Trump. Nathalie Rose Jones is a deeply disturbed woman. She made a social media post threatening to disembowel President Trump. She admitted to the post when the Secret Service visited her. Then, Jones attended a protest and was spotted near the White House carrying a knife. Authorities arrested her, and even Democrat-appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, exercising the most basic level of common sense, ordered her held without bail. Then, Boasberg stepped in and overruled Upadhyaya, releasing Jones to go home with an electronic monitor.

Boasberg has not simply issued a ruling with which conservatives disagree. Boasberg instead has engaged in a pattern of impeachment-worthy behavior—extremely lawless and dangerous partisan rulings—that shows no signs of ending. He is bolder than ever, refusing to testify before Congress and proceeding merrily along with his absurd contempt vendetta. The House disgraced itself with two impeachments of President Trump. It is time for the House to redeem itself by bringing reason back to the impeachment process. Boasberg is a more-than-worthy candidate, and the House should impeach him before they go home for the year.