Category: article

Maine GOP state lawmaker moves to impeach state secretary over Trump ballot removal

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Maine Republican state lawmaker wants to impeach the Maine secretary of state who removed former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot.

GOP state Rep. John Andrews said he wants to pursue impeachment against Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows after she disqualified Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot on Thursday.

In her ruling, Bellows cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bans from office those who "engaged in insurrection."

Andrews said in a statement that he filed a request with the Maine Revisor's Office saying he wanted "to file a Joint Order, or whichever is the proper parliamentary mechanism under Mason's Rules, to impeach Secretary of State Shenna Bellows."

HOUSE DEMOCRAT FROM MAINE RIPS STATE'S DECISION TO TAKE TRUMP OFF BALLOT

"In Maine, the people do not elect the Secretary of State, Attorney General or Treasurer," Andrews told Fox News Digital. "They are chosen by elected Democrat Party insiders after deals are made in the back room of State House."

"Shenna Bellows knows that the process that put her there is extremely partisan," he continued. "She should know better and be going out of her way to be as neutral as possible to serve every citizen in Maine and not just registered Democrats."

"That’s why she swore an oath to the Constitution and not the Democrat Party," he added. "We are still a republic, but moves like this fracture that foundation, which ultimately is the point of all this."

Andrews said in his statement that he wants to impeach Bellows "on the grounds that she is barring an American citizen and [the] 45th President of the United States, who is convicted of no crime or impeachment, their right to appear on a Maine Republican Party ballot in March."

"Donald J. Trump has met all qualifications for the March 2024 Republican Presidential Primary. He should be allowed on the ballot. This is raw partisanship and has no place in the offices of our state's Constitutional Officers," he continued.

Andrews' press release noted a social media post he made, saying Bellows' decision "is hyper-partisanship on full display."

"A Secretary of State APPOINTED by legislative Democrats bans President Trump from the 2024 ballot so that she can jockey for position in the 2026 Democrat Primary for Governor," Andrews said. "Banana Republic isn't just a store at the mall."

Andrews said Friday in a "FOX & Friends" interview that Bellows "has unilaterally disenfranchised 300,060 Maine voters with this partisan move."

He also applauded U.S. Rep. Jared Golden, a Maine Democrat, for speaking out against Bellows' move, even with his dislike of Trump.

Golden slammed Bellows over the move, saying that he "voted to impeach Donald Trump for his role in the January 6th Insurrection."

"I do not believe he should be re-elected as President of the United States," Golden said Thursday night. "However, we are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot."

The Maine secretary of state defended her move while responding to Golden's criticism during a CNN interview on Friday.

"I reviewed Section Three of the 14th Amendment very carefully and determined that Section Three of the 14th Amendment does not say ‘conviction,' it says ‘engage,'" Bellows said.

"And, let's go back and keep in mind that the events of January 6, 2021, were unprecedented and tragic," Bellows continued. "This was an attack, not only on the Capitol and the government officials, the former vice president, members of Congress, but an attack on the rule of law."

"And the weight of evidence that I reviewed indicated that it was, in fact, an insurrection," she added. "And Mr. Trump engaged in that insurrection under Section Three of the 14th Amendment."

In a shock decision issued Thursday evening, Bellows said Trump was ineligible for the state’s 2024 primary ballot, citing a clause in the U.S. Constitution that bars people who have "engaged in insurrection" from running for elected office without two-thirds congressional approval.

The clause was originally meant to bar former Confederate soldiers and officers from holding positions in the U.S. government or military.

It was also referenced by Colorado’s highest court in a 4-3 ruling last week similarly barring Trump from that state’s primary ballot. The decision was challenged by the Colorado GOP, setting up a battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bellows' office declined to comment.

Fox News' Liz Elkind contributed to this report.

Abortion debate creates ‘new era’ for state supreme court races in 2024, with big spending expected

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

CHICAGO (AP) — The 2024 elections will be dominated by the presidential contest and the battle for control of Congress, but another series of races is shaping up to be just as consequential.

Crucial battles over abortion, gerrymandering, voting rights and other issues will take center stage in next year’s elections for state supreme court seats — 80 of them in 33 states.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES SETTLES WITH MARCH FOR LIFE VISITORS TOLD TO REMOVE PRO-LIFE CLOTHING

The races have emerged as some of the most hotly contested and costliest contests on the ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the consitutional right to an abortion. The decision shifted the abortion debate to states, creating a "new era" in state supreme court elections, said Douglas Keith, senior counsel in the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks spending in judicial races.

"We have seen attention on state supreme court elections like never before and money in these races like never before," Keith said.

Heated court races in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2023 handed victories to Democrats and saw tens of millions of dollars in TV ads, offering a preview of 2024. They're also prompting groups to consider investing in states they would not previously have considered.

ABORTION AND GERRYMANDERING TOP ISSUES

At least 38 lawsuits have been filed challenging abortion bans in 23 states, according to the Brennan Center. Many of those are expected to end up before state supreme courts.

The ACLU is watching cases challenging abortion restrictions in Wyoming, Kentucky, Ohio, Utah, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska, Georgia and Montana.

"After Roe v. Wade was overturned, we had to turn to state courts and state constitutions as the critical backstop to protecting access to abortion," said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. "And the stakes are unbelievably high in each of these cases in each of these states."

The ACLU was among major spenders on behalf of Democrats in this year's state supreme court contests in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Another big player in recent court races has been the Republican State Leadership Committee, which has said its focus is mainly on redistricting, or the drawing of political district boundaries. The group called state supreme courts the "last line of defense against far-left national groups," but didn't say how much it intends to spend on next year's races or which states it's focusing on.

In Ohio, Democrats are expected to cast state supreme court races as an extension of the November election in which voters enshrined the right to abortion in the state constitution. The state has more than 30 abortion restrictions in place that could be challenged now that the amendment has passed.

"The state supreme court is going to be the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the new constitutional amendment that the people voted for and organized around," said Jessie Hill, law professor at Case Western Reserve University and a consultant for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights. "That is a huge amount of power."

With three seats up for a vote and a current Republican majority of 4-3, Democrats have an opportunity to flip the majority of the court while Republicans will try to expand their control. Hill said the "very high-stakes election" will serve as another test of the salience of the abortion issue in turning out voters.

"We saw an incredible number of voters come out to vote on that amendment and an incredible amount of investment in those campaigns," Hill added. "I think we’ll see a similar attention and investment in Ohio come next year."

Redistricting also is likely to be a main focus in the state's supreme court races, given the court will have realigned politically since it issued a series of rulings finding Ohio’s congressional and legislative maps unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans, said David Niven, political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. He expects millions of dollars to be spent on those campaigns.

"There’s often little conversation about these races, but they are just so utterly consequential in very tangible, practical ways that touch voters’ everyday lives," he said.

MAP BROADENS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL RACES

Pending legislative and congressional redistricting cases also could play a role in North Carolina.

Republicans in North Carolina are looking to expand their majority two years after the court flipped from Democratic control in the 2022 election. That flip to a 5-2 GOP majority led to dramatic reversals in 2023 on rulings made by the previous court, which had struck down a 2018 photo voter identification law as well as district maps for the General Assembly and the state’s congressional delegation.

Groups on both sides also are expected to focus on Michigan, where Democrats hold a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court. Candidates run without political affiliations listed on the ballot, though they’re nominated by political parties.

Two incumbents — one Democrat, one Republican — will be up for election in 2024. The court recently kept former President Donald Trump on the state's ballot, denying a liberal group's request to kick him off. It is currently weighing a high-profile case over a Republican legislative maneuver that gutted a minimum wage hike backed by voters.

2023 RACES A PREVIEW

In Wisconsin, abortion played a dominant role in the 2023 court race, with Democrats flipping the court to a 4-3 majority in a campaign that shattered previous national records for spending in state supreme court elections.

Liberal-leaning Justice Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Justice Dan Kelly, who previously worked for Republicans and had support from the state’s leading anti-abortion groups.

Protasiewicz was targeted with impeachment threats this year over comments she made on the campaign trail about redistricting as Republicans argued she had prejudged what then was an expected case on the state's heavily gerrymandered state legislative districts. Experts say the controversy is an example of how more money and attention have changed the dynamics of many state supreme court races to be increasingly partisan.

Democrats in Pennsylvania added to their majority on the court after a race with tens of millions of dollars in spending. Democrat Dan McCaffery won after positioning himself as a strong defender of abortion rights.

CONTESTED SEATS EVEN IN DEEP RED STATES

It remains to be seen whether abortion rights will play a factor in states where party control isn't at stake. That includes Arkansas, where the court is expected to maintain its 4-3 conservative majority. The seats up next year include the chief justice position, which has drawn three sitting justices.

A fight over abortion could wind up before the court, with a group trying to put a measure on the ballot next year that would scale back a state ban on the procedure that took effect once Roe was overturned.

Abortion rights supporters also aren't writing off longshot states such as Texas and its all-Republican high court, which rejected the request from a pregnant woman whose fetus had a fatal condition to be exempted from the state's strict abortion ban.

In Montana, Republicans have spent huge sums to try to push the court in a more conservative direction. The liberal-leaning court is expected to hear cases related to restrictions on transgender youth and abortion. A landmark climate change case also is pending before the court, which will have two of its seven seats up for election.

Jeremiah Lynch, a former federal magistrate running for the open chief justice position, has cast himself as a defender of the court's independence and has warned voters to expect a barrage of negative advertising. Cory Swanson, a county attorney also running for the post, announced his bid on a conservative talk show and recently vowed to weed out any "radicalized" applicants for law clerks in response to antisemitism on college campuses.

In West Virginia, where conservatives have a current 5-4 majority on the court and two seats will be up for grabs, GOP chair Elgine McArdle said Republicans aim to focus more on judicial races than in years past.

"One area the state party has never really engaged much in is nonpartisan races, including the judicial races," McArdle said. "That won’t be the case this time around."

House GOP probing if Biden was involved in Hunter’s ‘scheme’ to defy subpoena, potential ‘impeachable offense’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans are investigating whether President Biden was involved in his son Hunter Biden’s "scheme" to defy his subpoena for deposition earlier this month — conduct, they say, "could constitute an impeachable offense." 

The House Oversight Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and House Ways & Means Committee are investigating "whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden for consideration by the full House." The House formalized the inquiry earlier this month. 

JORDAN SAYS HUNTER BIDEN MADE A 'HUGE CHANGE' BY SAYING HIS FATHER WAS 'NOT FINANCIALLY INVOLVED' IN BUSINESS

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday penned a letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, to White House Counsel Edward Siskel, notifying him of the additional area of their investigation. 

"In light of an official statement from the White House that President Biden was aware in advance that his son, Hunter Biden, would knowingly defy two congressional subpoenas, we are compelled to examine as part of our impeachment inquiry whether the President engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct a proceeding of Congress," Comer and Jordan wrote to Siskel. 

The subpoenas were both for Hunter Biden's deposition — one from Comer and one from Jordan. The two chairmen planned to hold the deposition in the same room, at the same time. 

The president’s son was subpoenaed to appear for a deposition before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees earlier this month. Hunter Biden defied that subpoena, and instead, appeared on Capitol Hill and delivered a public statement before the press.

"On December 13, Mr. Biden did not appear for the deposition as required by the Committees’ subpoenas. Instead, Mr. Biden appeared on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol with his attorney and Representative Eric Swalwell," they wrote. "Mr. Biden gave a lengthy public statement to an assembly of reporters in which he made several statements that are relevant to the House’s impeachment inquiry, including representations about his business activities, assertions about President Biden’s awareness and ‘financial’ involvement in these activities, and attacks on the Committees’ inquiry." 

Hunter Biden "indicated that he would only testify in a public forum, a demand for special treatment that the Committees had previously rejected." 

HUNTER BIDEN WILL NOT SIT FOR DEPOSITION BY GOP, SAYS FATHER NOT 'FINANCIALLY' INVOLVED IN HIS BUSINESS

"Although Mr. Biden professed an interest in answering questions about his actions, he departed the Capitol grounds without taking any questions. The committees subsequently recorded Mr. Biden’s non-appearance at his deposition," they wrote. 

But later that day, Comer and Jordan pointed to a statement made by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. She was asked whether the president had watched his son’s public statement. 

"White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden was ‘certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,’" they wrote. "Ms. Jean-Pierre declined, however, to provide any further details about the President’s actions on whether the president approved of his son defying congressional subpoenas." 

They added, though, that Jean-Pierre’s statement "suggests the President had some amount of advanced knowledge that Mr. Biden would choose to defy two congressional subpoenas." 

The chairmen pointed to the criminal code, citing the section which it states that it is unlawful to "corruptly…endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any investigation or inquiry is being had by…any committee of either House or any joint committee of Congress." 

"Likewise, any person who ‘aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures’ the commission of a crime is punishable as a principal of the crime," they wrote. 

"In light of Ms. Jean-Pierre’s statement, we are compelled to examine the involvement of the President in his son’s scheme to defy the Committees’ subpoenas," they wrote. "The Committees have accumulated substantial evidence that Hunter Biden’s business endeavors have improperly included his father, and the President has made false claims about his knowledge and involvement in these schemes." 

WHITE HOUSE, HUNTER BIDEN’S TEAM KEEP SHIFTING GOALPOSTS IN DENYING DAD’S INVOLVEMENT WITH BUSINESSES

Comer and Jordan also said that just days before Hunter Biden was scheduled to appear for his deposition, the president "claimed he had not interacted with any of his son’s business partners." 

"This is false," they wrote. "The President has met with, spoken to, and received money sourced from his son’s foreign business partners." 

Comer and Jordan said that in light of the evidence they have collected, "the fact that the President had advanced awareness" that his son would defy the subpoenas "raises a troubling new question that we must examine: whether the President corruptly sought to influence or obstruct the Committee’s proceeding by preventing, discouraging, or dissuading his son from complying with the Committee’s subpoenas." 

"Such conduct could constitute an impeachable offense," they wrote.

The chairmen demanded all documents and communications sent or received by the White House regarding Hunter Biden’s deposition, including communications with Hunter Biden, law firm Winston & Strawn LLP, and Kevin Morris. 

They also demanded all documents and communications sent or received by employees of the White House Executive Office regarding the president’s statement about his family’s business associates on Dec. 6, 2023. 

Comer and Jordan gave Siskel until Jan. 10, 2024 to produce the information. 

Congress’ fight over immigration reform could last a while

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Let’s game out a potential agreement on border security.

There was the Christmas rush to try securing a deal before the holiday. The plan was to link an immigration accord to a massive international aid package for Israel and Ukraine requested by President Biden. 

The Senate stuck around Washington for a few extra days before Christmas. Talks even ran through one weekend in mid-December. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., partially delayed the Senate’s holiday recess to maintain momentum in the talks. However, few senators thought much of the effort. A meager 61 senators surfaced on the evening of Dec. 18 for a vote to confirm former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley as the Social Security Administration Commissioner. 

It was the sparest attendance for any Senate vote since 56 senators cast ballots on an appropriations bill on May 28, 1959. 

BIDEN HAS ANOTHER CALAMITOUS YEAR AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER IN 2023 AS RECORDS SHATTER

The 1959 tally was only rivaled by a scant 54 senators who showed up to vote on May 5, 1960. The issue at hand was more like the issue "afoot": duties the government levied on lathes used to make shoes. The Senate voted to give the duties the boot. 

Border security talks are taking so long that senators may well burn through a few pairs of shoes before they strike a deal. Even though attendance was thin last week, Senate negotiators plodded ahead. Dropping things for the holidays would likely have cost the process momentum, such as it was. Maintaining any modicum of momentum is paramount if you consider the difficult path ahead for a border security/supplemental spending package. 

Talks resumed this week, remotely. One source signaled to Fox News that the negotiators might meet in person before Congress reconvenes on Jan. 8, if it is believed that face-to-face negotiations would help. In fact, Fox was told it is entirely possible the sides cannot even reach an agreement until the week of Jan. 8. Of course, it remains to be seen whether they can get a deal at all.

MENENDEZ BLOCKS 2 BIDEN NOMINEES OVER FRUSTRATION WITH BORDER NEGOTIATIONS

Let’s consider a middle-of-the-road scenario here.

Imagine the sides reach a handshake agreement late next week, before Congress returns to session. At a minimum, it will take congressional legislative counsel a week or so to actually write the very complex, intricate changes to border and immigration policy. So that gets us toward the end of the first full week of January before the bill text is ready.

All the while, interest groups and factions in Congress will inevitably start to chip away at this provision or that one after details of the agreement begin to dribble out. You can anticipate that opposition from both parties could be fierce to any proposal as controversial and complicated as immigration. That is why even a deal may be far from a true agreement. 

So this could drift until mid-January for the Senate to begin to process this proposal — even working on an expedited timetable. 

However, even if things go swimmingly, there is no guarantee the Senate can move quickly. Sixty votes are necessary to extinguish filibusters to both start debate and close debate on the bill. So bet on the Senate spending at least a week-and-a-half on this measure — even on a fast track.

However, what we neglected in this narrative is the realpolitik of January and February on Capitol Hill.

The first two months of the year might qualify as a parliamentary Superfund site. 

For starters, the government could run out of money on Jan. 19. Even if lawmakers limp along past that deadline and avoid a government shutdown, they will get a second crack at it on Feb. 2.

Yes. Groundhog Day. 

You cannot make this stuff up. 

No Punxsutawney Phil, here. 

We’ll see if "Louisiana Mike" and "Brooklyn Chuck" can pull a marmot out of their hat to avert a shutdown. Otherwise, look for clues. If they see their shadows, the government may operate for six weeks on a Continuing Resolution. If they don’t see their shadows, the stopgap bill may only last for four. 

You think this is daft? Considering the perils of Congressional prognostication, you could do worse than relying on a soothsaying rodent from central Pennsylvania. 

The potential of a government shutdown will consume everything on Capitol Hill. 

Of course, some longtime Capitol Hill observers might suggest that they Velcro the border security/supplemental aid package onto one of the spending bills. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., argued against that. But you never know, when you consider how few legislative trains might depart from the Congressional station early next year. 

The House will also delve into a potential impeachment of the president. That will demand significant oxygen on Capitol Hill. The House will likely hold a vote to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for failing to appear for a deposition before the Oversight Committee. Lawmakers still haven’t sorted out a potential plan to reform the foreign surveillance program commonly known as FISA. 

Any and all of this could sidetrack efforts to finish the border/supplemental package. 

And that’s if there’s ever a deal.

So, don’t bank on a vote right away in January. In fact, a Senate vote could come in late January or beyond. 

Then, on to the House. 

And that is a complete wild card.

Fox is told that Johnson understands that Israel and Ukraine need aid and can’t wait too long for that to materialize. But advancing any sort of immigration package through the House which deviates from the strict border security plan Republicans approved in the spring (known as "HR 2") is going to be a monster. Johnson still has goodwill among House Republicans. But he doesn’t have much political capital. That account will dwindle even further — hinging on what Johnson decides to do about government funding. Remember that it’s far from clear what if anything the House can do to actually fund the government. So political problems for Johnson could impede passage of any border security/supplemental plan.

That’s to say nothing of problems on the Democratic side of the aisle.

As much as there are many Republicans who won’t vote for any immigration plan, there are likely just as many Democrats who will oppose what’s framed as "border security." Liberals will watch to see what changes are made to parole and asylum. Potential migration limits could be problematic. And then there are enforcement questions. 

Now you see how this could easily slip into February. And frankly, it may go deeper into the new year if a government shutdown or impeachment capsizes the Congress.

So, no one truly thought there was any realistic chance of moving any sort of border security/supplemental spending package in December, despite the rush. 

And it may be rushing things to try to complete this by February or March. 

2023’s biggest losers in politics

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Competitiveness is a cornerstone of American politics, so much so that it’s been called a blood sport at times. And, as in any competition, winners and losers always emerge.

Fox News Digital takes a look at some of the biggest political losers of 2023.

Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's re-election campaign, which culminated in her loss to current Mayor Brandon Johnson, was marked by several self-inflicted wounds.

The former Democratic mayor took the brunt of criticism directed at city officials over the city's rising rate of violent crime. Lightfoot also faced bipartisan blowback for her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including clashes with progressives and the teachers union.

OUTGOING HOUSE LAWMAKERS LAMENT CHAOS IN CONGRESS: 'A BIT OF A CARNIVAL'

Youngkin’s upset victory in 2021 over former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe set him on a path to political stardom. The parental rights-focused Republican governor was almost immediately touted as a future presidential candidate, even possibly as early as 2024. 

But he staked his national reputation on Republicans winning the full Virginia legislature in November, even suggesting a 15-week abortion limit would be on the table if the commonwealth went red. 

Democrats, however, ended up flipping the Virginia House of Delegates while retaining control of the state Senate.

VIRGINIA SENATE NAMES CAUCUS LEADERS FOR UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION

One Virginia Democrat who did not fare well in the latest election cycle, however, is Gibson, the nurse practitioner whose promising campaign for a swing seat in the House of Delegates was derailed by revelations laid bare just weeks before Election Day.

The Washington Post first reported that Gibson and her husband broadcast sex acts on social media, accepting tips in exchange for lewd requests. 

She wound up losing the Richmond-area seat by less than 1,000 votes.

Rep. Tlaib, D-Mich., the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has long been a critical voice against the Israeli government, part of a small but growing faction of progressives bucking Democrats’ traditional pro-Israel stance. 

However, she’s isolated herself this year after Hamas’ Oct. 7 surprise attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent military response, going further than most with her reaction to the war in Gaza. 

Her response to the crisis resulted in a formal House censure along bipartisan lines in November. 

ISRAEL RESUMES BOMBARDMENT OF GAZA AFTER CEASE-FIRE WITH HAMAS ENDS

Embattled former House Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., dominated headlines with an array of colorful scandals, from federal charges that included wire fraud to allegations he was responsible for the cancer death of a military veteran’s dog. 

Santos’ backstory quickly unraveled when he got to Congress, and it was found he lied about his college degree, work and ancestry. 

But criminal charges related to misuse of campaign funds were the final nail in the coffin for Santos’ House career, and he was expelled by a two-thirds majority vote Dec. 1.

This year has seen the country’s octogenarian commander in chief dealing with an impeachment inquiry as he continues to struggle with low poll numbers.

Despite traveling the country touting key victories, mainly his bipartisan infrastructure bill, Biden is still working to convince voters he is fit for another four years in the White House.

In addition to questions about his age and whether he profited from his role as vice president, Biden is also dealing with progressive outrage over his support for Israel in its war on Hamas. 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, MATT GAETZ TRADE JABS AS FIERCE RIVALRY CONTINUES: HE 'BELONGS IN JAIL'

It’s culminated in early voter polls that show gloomy forecasts for his re-election prospects over the last several weeks.

McCarthy began his 2023 with a marathon 15 rounds of voting across three days, the world watching him wrangle a divided House GOP Conference to eventually win the speaker’s gavel.

On Dec. 14, McCarthy was giving his final speech to a House floor filled with less than a dozen lawmakers, mostly his allies.

He told reporters later that day it was a "bittersweet" ending to his career in Congress, which saw him make history in October as the first ousted speaker of the House. He announced in December he would leave Congress altogether.

McCarthy chalked it up to personal vendettas during a final exit interview with reporters later that day, but he remained optimistic. 

"I loved every minute, good or bad," he said.

But while he made Fox News Digital’s list of 2023’s political losers, McCarthy could ascend again.

He intends to remain a significant figure in the GOP fundraising sphere and is almost certain to be a hot commodity in Washington, D.C., for some time. He didn’t rule out a return to government either.

Democrat Dean Phillips attacks Biden for trying to upend traditional primary election process

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Biden’s 2024 Democrat primary challenger is going after him for his opposition to New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.

Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., released a new campaign ad that targets Biden for supporting a bid to hold the Democrats’ first primary election in South Carolina.

"For over a century, New Hampshire has held the first-in-the-nation primary, and Granite Staters have faithfully carried out that grave responsibility, propelling the candidacies of some and ending the candidacies of others," a voiceover says in the one-minute video. "Now, Joe Biden has ordered New Hampshire to step aside."

DEAN PHILLIPS CALLS BIDEN POSSIBLY ‘UNELECTABLE’ IN 2024 AFTER GOP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

"Congressman Dean Phillips is meeting with New Hampshire voters in diners, on street corners and at taverns, the way it's always been done."

New Hampshire officials announced last month that they would not heed the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) request to cede its first-state privilege to South Carolina.

PHILLIPS TARGETS BIDEN, FELLOW DEMOCRATS OVER BORDER POLICIES AS HE LAUNCHES PRIMARY CHALLENGE AGAINST PRESIDENT

The president’s reelection campaign also has not filed to be on the New Hampshire ballot, which could further complicate things for him there.

"In today's society, it seems that we're quick to eliminate traditions and ignore them," New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan said at press conference in November. 

South Carolina had set its primary for Feb. 3 after the DNC approved a proposal for it to hold the first 2024 Democrat race. But New Hampshire set its primary for Jan. 23, with officials citing state law mandating that the Granite State be first.

WHY DEAN PHILLIPS IS SCOLDING FELLOW DEMOCRATS

Biden wrote to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee last year to support the calendar overhaul.

"For decades, Black votes in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process," he wrote, referencing the state’s sizable Black population.

Notably, Biden’s commanding victory in the 2020 South Carolina primary was widely credited for turning his then-flailing presidential campaign around.

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s 2024 campaign about the advertisement but did not immediately hear back.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Former prosecutor accused of limiting questions about Joe Biden denies politics played a role in Hunter probe

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: The former assistant U.S. attorney who allegedly worked to ‘limit’ questions about Joe Biden denied that politics played a role in the Hunter Biden investigation during her interview at the House Judiciary Committee, according to a transcript reviewed by Fox News Digital. 

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf, though, testified that she would "not be permitted to answer most of the questions you have for me" due to the ongoing nature of the federal criminal investigation into the first son. 

HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATORS LIMITED QUESTIONS ABOUT 'DAD,' 'BIG GUY' DESPITE FBI, IRS OBJECTIONS: WHISTLEBLOWER

Wolf, who recently left the Justice Department—a decision that "long predated" allegations against her, was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to appear for a deposition. 

Wolf appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last week for a voluntary transcribed interview after the Justice Department negotiated terms with the panel. 

Fox News Digital reviewed a transcript of her interview Thursday night. 

After her interview, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Wolf "refused to answer most of our questions." 

"She refused to answer based on instructions she was given from the Justice Department," Jordan said.

IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley, who led the IRS’ portion of the Hunter Biden probe, and Joseph Ziegler, a special agent within the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Division, alleged political influence surrounding prosecutorial decisions throughout the Hunter Biden investigation, which began in 2018.

Shapley alleged that Wolf sought to block investigators from asking questions related to President Biden throughout the years-long federal investigation into his son, Hunter Biden.

But during her interview, Wolf testified that "at no time did politics play a role in or in any way impact my work as a federal prosecutor." 

Wolf also said that prosecutorial decisions were "never made in a vacuum and were always guided by principles of justice and fairness." 

JORDAN SAYS FORMER PROSECUTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SCUTTLED HUNTER INVESTIGATION 'REFUSED' TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

"My voluntary appearance here today is not without an overwhelming feeling of frustration and disappointment because as much as I would invite the opportunity to explain the decisions made and accurately describe the actions taken, I will not be permitted to answer most of the questions you have for me," Wolf said. "It should come as no surprise to the committee that as a former DOJ employee, I am significantly constrained by and must strictly adhere to the authorization provided by the Department of Justice, as well as those obligations independently imposed by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, including rule 6e, and the relevant laws governing disclosure of tax information." 

Wolf explained that, "in light of the ongoing nature of the investigation," she was "legally obligated at this time to largely remain silent as to those allegations, beyond stating the truth, which is, at all times while serving as an AUSA, I acted consistently with the Justice Manual, DOJ policy directives, and my statutory legal and ethical obligations." 

"I followed the facts where they led and made decisions in the best interests of the investigation," Wolf said. "This includes, but is by no means limited to, policies and rules governing politically sensitive investigations, election year sensitivities, attorney search warrants, search warrant filter requirements, and professional conduct rules barring contact with represented parties." 

But when faced with specific questions by investigators, Wolf repeatedly said she could not answer or speak to "particulars or details about anything" relating to the ongoing Hunter Biden probe, led by now-Special Counsel David Weiss, and repeatedly said she was "not authorized" to discuss the matter. 

Shapley alleged earlier this year that Wolf worked to "limit" questioning related to President Biden and apparent references to Biden as "dad" or "the big guy."

But according to a Fox News Digital review of the transcript, investigators did not ask her about that specific allegation. 

Shapley and Ziegler also alleged that in October 2020, Wolf reviewed an affidavit for a search warrant of Hunter Biden’s residence and "agreed that probable cause had been achieved." However, Shapley said Wolf ultimately would not allow a physical search warrant on the president’s son.

Shapley said Wolf determined there was "enough probable cause for the physical search warrant there, but the question was whether the juice was worth the squeeze."

Wolf allegedly said that "optics were a driving factor in the decision on whether to execute a search warrant," Shapley said, adding that Wolf agreed that "a lot of evidence in our investigation would be found in the guest house of former Vice President Biden, but said there is no way we will get that approved."

LESLEY WOLF, PROSECUTOR ACCUSED OF WORKING TO 'LIMIT' QUESTIONS ABOUT 'BIG GUY' IN HUNTER PROBE, OUT AT DOJ

Wolf also allegedly tipped off Hunter Biden’s legal team ahead of a planned search of his storage unit.

During her interview, Wolf did acknowledge that "Political Figure 1"--a term used in several communications between Hunter Biden investigators--was, in fact, a reference to then-Vice President Joe Biden. 

Wolf was asked about an email exchange with FBI Special Agent Joshua Wilson, in which she stated: "There should be nothing about political figure 1 in here." 

Wolf said "Political Figure 1" is "described as former Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., now President Biden," but would not specifically elaborate on why she gave that directive. 

Wolf was asked: "To the extent you didn't--you asked the agents to take out political figure 1, there was no political motivation in requesting that?" 

"I refer you back to my opening statement where I said at no time there was politics playing a role in those decisions." 

Wolf's testimony came as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden, which was formalized last week. 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.; Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., are leading the investigation as the House gathers evidence and considers whether to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden.

The committees are investigating the alleged politicization of the federal probe into Hunter Biden. They are also investigating the Biden family’s foreign business dealings and whether the president was involved or benefited directly from those ventures.

President Biden has repeatedly denied having any involvement in his son’s business dealings.

Hunter Biden was subpoenaed as part of the inquiry as well but defied his subpoena to appear for a deposition at the House Oversight Committee last week. Instead, he made a public statement on Capitol Hill, blasting the Republican impeachment inquiry and saying his father was "not financially involved" in his business dealings.

Comer and Jordan have threatened to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress.

Hunter Biden's public statement Wednesday came just days after he was charged out of Special Counsel David Weiss' investigation.

Weiss alleged Hunter Biden was engaged in a "four-year scheme" when the president's son did not pay his federal income taxes from January 2017 to October 2020 while also filing false tax reports. Weiss filed the charges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Weiss also indicted Hunter Biden on federal gun charges in Delaware. The president's son pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys are working to dismiss the charges altogether. 

Small town elected officials resigning due to new Florida financial disclosure law

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A new financial disclosure law going into effect in Florida Jan. 1 is causing many small town leaders to quit their positions, according to reports.

The law, passed by the state legislature earlier this year, requires local elected officials to annually file a financial disclosure known as Form 6. It replaces a predecessor named Form 1, and lowers the reporting requirement of liabilities and assets in excess of $10,000 to $1,000, The Tampa Bay Times reports. 

The form is two pages to fill out, and asks lawmakers for their net worth, the dollar amounts of their income, assets and liabilities and interests in specified businesses.

"Why did it suddenly have to become so invasive? We were already reporting our financial situation, but now they want it so granular that it almost looks like an attack on home rule and an attack on small municipalities," Belleair Beach Mayor Dave Gattis said to FOX 13 Tampa Bay. "If we [are] unable to fulfill our charter, what’s going to happen? Are they trying to force us to dissolve? I don’t get what Tallahassee’s end game is here." 

MIAMI FIREFIGHTER AIMS TO INSPIRE MORE FEMALE FIRST RESPONDERS WITH AUTHENTIC DOLLS

The wave of resignations is being seen across the Sunshine State, impacting communities of North Palm Beach, St. Pete Beach, Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole, Fort Myers Beach and Naples, multiple media outlets state. Some elected officials who have not left yet say they plan to do so by Dec. 31. 

Those who choose not to comply face fines or impeachment, WPTV reported.

FLORIDA MAN CLAIMS TO BE 'CAPTAIN AMERICA' WITH TOP SECRET INFO TO GET ONTO AIR FORCE BASE, DOJ SAYS

"Look, when you serve in public office, it's an honor but it also comes with a higher level of transparency and public scrutiny than you would otherwise," State Rep. Spencer Roach, R-North Fort Myers, told the TV station. "And you know, to borrow an old adage — if you can't take the heat, don't come in the kitchen."

Roach handled the bill in the Florida House, and mentioned the long list of officials already required to do Form 6 includes the governor, Florida Cabinet, school board members, sheriffs and the entire Florida Legislature. 

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Form 6 into law in May. Some in disagreement say they will take their fight up to the state's capital in the coming months. 

"It’s just a complete invasion of privacy. For what we do in these small towns, we are volunteers; we’re not career politicians-- we’re just doing what we think is best for our town and our city, trying to serve," Belleair Mayor Mike Wilkinson told FOX 13. "We all have careers and families; it’s not a full-time position for any of us."

Federal judge orders GOP Rep. Scott Perry to release texts and emails in 2020 election probe

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal judge is ordering Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania to turn over more than 1,600 texts and emails to FBI agents investigating efforts to keep President Donald Trump in office after his 2020 election loss and illegally block the transfer of power to Democrat Joe Biden.

The ruling, late Monday, came more than a year after Perry’s personal cellphone was seized by federal authorities. The decision, by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, is largely in line with an earlier finding by a federal judge that Perry appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

Boasberg, in a 12-page decision, said that, after viewing each record, he decided that Perry, a top Trump ally, can withhold 396 of the messages under the constitution's speech and debate clause that protects the work of members of Congress.

FREEDOM CAUCUS CHAIR SAYS SPEAKER JOHNSON MUST ‘REASSERT AUTHORITY’ AMID GOP INFIGHTING OVER SPENDING PLAN

However, the other 1,659 records do not involve legislative acts and must be disclosed, Boasberg ruled. That includes efforts to influence members of the executive branch, discussions about Vice President Mike Pence's role in certifying the election and providing information about alleged election fraud.

Perry's lawyer, John Rowley, did not immediately respond to a query about whether he will appeal. In the past, Rowley has said that government officials have never described Perry to him as a target of their investigation.

Perry is chairman of the Freedom Caucus, a hardline faction of conservatives. Perry has not been charged with a crime and is the only sitting member of Congress whose cellphone was seized by the FBI in the 2020 election investigation.

Perry's efforts to protect the contents of his cell phone have proceeded largely in secret, except in recent weeks when snippets and short summaries of his texts and emails were inadvertently unsealed — and then resealed — by the federal court.

Those messages revealed more about where Perry may fit in the web of Trump loyalists who were central to his bid to remain in power.

Making Perry a figure of interest to federal prosecutors were his efforts to elevate Jeffrey Clark to Trump’s acting attorney general in late 2020.

Perry, in the past, has said he merely "obliged" Trump’s request that he be introduced to Clark. At the time, Trump was searching for a like-minded successor to use the Department of Justice to help stall the certification of Biden's election victory.

But the messages suggest that Perry was a key ally for Clark, who positioned himself as someone who would reverse the Department of Justice’s stance that it had found no evidence of widespread voting fraud.

GOP REP. TORCHES REPORTER CLAIMING AMERICANS SEE NO EVIDENCE FOR BIDEN IMPEACHMENT: 'YOU DON'T REPORT ON IT’

To that end, Clark had drafted a letter that he suggested sending to Georgia saying the Department of Justice had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia," according to the August indictment in that state accusing Trump, Clark and 17 others of trying illegally to keep him in power.

At the time, Clark was the assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and served as the acting head of the Civil Division.

The showdown over Clark brought the Justice Department to the brink of crisis, prosecutors have said, and Trump ultimately backed down after he was told that it would result in mass resignations at the Justice Department and his own White House counsel’s office.

Clark is now described in the federal indictment of Trump as one of six unnamed and unindicted co-conspirators in an effort to illegally subvert the 2020 election.

Biden’s House Democrat challenger embraces progressives’ Medicare-for-All bill

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Biden's House Democrat challenger for the White House is endorsing the progressive policy of "Medicare-for-All."

Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., threw his hat behind the controversial state-provided free healthcare policy in a recent interview amid his challenge against Biden for his job.

Phillips said he was signing on to the bill led by House Progressive Caucus chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., with his staff saying the congressman would sign onto the bill Wednesday.

DEAN PHILLIPS CALLS BIDEN POSSIBLY ‘UNELECTABLE’ IN 2024 AFTER GOP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Phillips, a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus who has long been considered a centrist, had not signed onto the proposal before.

His signature on the bill shows him moving toward the progressive wing of the party. The congressman told Politico that his policy shift did not have anything to do with his presidential bid against Biden.

However, Phillips' endorsement of the policy puts him in stark contrast to Biden amid his White House challenge against the president.

Biden refused to endorse socializing healthcare during the 2020 presidential election — even as his eventual running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, did. Prior to his election, he indicated during an MSNBC interview that he would veto Medicare-for-All legislation as president over its price tag.

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden's campaign for comment.

Phillips also said he has his issues with the plan, such as prohibiting almost all private health insurance.

The Democratic congressman said his "journey" to endorsing the plan was "a long one." Phillips said he took his healthcare access for granted until he saw uninsured children battling cancer after his daughter's Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis almost 10 years ago.

The issue entered his mind again in 2016 when he opened up coffee shops and found it "profoundly disappointing" that he could not afford health insurance for his part-time employees.

Phillips also took another look at the policy after being elected in 2018 to represent the district that headquarters UnitedHealth Group.

"I started to recognize this massive disconnect between the behemoths in the health insurance business and then the people that I represented, who were telling me the most horrifying stories about having their coverage denied or having to take on medical debt or going bankrupt," Phillips told Politico.

"I have a progressive heart, a pragmatic head, and want to work with people on both sides of the aisle to achieve better outcomes for the country that both improve care and lower costs," he added. "Those are the best combinations of progressive and conservative principles I could possibly imagine, and that makes this proposition remarkably centrist."

Phillips declined to say how "Medicare-for-All" would be paid.

Fox News Digital reached out to Phillips' campaign for comment.