Category: fox-news/person/donald-trump

Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case, federal appeals court rules

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former U.S. President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the 2020 federal election case, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit considered Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from prosecution for his actions in office, including his alleged role in overturning his 2020 election loss, ultimately saying it was "unpersuaded by his argument" and ruled a case against him can proceed. 

"We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed," the court wrote in its ruling Tuesday. 

It determined: "We conclude that the interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation."

TRUMP TRIAL DELAYED IN CASE STEMMING FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH'S JAN. 6 INVESTIGATION

The legally untested question before the court is whether former presidents can be prosecuted after they leave office for actions taken in the White House related to their official duties.

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the case will have far-reaching consequences, both for Trump and all future presidents.

"If immunity is not granted to a President, every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," he said. "Without complete immunity, a President of the United States would not be able to properly function!"

The Trump campaign spokesperson added: "Deranged Jack Smith’s prosecution of President Trump for his Presidential, official acts is unconstitutional under the doctrine of Presidential Immunity and the Separation of Powers. Prosecuting a President for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our Republic. President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution."

Special counsel Jack Smith initially indicted Trump on Aug. 1, 2023.

In the case, Trump claimed both that he had presidential immunity and that the case violated a double jeopardy clause, as he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives over his alleged involvement. He was later acquitted after the U.S. Senate did not vote to convict him of the charge.

The two defenses were among four arguments Trump's legal team pursued in arguing the court should reject the case.

In Dec. 2023, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case, rejected Trump’s arguments, saying the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass."

In the federal appeals court's Tuesday ruling, it mentioned Trump's impeachment case but similarly rejected these claims of immunity and double jeopardy.

It concluded that "concerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government," as argued by the prosecution, compel "the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case."

And, it wrote: "We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly ‘official’ action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by ‘double jeopardy principles.’ Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED," it wrote.

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said the outcome is not particularly surprising to legal experts but that it could impact or expedite the legal schedule for Trump, who continues to seek re-election. 

The former president is expected to appeal the decision, putting his case — the first of its kind — before the country's highest court.

Trump has up to 90 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The trial date carries enormous political ramifications and Trump hopes an eventual decision will be delayed until after the November election. 

Should that happen and if Trump defeats President Biden, he could presumably try to use his position as head of the executive branch to dismiss the case. He could also potentially seek a pardon for himself, although such a situation has no precedent.

After Chutkan's decision in Dec., Trump’s lawyers appealed to the D.C. appeals court.

At the same time, Smith asked the Supreme Court last month to weigh in first, hoping it would take up the matter quickly and issue a speedy ruling.

The Supreme Court appeared to signal that it preferred to stay out of the process when it rejected the request.

Fox News' Paul Steinhauser, Jake Gibson, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Supreme Court prepares hearing on Trump removal from Colorado ballot

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon debate whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from Colorado's primary ballot, the first of what could be several legal challenges by Trump to confront the nine justices.

At issue is whether Trump committed "insurrection" by inciting a crowd to storm the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, 2021, and whether that would make him constitutionally ineligible to be re-elected president. That, in turn, could block him from appearing on a state primary ballot as a candidate for that office.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET, and an expedited ruling could come within days or weeks.

The issues have never been tested at the nation's highest court and are framed as both a constitutional and political fight with enormous stakes for public confidence in the judicial system and the already divisive electoral process.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO KEEP NAME ON COLORADO BALLOT

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the Constitution states, "No person shall… hold any office… under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Colorado's highest court in December ruled that clause covers Trump's conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore does apply to a president despite not being explicitly indicated in the text. 

"President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president," the state court wrote in an unsigned opinion. "Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."

SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF TRUMP BANNED FROM COLORADO BALLOT IN HISTORIC CASE

The issue could turn on whether the high court interprets "officer of the United States" to apply to a president's conduct in office.

Trump's legal team in its merits brief said, "The [Supreme] Court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and which promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado's lead and exclude the likely Republican presidential nominee from their ballots."

The Constitution treats the presidency separately from other federal officers, Trump's team argued.

"The president swears a different oath set forth in Article II, in which he promises to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States' — and in which the word 'support' is nowhere to be found," like it appears in Section 3, Trump's team wrote.

But lawyers for the Colorado voters challenging Trump's eligibility said in response, "The thrust of Trump's position is less legal than it is political. He not-so-subtly threatens 'bedlam' if he is not on the ballot. But we already saw the 'bedlam' Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost. Section 3 is designed precisely to avoid giving oath-breaking insurrectionists like Trump the power to unleash such mayhem again.

"Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law," the brief added, comparing Trump to a "mob boss."

Also at issue:

TRUMP BACKED BY 27 STATES IN SUPREME COURT FIGHT, WHO WARN OF 2024 'CHAOS' IF HE'S REMOVED FROM BALLOT

– Whether state courts or elected state officials can unilaterally enforce constitutional provisions and declare candidates ineligible for federal office — so-called "self-executing" authority — or is that exclusively the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress. Also, whether Trump can be disqualified without a thorough fact-finding or criminal trial.

– Whether this issue is a purely "political" one that voters should ultimately decide.

– Whether the U.S. Senate's acquittal at his impeachment trial over Jan. 6 makes him therefore eligible to seek re-election.

– And whether Section 3 prohibits individuals only from "holding" office, not from "seeking or winning" election to office.

More than a dozen states have pending legal challenges over Trump's ballot eligibility.

At least 16 state courts and secretaries of state have already concluded his name can appear on the ballot. Colorado and Maine are the only two so far to keep his name off.

Other states are saying stay tuned. The Oregon Supreme Court earlier this year dismissed a related lawsuit but told a coalition of voters that, based on what the U.S. Supreme Court decides, they can refile again.

In conducting what are expected to be lengthy and contentious oral arguments, the justices will likely be forced to revisit the events of Jan. 6 and the pivotal speech Trump gave to supporters just before Congress was to certify the Electoral College ballots.

Trump has repeatedly claimed he was not trying to incite violence and that his speech was protected by First Amendment guarantees, especially pertinent as the top federal office holder.

The storming of the U.S. Capitol left 140 law enforcement officers injured, and lawmakers and Vice President Pence fled a mob that breached the building.

The Colorado decision has been on pause pending the U.S. Supreme Court's final ruling.

MAINE'S TOP COURT WON'T RULE ON TRUMP BALLOT ELIGIBILITY UNTIL SUPREME COURT DECISION IN COLORADO

The state's 2024 presidential primary ballot with Trump's name on the Republican ballot has already been certified by the Colorado secretary of state.

But if Trump is ultimately declared ineligible for public office before the state's March 5 primary, any votes cast in his favor would be nullified.

The Supreme Court has traditionally been reluctant to get involved in overtly political disputes, especially involving elections.

The partisan blowback over the 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore still resonates, creating the impression among the public that many of the justices harbor partisan political intentions.

"Sometimes the Supreme Court has no choice but to be involved in the election cases because that is an area where, unlike most, the Supreme Court doesn't even have discretion over whether it takes the case," said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. 

"There are some voting rights and election cases that the Supreme Court is required to resolve on the merits."

It is important to note the legal debate over "insurrection" comes to the Supreme Court on a ballot eligibility question.

Special counsel Jack Smith is separately prosecuting Trump for alleged election interference leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, but the former president is not charged specifically with "insurrection" or "rebellion." The four charges he faces relate to conspiracy and obstruction. Some legal scholars have pointed out Section 3 does not require a criminal conviction to take effect.

The Supreme Court could soon be asked to decide an important component of Smith's federal case — whether Trump has "absolute immunity" for alleged crimes committed in office.

A federal appeals court is considering the question, and the issue could soon reach the high court on an expedited basis. 

Trump's criminal trial was scheduled for March 4, 2024, but it is likely any Supreme Court consideration of the issues would force a delay, perhaps past the November election.

The former president also faces a state criminal prosecution for alleged election interference in Georgia; a federal criminal prosecution in Florida for alleged mishandling of classified documents that is also led by the special counsel; and a New York state criminal case over allegedly falsifying business records for hush money payments to a porn star. 

And there are various civil claims against Trump, from lawsuits: by U.S. Capitol police officers over Jan. 6; alleged fraud involving various Trump-related businesses; and an $83 million defamation judgment stemming from an alleged sexual assault.

It is unclear if any of these cases will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal on the merits. Some may not be considered for years.

In the short term, any further petition with the name "Trump" on the cover could severely strain public confidence in a judicial institution designed to hover above partisan politics.

"I don't think that the court really follows the political calendar," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department attorney in the George W. Bush administration. "I think they're aware of the fact, obviously, that we're in an election year, but I don't think the fact that we're in an election year is going to be driving the outcomes of any of these decisions."

The ballot case is Trump v. Anderson (23-719).

Media meltdown: Why journalism is battered and bleeding

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Let’s start with the good news.

With a flick of a finger, more information is instantaneously available than at any time in human history. Stories, columns, opinions, video, photos, music, movies, texts, social media, streaming, podcasts. There are more ways to consume–desktop, phone, tablet, smartwatch–and infinitely more ways to voice your views.

Okay, enough of that.

The news business is in a tailspin. Firings and layoffs and buyouts are decimating its ranks. Publications and websites are folding. Revenue is plunging. Credibility is at an all-time low. And AI is starting to gobble up jobs.

BIDEN’S LEAKED CAMPAIGN PLAN: TARGET TRUMP (OF COURSE) AND WORK SOCIAL MEDIA

Worst of all, after the pandemic, scandals and impeachments, economic anxiety and political gridlock, interest in news is declining.

In L.A. they’re always worried about the Big One. For media people it feels like the earthquake has already struck.

The billionaire owner of the once-mighty Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, has fired the editor and more than 20 percent of its staff, devastating the Washington bureau and several key units. The billionaire owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, has given buyouts to 240 staffers, decimating the metro staff and losing many of the paper’s biggest names.

If newspapers aren’t owned by these wealthy moguls, they’re increasingly controlled by hedge funds whose strip-mining tactics have reduced them to a skeleton of their former selves.

From Vice to Vox, from Time (15 percent laid off) to Business Insider (8 percent), from Sports Illustrated (blown up) to BuzzFeed News (shuttered), the carnage is everywhere.

And just yesterday, the Messenger, a news and aggregation site launched by Jimmy Finkelstein, former owner of the Hill, shut down after less than a year, having lost $38 million and some staffers lured from top publications.

CNN just had a major round of layoffs. Cable news audiences are aging, and cord-cutting is growing in popularity. 

It’s not just that the voracious Internet broke the business model; that happened a quarter-century ago. It’s that there seems to be no end in sight. 

"Journalists across the country burst into flames of panic this week, as bad news for the news business crested and erupted everywhere all at once," writes Jack Shafer in Politico.

The impact is greatest on local reporting, with far fewer folks to check up on their city halls and statehouses, especially in smaller markets.

THE MENTAL FITNESS MANIA: MEDIA NOW CHALLENGE BIDEN, TRUMP

"No matter how many heroic nonprofit newsrooms like the Baltimore Banner and Daily Memphian take root, no matter how many Substack-like newsletters blossom or creators emerge to drop their videos on YouTube, you can’t deny the journalism business’ decline," Shafer writes.

What’s remarkable to me is how many of these pieces, and there have been many, overlook the importance of political bias. Republicans have been complaining about a liberal tilt since I began to read newspapers. Now, in the Trump era, half the country believes the media have become the opposition party, determined to block their man from returning to the White House. But during the Biden presidency, a growing percentage of those on the left have lost trust in the business as well.

You have Red and Blue America, each filled with anger, each side viewing the other as evil and dangerous, with the press having forfeited its standing as a neutral arbiter of facts. 

"What makes this so unnerving," says the Atlantic, "is the fact that the meltdown has come amid—and in seeming defiance of—a generally booming economy. The ranks of professional journalists keep declining even as overall unemployment stays low, incomes rise, and the stock market reaches new heights." 

The author, Paul Farhi, a longtime media reporter for the Washington Post, just took the paper’s buyout.

"What’s more, a presidential-election cycle tends to produce a surge of readers, viewers, and advertisers as people pay closer attention to the news. Not this time, at least so far."

Beyond news fatigue, Farhi notes, "Facebook has steadily reduced the amount of news that users see in their feed, wiping out a major source of traffic." I’d add that Google has gobbled some of that revenue as well.

HOW NIKKI HALEY BURNED BRIDGES IN SOUTH CAROLINA–AND STILL PULLS PUNCHES AGAINST TRUMP

There are obviously exceptions. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Boston Globe are strong franchises. Fox News exceeds the prime-time ratings of CNN and MSNBC combined. But even television networks feel compelled to pour money into online shows and pay sites.

"Will journalism become a hobby like scrapbooking or street busking, done on the cheap or for donations, but one without much of a career path?" Politico asks.

I’m more pessimistic than I’ve ever been, and there’s no easy solution. Some say government subsidies are needed, but that raises serious conflict questions. And if zillionaires can’t revive newspapers and magazines, what hope is there for ordinary companies and local owners?

I do think that just as television didn’t wipe out radio, journalism will have to morph into new and more compelling forms to survive. Who would have thought even three years ago that everyone and their brother-in-law would have a podcast?

But people are willing to pay monthly fees for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV and the like, though they are going through a belt-tightening wave as well, with Spotify having just axed 17 percent of its staff. 

If news outlets can’t convince most of the public that their product is worth buying, they bear the ultimate blame.

Trump swipes at Biden’s demand for legislation to secure the border: ‘I didn’t have a bill’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former President Trump took an apparent swipe at President Biden amid White House calls for a border security deal that he "didn’t have a bill" when his administration had "the most secure border in history."

Trump’s comments Wednesday came after Biden earlier this week claimed he had done everything he could do to secure the U.S. border.

BIDEN CLAIMS 'I'VE DONE ALL I CAN DO' TO SECURE THE BORDER

Biden told reporters as he was departing the White House Tuesday that "I've done all I can do. Just give me the power." 

"I asked them the very day I got into office," Biden said. "Give me the Border Patrol. Give me the judges. Give me the people who can stop this." 

Trump, the 2024 GOP frontrunner, appeared to contradict Biden’s claim and urged Republicans to avoid entering the border deal, which is still being negotiated in the Senate.

"There’s never been a border like this ever in the world," Trump said, adding that a "bad border deal would be worse than no deal at all."

"You don’t need a deal to tighten up the border to make it secure," he continued. "I had the most secure border in history. I didn’t have a deal. I didn't have a bill.

"I said no people are coming in, no drugs are coming, and we don’t want to have human trafficking, which nobody even talks about. That is the No. 1."

Trump added: "You have the right to close up your border… You don’t need bills."

Trump went on to say the individuals illegally crossing are individuals U.S. officials know nothing about.

"Right now, we have no idea who these people are that are pouring into our countries," Trump said. "Last night I watched where they're beating a police in New York City, a gang of people that just came in that didn't speak English. Nobody knows who they are, where they come from. And very importantly, they come from, I can tell you they come from jails and prisons. They come from mental institutions and insane asylums."

He added: "And they're terrorists. They have a lot of terrorists coming too, and we don't want them. I'm sorry, you know, we had a very strong border."

MAYORKAS LASHES OUT AT ‘BASELESS’ GOP ALLEGATIONS AHEAD OF KEY IMPEACHMENT VOTE 

President Biden has requested $14 billion in funding for the border as part of its supplemental funding request to Congress, which also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel. The request is being negotiated in Congress after Republicans demanded more limits on asylum and migrant releases into the interior.

Biden has urged Congress to pass the deal, but House Republicans and some conservatives in the Senate have said the reported proposals do not go far enough.

The Biden administration has said it has been expanding "lawful pathways" for migrants while increasing consequences for illegal entry into the U.S. since the ending of Title 42 expulsions in May last year. It has pointed to more than 500,000 removals since May, as well as increased cooperation with Mexico to crack down on human smugglers and fentanyl trafficking. 

The administration also says it has been increasing removal flights — including directly to Venezuela. However, it has stressed that it needs more funding and comprehensive immigration reform to fix what it says is a "broken" system. 

Migrant numbers officially hit 302,000 in December, a new record, after 2.4 million encounters in FY23. Republicans have said that large releases into the interior and a rolling back of Trump-era policies have fueled the crisis and have accused Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of a "dereliction of duty" in his handling of it.  

The House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday approved, along party lines, two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas — teeing up a floor vote as early as next week to impeach the embattled Biden official.

RNC to convene privately, resolution to call Donald Trump the ‘presumptive nominee’ removed

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Republican National Committee is meeting behind closed doors this week as some allies of Donald Trump had hoped to put the group's stamp on the former president early in the 2024 GOP presidential nominating campaign.

But a proposed resolution to declare Trump the presumptive nominee has been removed from the agenda before the committee is scheduled to meet in Las Vegas this week, party officials said.

The reversal comes as the first two early-state contests have winnowed the Republican campaign down to two major candidates, with Trump as the heavy favorite and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley vowing to continue her uphill challenge.

HALEY'S GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING SOARS, BUT A TOP-DOLLAR LIBERAL DONOR WANTS TO SEE 'PATH TO VICTORY'

What was expected to be an uneventful RNC winter meeting in Las Vegas this week briefly gained heightened attention last week after the resolution, introduced by Maryland Committeeman David Bossie, to name Trump the presumptive nominee became public.

Bossie was Trump's deputy campaign manager in 2016 and advised his team when Congress pursued a second impeachment after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Within hours of the resolution's leak, Trump batted down the proposal, which some members of the committee criticized publicly as premature.

"While they have far more votes than necessary to do it, I feel, for the sake of PARTY UNITY, that they should NOT go forward with this plan," Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social.

There is no formal RNC rule barring the party from declaring a presumptive nominee. And there is precedent for such a move. In 2016, then-RNC Chairman Reince Priebus declared Trump the presumptive nominee after the Indiana primary, though that was in May and Trump had battled Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for three months since Cruz finished first in the leadoff Iowa caucuses ahead of second-place Trump.

The Associated Press only uses the term once a candidate has captured the number of delegates needed to win a majority vote at the national party conventions this summer.

That point won’t come until after more states have voted. For both Republicans and Democrats, the earliest it could happen is March.

Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel suggested last week that Haley had no path to the nomination in light of Trump's majority vote totals in the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses and the Jan. 23 New Hampshire primary.

"We need to unite around our eventual nominee, which is going to be Donald Trump, and we need to make sure we beat Joe Biden," McDaniel said in a Fox News interview the night of the New Hampshire primary.

Haley said Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the RNC was "clearly not" an honest broker "if you're going to go and basically tell the American people that you're going to go and decide who the nominee is after only two states have voted."

"The American people want to have their say in who is going to be their nominee," she said. "We need to give them that. I mean, you can’t do that based on just two states."

Several senior House Republicans still silent on Trump 2024 amid growing pressure for party unity

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former President Trump’s decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary this week spurred several new endorsements from lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have so far been silent on the race.

Among the most notable pivots was House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., who endorsed Trump over the weekend minutes after his preferred candidate, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, dropped out of the race.

As of Thursday afternoon, Trump has more than 120 House Republican endorsements – the majority of the House GOP Conference and far outpacing former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley’s one backer.

Fox News Digital took a look at some of the senior House Republicans who have yet to weigh in despite mounting calls to unify behind the former president.

RAMASWAMY: HALEY SHOULD DROP OUT FOR GOOD OF COUNTRY AS OBSERVERS SAY SHE'S STILL ‘ALIVE AND KICKING’

Comer has not weighed in on the 2024 presidential primary publicly so far. It’s worth noting his hands have been full on Capitol Hill leading an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s rival, President Biden.

Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., who are also leading the inquiry, have both endorsed Trump. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Comer’s office but did not immediately hear back.

HALEY AND PHILLIPS OUTPERFORMED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, BUT IT'S STILL A TRUMP VS BIDEN HORSE RACE 

Fitzpatrick, a more moderate member from a Pennsylvania swing district, also hasn’t picked a side in the 2024 primary.

When Trump was indicted in June over his handling of classified documents, Fitzpatrick was one of the few Republicans who did not rush to his defense. The former FBI agent urged people to respect the legal process and not rush to judgment.

"No one is above the law or beyond prosecution," he said. "No one should be targeted for prosecution merely because of their status, position or affiliation."

Fitzpatrick’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

McMorris Rodgers is seen as one of House Speaker Mike Johnson’s closest allies on Capitol Hill, but unlike Johnson, R-La., she has yet to weigh in on the 2024 presidential primary race. Johnson endorsed Trump late last year.

In December 2019, she was named a state honorary co-chair for Trump’s reelection bid, according to the Spokesman-Review newspaper.

She made clear there was some distance between them after the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot, reportedly telling constituents in August 2023 that efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss that day were "un-American."

BIDEN CHALLENGER DEAN PHILLIPS BLASTS PRESIDENT AS 'UNELECTABLE AND WEAK' AS BIDEN SET TO SKIP NEW HAMPSHIRE

But she reportedly said, "I also believe that Donald Trump, or any American, deserves due process."

Fox News Digital reached out to McMorris Rodgers' campaign for comment.

Roy went into the 2024 presidential primary cycle as one of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ most enthusiastic supporters. But unlike Freedom Caucus Chair Good, Roy has not stepped behind Trump so far in the two-candidate race. 

Trump threatened to recruit a primary challenger against Roy, who is popular in his district and running unopposed, for his support of Trump’s former rival.

Roy said on CNN in late December, "I was just at multiple events with Ron DeSantis, where he’s shaking their hands and looking them in the eye while Donald Trump hangs out in his basement in Florida, afraid to actually debate."

He said on "Fox Across America" on Thursday that Trump is "likely going to be the nominee" and called on him to "stand up in defense of the hardworking American family getting steamrolled by corporate America and by Republicans too weak-kneed to fight for them."

Roy's office pointed to his earlier comments when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday afternoon.

Moore stepped into House leadership after a crowded race for a position left by Johnson when he took the gavel in October.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He’s rarely spoken out about Republican Party politics in the 2024 presidential primary, preferring to keep election discussions focused on the House of Representatives.

With his recent leadership role, Moore is also the highest-ranking House Republican to have voted in favor of a Sept. 11-style bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Fox News Digital tried to contact his campaign but did not immediately hear back.

Fox News Digital also reached out to the Trump campaign for comment.

Susan Colins, key Senate GOP moderate, won’t back Trump in 2024

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, says she will not endorse former President Trump for president, even if he were to become the Republican nominee in the 2024 election. 

Collins, the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, is a moderate legislator and one of seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection during his Senate trial in 2021.

When asked by The Hill whether she would support Trump following his win in New Hampshire, Collins said, "I do not at this point."

Instead, she expressed optimism about former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's campaign and said she was happy that Haley would not drop out after losing to Trump by 11 points in New Hampshire. 

SEN. COLLINS ‘VERY UNLIKELY’ TO BACK TRUMP IN 2024, HITS BIDEN'S ‘CLUMSY’ SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCEMENT

"I’m glad to hear last night that Nikki Haley is determined to stay in [the race.] I think the more people see of her, particularly since she appears to be the only alternative to Donald Trump right now, the more impressed they will be," Collins said.

However, the Maine Republican stopped short of endorsing Haley.

Collins has previously said she was "unlikely" to support Trump and that the former president should not have pledged to pardon those convicted for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. 

However, other GOP senators have lined up behind the former president since his convincing primary election wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

SEN SCOTT SAYS DECISION TO ENDORSE TRUMP OVER HALEY CAME DOWN TO ‘ONE SIMPLE QUESTION’

Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Deb Fischer, R-Neb., endorsed Trump on Tuesday after he won 54% of the vote in the Granite State's first-in-the-nation-primary. 

"It's time for Republicans to unite around President Donald Trump and make Joe Biden a one-term president," Fischer said in a statement. "These last three years have yielded a crippling border crisis, an inflationary economy that prices the American Dream out of reach for families, and a world in constant turmoil with our enemies on the march. I endorse Donald Trump for president so we can secure our border, get our economy moving again, and keep America safe."

Cornyn posted his endorsement on X, "To beat Biden, Republicans need to unite around a single candidate, and it’s clear that President Trump is Republican voters’ choice."

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., joined his colleagues on Wednesday, declaring the primary "over." 

HALEY PROJECTS OPTIMISM DESPITE WAVE OF TOP SOUTH CAROLINA POLS SIDING WITH TRUMP IN HER HOME STATE

"Competition makes us all better, so I let the primary play out, but this thing’s over," Kennedy posted on X. "It’s going to be Pres. Trump versus Pres. Biden: A choice between hope and more hurt. It’s not even close. I choose hope. I am endorsing Pres. Trump and look forward to working with him."

Despite her second loss, following another defeat in Iowa last week, former Gov. Haley has vowed to stay in the race, even with the prospect looming of an embarrassing home-state primary defeat in South Carolina on Feb. 24.

"New Hampshire is first in the nation. It is not last in the nation," Haley declared before leaving Tuesday night. "This race is far from over. There are dozens of states left to go."

Fox News Digital's Jon Brown and Bradford Betz contributed to this report.

Trump says Nikki Haley ‘has no chance’ ahead of New Hampshire primary: ‘MAGA is not going to be with her’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former President Trump said Nikki Haley "has no chance" of winning the 2024 Republican nomination, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an exclusive sit-down interview Thursday that "MAGA is not going to be with her."

Trump, who solidified his standing as the frontrunner in the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race after winning the Iowa caucuses Monday night, now has his sights set on New Hampshire. Trump traveled to the Granite State this week after he dominated his GOP opponents in Iowa by winning 98 of 99 counties. He collected 20 delegates in the state. 

Trump, who sat with Hannity in New Hampshire just days before the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, is ahead by double-digits in the polls in the Granite State. But some new polling shows former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and his former ambassador to the United Nations, performing well.

Moderate voters in the Granite State are highly influential, and the state's independents — who can vote in either major party primary — have long played a crucial role in New Hampshire's storied presidential contest.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu endorsed Haley, but in an interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, he said it was "troubling" that some Democratic voters will "switch" to be independents to vote in the primary.

When asked if that system "bothers" him, Trump said: "It bothers me."

"And the governor should have done something about it," Trump told Hannity. "Instead of wasting his time with Nikki, because she’s not going to make it. She has no chance, she’s got no way." 

Trump added: "MAGA is not going to be with her."

Trump said the state’s system is "a bad thing for us."

"Who has a system where Democrats are allowed to vote in the Republican Primary?" He asked. "And New Hampshire is an incredible place. I love the people."

Trump, who won New Hampshire in both 2016 and 2020, said the state is "fantastic," but it needs "a system."

"You need a governor that’s going to get it changed, not just talking about it," Trump said. "He’s talking about it for four years, never got it done, so Democrats are allowed to vote, which they’re going to vote for her, because they don’t want to run against me, they want to run against her."

He added: "It’s a very simple system."

But even if Democrats register as independents and vote for Haley in New Hampshire, Trump said: "I don’t think it’s going to matter."

A daily tracking poll released Thursday morning by Suffolk University, the Boston Globe and NBC10 Boston shows Trump with 50% support among those likely to vote in the New Hampshire primary Jan. 23.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who served as ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump administration, stands at 36%, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at just 6%.

TRUMP HOLDS DOUBLE-DIGIT LEAD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE GOP PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY AS HALEY EDGES UP IN LATEST POLL

In that same poll, 4% of respondents said they were undecided, with 1% saying they would back a different candidate altogether.

Trump, reflecting on his presidency — including the years-long Russia probe that clouded the beginning of his administration and the two impeachments — said neither Haley nor Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis "would not be able to handle" the "onslaught" that comes with being president of the United States.

"If I were a softer individual, and I’ll tell you something, Ron DeSantis or Nikki or anybody else, if they were in my position, if they were here, they would have been hit just as hard," Trump said. "These people play tough, much tougher than the Republicans play, and the Republicans have to get tougher." 

He added: "But Nikki, I know Nikki very well. She worked for me a long time. She would not be able to handle that position — she would not be able to handle the onslaught."

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

Federal appeals court rejects Trump petition over Special Counsel Jack Smith access to Twitter feed

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal appeals court has rejected former President Trump’s request to block Special Counsel Jack Smith from accessing his then-Twitter feed as part of his election interference case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C., ruled on the matter and denied further review. The decision comes after an appellate panel had rejected the original request.

Twitter, now "X," had initiated the appeals, seeking to block special counsel access to the records the company held.

Smith had noted he could have gotten the material from the National Archives, which gained the material after Trump left office, but that would have triggered notice to Trump, so a search warrant was requested through the company under seal and with a non-disclosure notice. That, in turn, prevented Trump from raising any executive privilege claims over the digital communications.

The four conservative judges on the appeals court dissented and would have granted en banc review.

Judge Rao (a Trump bench appointee) wrote a statement, saying the executive privilege claims should have been addressed.

"The absence of a presumptive privilege particularly threatens the Chief Executive when, as here, a third party holds presidential communications. See Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2035. And to be sure it aggrandizes the courts, which will have the power to determine whether executive privilege will be considered before its breach. Without a presumption for executive privilege, new questions will invariably arise, particularly because nothing in the panel’s opinion is limited to a former President. What if, in the course of a criminal investigation, a special counsel sought a warrant for the incumbent President’s communications from a private email or phone provider? Under this court’s decision, executive privilege isn’t even on the table, so long as the special counsel makes a showing that a warrant and nondisclosure order are necessary to the prosecution. And following the Special Counsel’s roadmap, what would prevent a state prosecutor from using a search warrant and nondisclosure order to obtain presidential communications from a third-party messaging application? And how might Congress benefit from this precedent when it seeks to subpoena presidential materials from third parties in an investigation or impeachment inquiry?"

"Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, the amicus curiae brief filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ordered that the petition be denied," the ruling states.

The former president and 2024 GOP presidential front-runner can now ask the Supreme Court to review the matter. 

Smith plans to use data from the cellphone that Trump used in his final weeks in office, including data revealing when Trump’s phone was "unlocked and the Twitter application was open" on Jan. 6, 2021.

Unsealed court filings in August showed that Smith's team obtained location data and draft tweets in addition to the former president's messages.

Attorneys for the company, now named X Corp., attempted to block and delay the effort in January and February, leading one federal judge to speculate that X owner and one-time CEO Elon Musk was attempting to ally himself with Trump.

The social media giant ultimately lost the struggle, however, and was forced to hand over an extensive list of data related to the "@realdonaldtrump" account, including all tweets "created, drafted, favorited/liked, or retweeted."

The handover also included searches on the platform surrounding the 2020 election, devices used to log into the account, IP addresses used to log into the account, and a list of associated accounts.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Haley calls Trump attorney’s argument against legal charges ‘ridiculous’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former Ambassador Nikki Haley responded to a Trump attorney’s defense of his immunity from legal charges as president as "ridiculous" during the last GOP presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses. 

"Do you agree with the argument Donald Trump's lawyer made in court that a president should have immunity for any conduct, including in ordering the assassination of a political rival unless that president is impeached and convicted by the Senate for that offense first?" CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Haley during a debate on Wednesday night. 

"No, that's ridiculous," Haley responded. "That's absolutely ridiculous. I mean, we need to use some common sense here. You can't go and kill a political rival and then claim, you know, immunity from a president. I think we have to start doing things that are right and you know Ron said we should have leaders that we can look up to. Well, then stop lying, because nobody's going to want to look up to you if you're lying."

Haley continued, "But what I do think we need to look at is what has President Trump done? You look at the last few years and our country is completely divided. It's divided over extremes. It's divided over hatred. It's divided over the fact that people think that if someone doesn't agree with you that they're bad. And now we have leaders in our country that decide who's good and who's bad, who's right, and who's wrong, that's not what a leader does. What a leader does is they bring out the best in people and get them to see the way forward."

HALEY, DESANTIS FIRE SHOTS AT TRUMP IN HEAD-TO-HEAD DEBATE: ‘HE DID NOT DELIVER’

The question from Tapper to Haley was in reference to a comment from Trump lawyer D. John Sauer this week in a Washington D.C. courtroom where he answered with a "qualified yes" when asked if Trump’s immunity from prosecution as president would apply if Trump "ordered S.E.A.L. Team 6 to assassinate a political rival."

"He would have to be impeached and convicted," Sauer argued.

JUDGE JUDY ENDORSES NIKKI HALEY FOR PRESIDENT: 'SHE IS WHIP SMART...SHE IS THE FUTURE'

Sauer said, "There's a political process that would have to occur under the structure of our Constitution which would require conviction and impeachment by the Senate in these exceptional cases, as the OLC memo itself points out from the Department of Justice you'd expect a speedy impeachment and conviction."

Sauer argued before a federal appeals court Tuesday that the president has "absolute immunity," even after leaving office — an argument that the judges appeared to be skeptical of.

Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, fired back, saying: "I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law." 

But Sauer argued that Biden, "the current incumbent of the presidency is prosecuting his number one political opponent and his greatest electoral threat."

Meanwhile, Special Counsel Jack Smith's team argued that presidents are not entitled to absolute immunity and that Trump’s alleged actions following the November 2020 election fall outside a president’s official job duties.

"The president has a unique constitutional role but he is not above the law. Separation of powers principles, constitutional text, history, precedent and immunity doctrines all point to the conclusion that a former president enjoys no immunity from prosecution," prosecutor James Pearce said, adding that a case in which a former president is alleged to have sought to overturn an election "is not the place to recognize some novel form of immunity."

Fox News Digital reached out to the Trump campaign for comment but did not immediately receive a response. 

Fox News Digital's Brooke Singman contributed to this report