Jay Jones murder texts latest case of Democrats circling the scandal wagons

Virginia attorney general candidate Jay Jones still has the support of some top Democrats, while others have not called for him to drop out after messages showed him envisioning the murder of a former Republican leader.

At the same time, history shows most Republican scandals are met with intraparty calls to drop out, abandonment of support or other more explicit actions.

Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, defended Jones last week, telling reporters there was a double standard in pressing Democrat Abigail Spanberger to finally call for Jones’ ouster, and Republicans’ reaction to President Donald Trump envisioning whether Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney would continue to be a neoconservative if she was put in a warzone with guns pointed at her.

Virginia Senate President L. Louise Lucas, D-Norfolk, similarly declined to call for Jones to drop out and instead has publicly boosted his candidacy.

RESURFACED SOCIAL MEDIA POST COMES BACK TO HAUNT DISGRACED DEM AG NOMINEE: 'DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT'

Spanberger has condemned Jones’ comments, but has offered responses to calls for her to push him out that characterize the choice as up to the voters, not her.

Pressed by reporters Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries suggested Jones’ apologies were sufficient for him to retain Democratic support.

The most prominent Democrat to have the party circle its wagons around them was former President Bill Clinton, who, while embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, saw his party largely oppose efforts to impeach or remove him.

First lady Hillary Clinton famously expressed the view that there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband, while congressional Democrats seeking to avoid an impeachment instead argued a formal censure would be a "historic" statement.

In 1998, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., took to the floor to accuse Republicans of "a misuse of their constitutional responsibility" and "a political vendetta."

In 2006, eight-term New Orleans congressman Rep. William Jefferson was investigated by the FBI for allegedly using his official position to solicit hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes from U.S. companies interested in doing business in Africa, according to a bureau release.

Nearly $100,000 was famously found hidden inside a Pillsbury pie crust box in his freezer, and the FBI found at least 11 "distinct" bribery schemes amid their probe.

JAY JONES’ ‘TWO BULLETS’ SCANDAL OVER VIOLENT TEXTS EXPECTED TO DOMINATE VIRGINIA AG DEBATE

As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., opposed efforts to remove Jefferson from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

He said Jefferson deserves to be presumed innocent and criticized the lack of precedent being purportedly weaponized against a Black man.

One top Democrat broke ranks: Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Jefferson that in the interest of the House Democratic Caucus’ "high ethical standard," she requested his "immediate resignation" from Ways & Means.

Eventually, Democrats voted 99-58 within their ranks to see Jefferson removed, and he was later booted from the panel by a full-House voice vote.

Jefferson’s scandal was so severe, Republican upstart Joseph Cao defeated him in Democratic-supermajority New Orleans in a hurricane-delayed 2008 election by 50-47%.

When a racist group-chat of young Republicans from several states was leaked and reported in the press, Democrats who had declined to call for Jones’ ouster were quick to condemn the situation – but were also joined by Republicans.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has not called for Jones to withdraw, said Wednesday that "too many Republican leaders seem willing to call out violent rhetoric only when it comes from the other side. But these same Republicans never seem willing to denounce it when it comes from their own ranks, and that’s dangerous."

LIBERAL MEDIA DOWNPLAYS SCANDAL OF DEM VIRGINIA AG HOPEFUL JAY JONES' TEXTS FANTASIZING MURDER OF GOP LAWMAKER

However, several prominent Republicans did condemn the chats, including multiple New York lawmakers like Reps. Mike Lawler and Elise Stefanik. Several of the chats allegedly were written by young Republicans from that state.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott also quickly condemned the chat after state Sen. Samuel Douglass of Orleans was entangled in the story:

"Those involved should resign from their roles immediately and leave the Republican Party," Scott said.

The last time Virginia was at the center of a scandal like this, then-Sen. George Allen, R-Va., was a popular incumbent and former governor — and the son and namesake of the Washington Redskins’ legendary coach.

In 2006, Allen was at a rally near Breaks Interstate Park on the Kentucky line when he noticed a young activist of South Asian descent filming him. Allen pointed to him and referred to him by a French-colonial slang referencing monkeys.

"Folks we're going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas, and it’s important that we motivate and inspire people for something," Allen said, before turning to the man.

"This fella here over here with the yellow shirt, [slur] or whatever his name is – he’s with my opponent," Allen said, joking it would be challenger Jim Webb’s only opportunity to see people in rural Virginia secondhand.

JOE SCARBOROUGH TELLS DEM CANDIDATE JAY JONES TO LEAVE RACE OVER VIOLENT COMMENTS AGAINST GOP LAWMAKER

While the left latched onto the incident, some Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona expressed sympathy for the gaffe, criticism was more vocal even if calls to drop out were not as pronounced.

Then-Iowa GOP leader Mike Mehaffey publicly said Allen needed to "make it clear" that he made a mistake and that he should never have said it.

Allen’s campaign imploded, and a race that was supposed to be a wide-margin win for the GOP ended in a one-point loss to Webb – who in turn cited his Navy secretaryship in the Reagan administration as a reach across the aisle to disaffected Allen fans.

In other Republican cases, however, intraparty comeuppance was more pronounced.

Then-Sen. Larry Craig, R-Wyo., was convicted of lewd conduct after a police officer accused him of potentially soliciting sex in a Minnesota airport bathroom during a June 2009 sting operation.

By late September, Craig had resigned from Congress amid a barrage of intraparty backlash.

"I think he should resign," McCain said at the time, as then-Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., also called for his ouster.

DEMOCRATS UNDER FIRE FOR STANDING BY VIRGINIA AG HOPEFUL WHO JOKED ABOUT SHOOTING GOP RIVAL

House Republican leaders also criticized Craig, with Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., saying his conduct was "inappropriate for a U.S. Senator." Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee also issued condemnations, while the Bush White House was also reportedly disappointed.

Former Rep. Mark Foley’s career also imploded in similar fashion in 2006 after the Florida Republican was found to have sent sexually inappropriate messages to Capitol Hill pages.

While outlets like the UK Guardian at the time reported that some Republicans tried to "cover up" the scandal before it broke, the White House swiftly condemned Foley when the texts came to light.

"The White House and the president were just as shocked as everyone else," Bush adviser Dan Bartlett told CNN, suggesting there should or would be a criminal investigation to come.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., took to the "Rush Limbaugh Show" to condemn talk that he or other top GOP leaders had not acted swift enough or knew previously of Foley’s texts.

Hastert and House Republican leaders John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Roy Blunt, R-Mo., later called Foley’s texts "unacceptable and abhorrent."

Meanwhile, "quit or be expelled" was the message from the GOP to Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio in 2006 after he was implicated in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Abramoff, a powerful Republican lobbyist, had been accused of bribing lawmakers with trips and luxury gifts.

The late Tony Snow – a former Fox News anchor and later Bush White House press secretary – called for Ney’s resignation and called the allegations "not a reflection of the Republican Party," according to The Seattle Times at the time.

Hastert and multiple other Republicans quickly called for Ney to resign and offered similar advice to other lawmakers caught up in Abramoff’s web.

Hochul’s office silent when pressed if she sticks by ‘no one is above the law’ belief amid AG’s indictment

New York Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul offered her support of Empire State Attorney General Letitia James when she was first indicted on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, following years of the New York governor celebrating legal challenges originating in her home state and elsewhere against President Donald Trump. 

"New Yorkers know @NewYorkStateAGJames for her integrity, her independence, and her relentless fight for justice," Hochul posted to X following James' indictment. "What we're seeing today is nothing less than the weaponization of the Justice Department to punish those who hold the powerful accountable." 

A grand jury in Virginia indicted James Thursday, months after Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte said in a criminal referral to the Department of Justice in April that James allegedly falsified mortgage records to obtain more favorable loans. She faces charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Pulte alleged in his criminal referral that James purchased a home in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2023, but identified it as her primary residence on mortgage documents and a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac form. James is legally required to live in New York as a statewide elected official in that state. 

LEGAL EXPERT CALLS OUT 'IRONIC' TWIST AS NY AG WHO PROSECUTED TRUMP FACES FEDERAL BANK FRAUD CHARGES

"No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust," U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan said when James was indicted. "The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served."

Hochul, as well as other prominent Democrats, have pointed to the indictment as alleged "political weaponization" and political persecution of a Trump foe at the hands of the administration. 

James and Trump have long traded barbs, with James campaigning for the attorney general job in 2018 by vowing to pursue legal charges against Trump if elected. Her office ultimately filed nearly 100 legal challenges against the first Trump administration and vowed to continue the legal battles upon his re-election in November 2024. 

MAMDANI ASSAILS TRUMP FOR 'POLITICAL RETRIBUTION' AGAINST LETITIA JAMES IN SWEEPING DEFENSE OF EMBATTLED AG

Trump accused Democrats of waging lawfare — which is understood as leveraging the courts to gain political advantage — as a last-ditch attempt to prevent him from running for the Oval Office again in the 2024 cycle and securing another federal election win. Trump, for example, was indicted and found guilty in a New York case that accused him of falsifying business records, he was indicted on racketeering charges in Georgia, faced federal criminal cases claiming he mishandled sensitive government documents after his first presidency, and another claiming he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. 

Trump also faced civil cases, including James accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values in a lawsuit that found Trump and his companies liable. 

Fox News Digital took a look back at Hochul's previous comments on Trump and the legal cases that plagued the president during his first administration through his interim as the 45th and 47th president, and found the governor frequently celebrated cases that conservatives identified as "lawfare." 

Fox News Digital reached out to Hochul's office for comment on her past remarks on legal cases against Trump as she promotes the narrative that the administration is weaponizng the justice system against political foes, but did not immediately receive a reply. Fox Digital specifically asked if Hochul stands by her previous comments that "no one is above the law," considering James' indictment, but did not receive replies. 

Trump is the first and only president to be impeached twice by the House, with Hochul remaking during his first impeachment in 2019 — which accused him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020 — that no one is above the law.

LETITIA JAMES' OWN WORDS COME BACK TO HAUNT HER AFTER FEDERAL BANK FRAUD CHARGES FILED

"It’s really quite simple — NO ONE is above the law. Not now, not ever," she posted to Facebook. "Speaker Pelosi & Democrats in Congress are holding the president accountable because they have a patriotic duty to uphold our Constitution, not play partisan politics."

As Trump stood trial for the civil fraud case launched by James that accused Trump and Trump Organization of financial fraud, Hochul commented that she had "full confidence" that he would be held accountable, while also remarking that he had "temper tantrums" in court. 

"Former President Donald Trump is testifying in an unprecedented civil trial brought by our own Attorney General, Tish James. So far from telling the truth as he's required to do, he's throwing temper tantrums from the witness stand and verbally attacking judges and courtroom staff,"  she said in November 2023. "His conduct has been a disgrace and I have full confidence that Donald Trump will be held accountable for his actions." 

A month later, the Democratic governor appeared to throw her support behind a lawsuit that aimed to prevent Trump's name from appearing on voting ballots for the 2024 election. 

NEW YORK AG LETITIA JAMES' INDICTMENT SPARKS SHARP PARTISAN DIVIDE

A group of Colorado voters brought forth a lawsuit in 2022 arguing Trump should be deemed ineligible from holding political office under a Civil War-era insurrection clause. The lawsuit argued Trump's action on Jan. 6, 2021 — when supporters breached the U.S. Capitol — violated a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents officers of the United States, members of Congress or state legislatures who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution from holding political office.

"Jan. 6 will live in infamy. Shame on us if we forget that," Hochul said in December 2023, when the Colorado Supreme Court declared him ineligible to run for president. "Shame on us what happened to this country when a Capitol that I used to proudly walk in as a member of Congress was literally under siege, people died, people were injured, and if he doesn’t take responsibility for that, then the American people ought to hold him accountable. So that’s what’s starting in Colorado."

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in March 2024 to keep Trump on the ballot.

After Trump was found liable in James' civil fraud case in 2023 and ordered to pay $355 million fine, Hochul worked to calm other business leaders' concerns that they could face similar trials, citing that Trump and "his behavior" set him apart. 

"I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior," Hochul said on the radio show "The Cats Roundtable" in February 2024. 

An appeals court threw out the monetary penalty in the case earlier in 2025. 

Later that same year, Hochul celebrated that "no one is above the law" when Trump was found guilty in NY v. Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. 

"Today's verdict reaffirms that no one is above the law," Hochul said in a statement in May 2024. "In preparation for a verdict in this trial, I directed my Administration to closely coordinate with local and federal law enforcement and we continue to monitor the situation. We are committed to protecting the safety of all New Yorkers and the integrity of our judicial system."

As the election came down to the wire in 2024, Hochul slammed Trump as a "fraud" and "philanderer" who lacked New York values, while pointing to the New York v. Trump case. 

"Donald Trump was born a New Yorker but ended up a fraud, a philanderer, and a felon. He wasn’t raised with the New York values that I know," Hochul declared during her Democratic National Convention speech in Chicago in 2024. "Trust me, America, if you think you’re tired of Donald Trump, talk to a New Yorker. We’ve had to deal with them for 78 long years, the fraud, the tax dodging, the sham university, the shady charities."

DOJ OPENS GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION INTO LETITIA JAMES TIED TO TRUMP CIVIL CASE

Trump won the Republican primary in the 2024 election cycle, and swept the seven battleground states on Election Day, defeating then-Vice President Kamala Harris to succeed then-President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. 

Hochul and James held a press conference the day after the election, and vowed to battle the Trump agenda while honoring the results of the election. 

"I want to be very clear that while we honor the results of this election and will work with anyone who wants to be a partner in achieving the goals of our administration in our state, that does not mean we'll accept an agenda from Washington that strips away the rights that New Yorkers have long enjoyed," Hochul said on Nov. 6, 2024. 

"We did not expect this result, but we are prepared to respond to this result," James said during the same press conference. "And my office has been preparing for several months because we've been here before," James said. "We faced this challenge before, and we used the rule of law to fight back. And we are prepared to fight back once again because, as the attorney general of this great state, it is my job to protect and defend the rights of New Yorkers and the rule of law. And I will not shrink from that responsibility."

Trump slammed the onslaught of court cases against him in recent years, denying wrongdoing and identifying them as attempts from his political foes as tools to prevent him from seeking and winning re-election. 

"They're playing with the courts, as you know, they've been playing with the courts for four years," Trump said in January, just days before he was sworn back into office. "Probably got me more votes because I got the highest number of votes ever gotten by a Republican by far, actually, by a lot. And, you know, we had a great election, so I guess it didn't work. But even to this day, they're playing with the courts and they're friendly judges that like to try and make everybody happy. … It's called lawfare, it's called weaponization of justice." 

Instead of impeachment, Dems are using Article II challenges to impede Trump this time

Democrats tenaciously working to thwart the second Trump administration seemingly have thrown out their playbook from the president's first administration — abandoning repeated attempts to impeach President Donald Trump in favor of broadening their focus on leveraging Article II of the Constitution to impede MAGA policies. 

Democrats, since the early days of Trump's second presidency, have accused him of taking steps that amount to a "gross overreach of presidential authority" or launching "illegal power grabs," most notably in response to some of the more than 200 executive orders the president has signed this term. Lawsuits challenging the administration also have focused language on claims Trump is exceeding his executive authority, sparking some policies to get tied up in the courts. 

Article II of the Constitution lays out the foundation for the balance of power between the office of the president and other branches of the government, including establishing the executive branch. Section II of Article II details the duties and powers of a president. 

WHITE HOUSE REBUKES ‘EGREGIOUS’ COURT ORDER BLOCKING TROOP DEPLOYMENTS AMID PORTLAND UNREST

Political foes have turned to Article II in their legal battles against Trump, repeatedly claiming he has exceeded his authority.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome takes on many forms — despite the Democrats’ failure to stop President Trump’s incredibly popular agenda in his first term, they’re trying a new strategy this time and failing again," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital Thursday when asked about the increase in claims and cases claiming Trump is overstepping his presidential bounds. 

"The Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings from far-left liberal activist judges," she continued. "The president will continue implementing the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November and will continue to be vindicated by higher courts when liberal activist judges attempt to intervene." 

Trump's first administration was underscored by two impeachment efforts, which landed Trump as the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice. Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times. 

The first impeachment effort in 2019 accused Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020. 

The focus of that impeachment focused on a July 2019 phone call in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, including Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Burisma holdings company. Biden was under federal investigation at the time. 

NEWSOM WARNS AMERICANS 'YOU WILL LOSE YOUR COUNTRY' UNDER TRUMP AT CALIFORNIA SUMMIT

The House impeached Trump on both articles of impeachment in December 2019, with the Senate voting to acquit Trump on both articles of impeachment in February 2020. 

Months later, Democrats teed up another Trump impeachment after the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Trump notched another first, when the Senate tried a former president after the House voted to impeach him just a week before Joe Biden was inaugurated as the nation's 46th president. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in the case. 

The second impeachment focused on the breach of the U.S. Capitol by throngs of Trump supporters when the Senate and House convened to certify Biden's 2020 election win. Trump was accused of working to overturn the results of the election and that he incited an insurrection with rhetoric regarding the election ahead of the Capitol breach. 

"I will never forgive the people who stormed the Capitol for the trauma that they caused in our young people, our members of the press who were covering that day, our staffers, the maintenance crew, the people who keep the Capitol neat and clean," then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in an interview on MSNBC in 2022.  

"This was a disgrace. And the president instigated an insurrection, refused to stop it and as those films show, would not, in a timely fashion, allow the National Guard to come in and stop it. And that is sinful," she continued.

The Senate acquitted Trump of the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection in February 2021. 

The impeachment efforts followed Democrats threatening and vowing to impeach Trump at various points throughout his first administration. 

"I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for obstruction of justice. I do not do this for political purposes, Mr. Speaker. I do this because I believe in the great ideals that this country stands for — liberty and justice for all, the notion that we should have government of the people, by the people, for the people," Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green declared in May 2017 in regard to former FBI Director James Comey's investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

TRUMP HAS NOW BEEN IN OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS, FOR THE SECOND TIME. HERE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS

"The time has come to make clear to the American people and to this president that his train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through impeachment," Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen said in November 2017 over claims Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey in May 2017. 

Trump's four years after his first administration were riddled with a handful of civil and criminal cases, including standing trial in New York when he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024. 

District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump falsified the business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged 2006 affair with Trump. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case, and was sentenced after his election win to an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no prison time or fines. 

Trump also was indicted in Georgia on racketeering charges over claims he attempted to overturn the state's 2020 election results, which the president denied. That case was put on hold after District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting it. 

A pair of federal criminal cases were dismissed, including one that alleged Trump mishandled sensitive government documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago home after his presidency, as well as another claiming Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. Special counsel Jack Smith oversaw both cases. 

Trump also faced civil cases, including New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values. In another case, E. Jean Carroll, a former columnist who alleges Trump raped her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s, accused Trump of defamation in a 2022 case. 

Trump railed against the accusations and cases as examples of lawfare to prevent him from winning a second presidency, taking a victory lap upon his 2024 win that the efforts failed. 

"These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought," Trump wrote on Truth Social in November 2024, when Smith announced he would drop the felony cases. 

TRUMP IS ‘UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO AVOID’ FATE OF MOST TWO-TERM PRESIDENTS, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL EXPLAINS

"It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump added.

Trump's second administration has been his with more than 400 lawsuits, according to Just Security's lawsuit tracker targeting the administration, with many disputing Trump's executive orders and policies as they relate to slimming down the size of the federal government, his policies removing diversity, equity and inclusion language and initiatives from the federal government, protecting girls' sports from the inclusion of biological male players, and his various directives to remove the millions of illegal immigrants who have flooded the U.S. in recent years. 

Trump and his administration are in the midst of cleaning up U.S. cities that have historically been rocked by crime, including working to remove illegal immigrants residing in the cities. Most recently, Trump ordered the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, in response to "radical left terrorism" in the city, specifically members of the recently-designated domestic terrorism organization, Antifa. 

"The Radical Left’s reign of terror in Portland ends now, with President Donald J. Trump mobilizing federal resources to stop Antifa-led hellfire in its tracks. While Democrat politicians deny reality, it’s obvious what’s happening in Portland isn’t protest; it’s premeditated anarchy that has scarred the city for years — leaving officers battered, citizens terrorized, and property defaced," the White House said in an announcement that Trump was deploying federal resources to Portland on Sept. 30. 

WHITE HOUSE SAYS ‘THE REAL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS TAKING PLACE WITHIN OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH’

"What President Trump is trying to do is an abuse of power," Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said in September of Trump's order to deploy the troops to Portland. "And it is a threat to our democracy. Governors should be in command of their National Guards, our citizens soldiers who sign up to stand up in an emergency to deal with real problems."

Oregon sued the Trump admistration over the order, claiming Trump lacked the authority to deploy the National Guard. 

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s plan to deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops, then again on Sunday expanded the order to bar the administration from deploying any National Guard units from any state to Oregon pending further proceedings. Immergut determined Trump's order likely exceeded his presidential authority. 

The White House has hit back that Trump is within his presidential limits. 

"I think her opinion is untethered in reality and in the law," Leavitt told reporters at a White House press briefing. "The president is using his authority as commander in chief, U.S. code 12 406, which clearly states that the president has the right to call up the National Guard and in cases where he deems it's appropriate. … The ICE facility has been really under siege. And, by these anarchists outside, they have been, disrespecting law enforcement. They've been inciting violence."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted Immergut's ruling that blocked the Oregon National Guard troops from deploying to Portland, but the other ruling baring any National Guard troops from deploying to Portland remains in effect. 

Alexander Vindman’s congressman brother leads off Dems boosting Jay Jones after texts: ‘Send a message’

Democratic Virginia Rep. Yevgeny "Eugene" Vindman, twin brother of Trump impeachment figure Alexander Vindman, blasted out to his Twitter followers a call to vote for Democrats Jay Jones and Abigail Spanberger days after texts showed the former referenced killing Republicans.

Meanwhile, a House of Delegates candidate in conservative southside Virginia doubles and triples down on support of Jones amid social media pushback.

As Jones’ controversy and campaign unraveled over the weekend, Vindman, D-Va., took to X to issue comments standing behind the entire Democratic ticket.

"We’re just a month out from Election Day in Virginia. It’s time for our Commonwealth to send a message that we’re tired of Republican chaos," Vindman wrote Sunday, two days after texts came to light showing Jones envisioning the murder of then-Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah.

YOUNGKIN SAYS DEMOCRAT AG CANDIDATE JAY JONES MUST 'STEP AWAY IN DISGRACE’ OVER TEXTS ABOUT FORMER GOP LEADER

Virginia "make a plan to vote — early if you can," he said, adding "for" and the three X handles for gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, lieutenant gubernatorial nominee Ghazala Hashmi and Jones.

"Your voice couldn’t be more important this year," concluded Rep. Eugene Vindman, who coincidentally holds Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger's former seat. 

The post got ratioed by critics, including one telling Vindman, "Nobody is voting for Jay ‘Two Bullet’ Jones."

"Get lost," the man wrote.

JAY JONES SAID IF MORE POLICE WERE KILLED IT WOULD REDUCE SHOOTINGS OF CIVILIANS, ACCORDING TO VIRGINIA LAWMAKER

Another respondent posted a meme image of the Harrison family from "Pawn Stars" speaking with a customer and the caption "We need to tone down the political violence rhetoric" – "Virginia Democrats: Best I can do is murder your children."

A third posted the ubiquitous "Marked Safe From… Today" flag meme, with the caption "Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones."

"Virginia — not for lovers anymore," another wrote, referring to the Old Dominion’s famous 50-year tourism slogan.

Rep. Eugene Vindman's brother Alexander Vindman was a key figure in then-Rep. Adam Schiff's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Schiff defended then-witness Alexander Vindman in congressional hearings after Trump and other Republicans repeatedly condemned the former Ukraine-focused National Security Council staffer.

In Washington, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine also defended his support for Jones, saying he's known the former Norfolk state delegate for 25 years.

"I think those statements were not in character, and he has apologized — I wish other people in public life would sincerely apologize for stuff," Kaine said.

At the other end of Virginia, a Democrat running for a seat in Pittsylvania County and vicinity doubled and tripled down on her endorsement of Jones as the controversy continued.

YOUNGKIN PRESSES DEMS TO PUSH JAY JONES OFF VIRGINIA AG TICKET AFTER 'BEYOND DISQUALIFYING' MESSAGES SURFACE

Candidate Melody Cartwright, a former graphic designer at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, lambasted the delegate whom Jones had incidentally texted the invective to and vociferously defended the attorney generalship nominee.

Jay Jones "will defend Virginia's rights, healthcare, and education. Stay the course," Cartwright wrote on X, inscribing Jones’ handle.

"I stand with (Jay Jones) period. End of statement," Cartwright wrote in a second tweet, both of which were lambasted by critics.

"Then you stand for a man who fantasizes about the murder of his political opponent's children and wants to kill them, the parents, and piss on their graves," replied former Energy Department staffer Matt van Swol.

Another critic said Cartwright’s comment wasn’t just a show of support but "an endorsement of an (expletive) death-obsessed lunatic."

"No one is surprised. By you, by him, or by your entire party. It’s who you are," wrote conservative figure Western Lensman.

Another reply included a one-second clip of conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart from his CPAC 2012 intro video, saying "War," which had been one of the last appearances by the major right-wing figure before his death just days later. Breitbart's stern-faced delivery of the singular word grew into a memorialization on the right in the time since; depicting the view that the left holds visceral hatred for the right.

Virginia Del. Eric Phillips, R-Martinsville, who defeated Cartwright last cycle and faces her again, told Fox News Digital it’s "not the Virginia way" to even entertain chatter in terms of what Jones referenced in his texts.

"It's disturbing and disgraceful for my opponent to defend Jay Jones' vile comments," Phillips said of Cartwright.

"Standing with someone who talks about shooting colleagues in the head, harming their children, and desecrating graves is indefensible," Phillips added.

"Anyone who excuses or embraces that kind of hate has no business asking to serve in the Virginia House of Delegates."

In a separate tweet, Cartwright also bashed Virginia Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Chester, who originally had shared Jones’ texts with the National Review and Fox News Digital.

Biden didn’t want intel disseminated showing Ukrainian concerns over family’s ‘corrupt’ business ties: records

Then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2015 told the CIA he would "strongly prefer" an intelligence report documenting Ukrainian officials’ concerns with his family’s ties to "corrupt" business deals in the country "not be disseminated" — and so it wasn’t, according to a newly-declassified email and records made public by the agency. 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified the heavily redacted records, which he said he believes is an example of "politicization of intelligence."

Fox News Digital obtained the declassified documents, which were discovered during a CIA review of historical agency records.

A senior CIA official briefed Fox News Digital on the declassified documents and intelligence report, stating that the intelligence was discovered along with an email showing that Biden "expressed a preference to not share the report."

Representatives for Biden did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

FLASHBACK: BIDEN COMMITTED ‘IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT,’ ‘DEFRAUDED UNITED STATES TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY’: HOUSE GOP REPORT

CIA officials discovered and declassified an email dated February 10, 2016, with the subject line stating: "RE: OVP query regarding draft [REDACTED]." The email was sent to the CIA.

The classification of the email was listed, and crossed out, as "SECRET."

"Good morning, I just spoke with VP/ NSA and he would strongly prefer the report not/not be disseminated. Thanks for understanding," the email states, signed by a redacted name, but with the title of "PDB Briefer." The "PDB" is the presidential daily brief.

The report in question included intelligence revealing that Ukrainian officials viewed the Biden family’s alleged ties to corrupt business practices in Ukraine "as evidence of a double-standard within the United States Government towards matters of corruption and political power."

"Intelligence officials agreed that, at the time of collection, it would have met the threshold [for dissemination], but based on the Office of the Vice President’s preference, the information was never shared outside of the CIA," the official said.

The CIA, during its review, confirmed that Biden’s request was granted and that the intelligence report "had not been disseminated."

The senior CIA official told Fox News Digital that it was "extremely rare and unusual" and "inappropriate to go outside of the intelligence community and inquire with the White House on the dissemination of a particular report for what appears to be political reasons."

The newly declassified intelligence report, which Biden sought to keep private, had a subject line of: "NON-DISSEMINATED INTEL INFORMATION: Reactions of [REDACTED] Ukrainian Government Officials to the Early December Visit of Senior United States Government Official."

The document states the date of the information came in December 2015. The document was created in 2016.

At the time, Biden was vice president and was running U.S.-Ukraine relations and policy for the Obama administration.

The intelligence document stated that "officials within the administration of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko expressed bewilderment and disappointment at the 7-8 December 2015 visit of the Vice President of the United States to Kiev, Ukraine."

"These officials highlighted that, prior to the visit, the Poroshenko administration and other [REDACTED] Ukrainian officials expected the U.S. Vice President to discuss personnel matters with Poroshenko during the visit, and had assumed that the U.S. Vice President would advocate in support of or against specific officials within the Ukrainian Government," the intelligence states.

FLASHBACK: BIDENS ALLEGEDLY 'COERCED' BURISMA CEO TO PAY THEM MILLIONS TO HELP GET UKRAINE PROSECUTOR FIRED: FBI FORM

"After the visit, these officials assessed that the U.S. Vice President had come to Kiev almost exclusively to give a generic public speech, and had not had any intention of discussing substantive matters with Poroshenko or other officials within the Ukrainian government," the intelligence states.

"Following the visit of the U.S. Vice President, [REDACTED] officials within the Poroshenko administration privately mused at the U.S. media scrutiny of the alleged ties of the U.S. Vice President’s family to corrupt business practices in Ukraine," the intelligence states. "These officials viewed the alleged ties of the U.S. Vice President’s family to corruption in Ukraine as evidence of a double-standard within the United States Government towards matters of corruption and political power."

Biden, on Dec. 9, 2015, gave a speech in Ukraine, in which he discussed corruption in the country.

"And it’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption," Biden said in the speech. "The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform."

In that speech, Biden also said Ukraine’s "energy sector needs to be competitive, ruled by market principles — not sweetheart deals."

"It’s not enough to push through laws to increase transparency with regard to official sources of income," he said. "Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities.  Every other democracy in the world — that system pertains."

DEVON ARCHER: HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA EXECS ‘CALLED DC’ TO GET UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED

At the time, Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was investigating Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. Several months later, in March 2016, Biden successfully pressured Ukraine to remove Shokin. At the time Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden had a highly lucrative role on the board, receiving tens of thousands of dollars per month.

Biden, at the time, threatened to withhold $1 billion of critical U.S. aid if Shokin was not fired.

"I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.' … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’" Biden recalled telling then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. 

Biden recollected the conversation during an event for the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

But during his first term, President Donald Trump was impeached after a July 2019 phone call in which he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s actions and business dealings in Ukraine, specifically Hunter Biden’s ventures with Burisma and Joe Biden’s successful effort to have former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ousted.

At the same time as that call, Hunter Biden was under federal investigation, prompted by his suspicious foreign transactions. 

Trump was acquitted in Feb. 2020 on both articles of impeachment against him — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — after being impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2019. 

Meanwhile, the declassified intelligence report had a "warning," noting that "due to the extreme sensitivity, this report should be distributed only to the renamed recipients. No further distribution is authorized without prior approval of the originating agency. Violation of established handling procedures are subject to penalty, including termination of access to this reporting channel."

It added that "any discussion of or reference to information in this report [REDACTED] is strictly prohibited. Any references to this report in derived or finished intelligence should include this warning."

A senior CIA official told Fox News Digital that Ratcliffe believes the suppression of this intelligence is an example of "politicization of intelligence."

"Director Ratcliffe believes this is an example of politicization of intelligence that we need to work to eliminate and for what we have zero tolerance," a senior CIA official told Fox News Digital. "We believe transparency is important. We will release information and avoid any future weaponization of the intelligence community."

As for the heavily redacted nature of the intelligence report, the senior CIA official told Fox News Digital that the agency was "careful about protecting CIA sources and methods with redactions."

The official stressed that Ratcliffe believes in "maximum transparency" and said he will continue to declassify CIA information and intelligence "when it serves the public’s interest."

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry against Biden during his presidency, and found, after years of investigating, that he engaged in "impeachable conduct," "abused his office," and "defrauded the United States to enrich his family." 

Trump’s presidency faces crucial tests as Supreme Court begins pivotal term

The Supreme Court will launch its new term Monday with a focus on controversial prior rulings and a review of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive agenda.

After a three-month recess, the nine justices met together for the first time this week to reset their docket, and discuss appeals that have piled up over the summer. The high court will resume oral arguments to confront issues like gender identity, election redistricting, and free speech.

But looming over the federal judiciary is the return of Trump-era legal battles. The administration has been winning most of the emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since January, that dealt only with whether challenged policies could go into effect temporarily, while the issues play out in the lower courts — including immigration, federal spending cuts, workforce reductions and transgender people in the military.

In doing so, the 6-3 conservative majority has reversed about two dozen preliminary nationwide injunctions imposed by lower federal courts, leading to frustration and confusion among many judges.

FEDERAL JUDGES ANONYMOUSLY CRITICIZE SUPREME COURT FOR OVERTURNING DECISIONS WITH EMERGENCY RULINGS

Now those percolating petitions are starting to reach the Supreme Court for final review — and legal analysts say the bench may be poised to grant broad unilateral powers to the president.

The justices fast-tracked the administration’s appeal over tariffs on dozens of countries that were blocked by lower courts. Oral arguments will be held in November.

In December, the justices will decide whether to overturn a 90-year precedent dealing with the president's ability to fire members of some federal regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. 

And in January, the power of President Trump to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors will be tested in a major constitutional showdown. For now, the Biden-appointed Cook will remain on the job.

"A big fraction of the Supreme Court's docket will present the question: ‘can President Trump do?’— then fill in the blank. And that could be imposing tariffs; firing independent board members; removing illegal aliens; sending the military into cities like Los Angeles," said Thomas Dupree, a prominent appellate attorney and constitutional law expert. "So, much of what the Supreme Court is deciding this term is whether the president has acted within or has exceeded his authority." 

The tariffs dispute will be the court's first major constitutional test on the merits over how broadly the conservative majority high court views Trump's muscular view of presidential power, a template for almost certain future appeals of his executive agenda.

In earlier disputes over temporary enforcement of those policies, the court's left-leaning justices warned against the judiciary becoming a rubber stamp, ceding its power in favor of this president.

After a late August high court order granting the government the power to temporarily terminate nearly $800 million in already-approved health research grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said her conservative colleagues had "ben[t] over backward to accommodate" the Trump administration. "Right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints, the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."

But some of Jackson's colleagues have denied they are paving the way for Trump's aggressive efforts to redo the federal government.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT WEIGHS TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS ADMIN OUTLINES ENFORCEMENT DETAILS

"The framers recognized, in a way that I think is brilliant, that preserving liberty requires separating the power," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh earlier this month at a Texas event. "No one person or group of people should have too much power in our system."

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Fox News' Bret Baier three weeks ago that she and her colleagues "don't wear red and blue, we all wear black because judges are nonpartisan ... We're all trying to get it right. We're not playing for a team."

Barrett, who is promoting her new book, "Listening to the Law," said her court takes a long-term view, and is not reflexively on Trump's side.

"We're not deciding cases just for today. And we're not deciding cases based on the president, as in the current occupant of the office," Barrett told Fox News. "I think the judiciary needs to stay in its lane ... we're taking each case and we're looking at the question of presidential power as it comes. And the cases that we decide today are going to matter, four presidencies from now, six presidencies from now."

KAVANAUGH CITES 3 PRESIDENTS IN EXPLAINING SUPREME COURT'S BALLOONING EMERGENCY DOCKET

These sharp court fractures between competing ideologies will likely escalate, as the justices begin a more robust look at a president's power, and by dint, their own.

"He who saves his Country does not violate any Law," Trump cryptically posted on social media a month after retaking office.

Federal courts have since been trying to navigate and articulate the limits of the executive branch, while managing their own powers.

Yet several federal judges — appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents — have expressed concern that the Supreme Court has been regularly overturning rulings by lower courts dealing with challenges to Trump administration policies — mostly with little or no explanation in its decisions.

Those judges — who all requested anonymity to speak candidly — tell Fox News those orders blocking enforcement have left the impression they are not doing their jobs or are biased against the President.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TORPEDOES SCOTUS WITH EMERGENCY REQUESTS AND SEES SURPRISING SUCCESS

Those frustrations have spilled into open court.

"They’re leaving the circuit courts, the district courts out in limbo," said federal appeals Judge James Wynn about the high court, during oral arguments this month over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security data.

"We're out here flailing," said Wynn, an Obama bench appointee. "I'm not criticizing the justices. They're using a vehicle that’s there, but they are telling us nothing. They could easily just give us direction, and we would follow it."

The president may be winning short-term victories in a court where he has appointed a third of its members, but that has not stopped him or his associates from criticizing federal judges, even calling for their removal from office when preliminary rulings have gone against the administration.

"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" Trump posted on social media, after a March court ruling temporarily halting the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The target of the attack was DC-based Chief Judge James Boasberg, appointed to the bench by President Obama.

 Top Trump White House policy advisor Stephen Miller, in interviews, has warned against some unaccountable and "communist crazy judges" "trying to subvert the presidency." 

TRUMP TURNS TO SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO OUST BIDEN-ERA CONSUMER SAFETY OFFICIALS

According to an analysis by Stanford University's Adam Bonica, federal district judges ruled against the administration 94.3% of the time between May and June. 

But the Supreme Court has in turn reversed those injunctions more than 90% of the time, giving the president temporary authority to move ahead with his sweeping reform agenda.

As for the rhetoric, the high court has walked a delicate path, reluctant to criticize Trump directly, at least for now.

"The fact that some of our public leaders are lawyers advocating or making statements challenging the rule of law tells me that, fundamentally, our law schools are failing," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor at a recent Georgetown University Law Center event, without naming Trump by name. "Once we lose our common norms, we’ve lost the rule of law completely."

Chief Justice John Roberts in March offered a rare public statement criticizing impeachment calls from the right.

But several federal judges who spoke to Fox News also wish Roberts would do more to assert his authority and to temper what one judge called "disturbing" rhetoric.

The U.S. Marshals Service — responsible for court security — reports more than 500 threats against federal judges since last October, more than in previous years. Law enforcement sources say that includes Boasberg, who, along with his family, has received physical threats and intimidating social media posts.

TURLEY: JUSTICE JACKSON SHOWS ‘JUDICIAL ABANDON’ IN LONE DISSENT ON TRUMP LAYOFF RULING

"I think it is a sign of a culture that has, where political discourse has soured beyond control," said Justice Barrett in recent days.

"The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity," said Justice Jackson in May. "The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government."

The administration in recent days asked Congress for $58 million more in security for executive branch officials and judges, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist who led Turning Point USA. 

A Fox News poll from this summer found 47% of voters approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, a 9-point jump since last year when a record low 38% approved.

"Over the past decade, public confidence in our major institutions has declined," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps conduct the Fox News survey with Democrat Chris Anderson. "The Court’s rebound could reflect its attempts to steer a middle course on politically polarizing questions or indicate an uptick in positive attitudes toward our more venerable institutions."

Still, by more than 2-to-1, more voters think the court is too conservative (43%) than too liberal in its decisions (18%, a low), while 36% think the court’s rulings are about right. That continues a seven-year trend.

FEDERAL JUDGES ANONYMOUSLY CRITICIZE SUPREME COURT FOR OVERTURNING DECISIONS WITH EMERGENCY RULINGS

The public's views of the court's ability to steer clear of politics will be tested this term.

Besides the two Trump-related appeals, the justices are already scheduled to decide:

But court watchers are pointing to several hot-button pending appeals where "stare decisis" or respect for established landmark court rulings will be tested:  same-sex marriage and communal school prayer.   

The high court is expected to decide in coming weeks whether to put those petitions on its argument calendar, with possible rulings on the merits by June 2026.

But other cases are already awaiting a final ruling: the use of race in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act; and independent government boards.

"I think the likeliest candidates for being revisited are the ones that involve the power of the president to fire the heads of federal agencies," said attorney Dupree. "This is an old precedent that's been on the books really back since the New Deal, and it's come into question in recent years. There's been a long shadow hanging over these decisions, and I think the Supreme Court is poised to revisit those this term and in all likelihood overrule that."

The court may have already set the stage, by using the emergency docket in recent weeks to allow Trump to temporarily fire members of several other independent federal agencies without cause. The court's liberal wing complained that giving the president that power without explanation effectively unravels the 1935 precedent known as "Humphrey's Executor."

KAVANAUGH CITES 3 PRESIDENTS IN EXPLAINING SUPREME COURT'S BALLOONING EMERGENCY DOCKET

"Today’s order favors the president over our precedent," said Justice Elena Kagan in a blistering dissent against Trump's removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board.

The court's "impatience to get on with things — to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever) — must reveal how that eventual decision will go" on the merits, added Kagan.

Sotomayor said recent overturned precedents were "really bad" for certain groups of people.

"And that’s what’s at risk, is in each time we change precedent, we are changing the contours of a right that people thought they had," she said this month. "Once you take that away, think of how much more is at risk later. Not just in this situation."

The conservative justices in recent years have not been shy about revisiting cases that had been settled for decades but now have been overturned: the nationwide right to abortion, affirmative action in education and the discretionary power of federal agencies.

Other pending issues the justices may soon be forced to confront which could upset longstanding precedent include libel lawsuits from public officials, flag burning and Ten Commandments displays in public schools.

One justice who has been more willing than his benchmates to overrule precedents may be its most influential: Justice Clarence Thomas.

"I don’t think that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel," Thomas said last week at a Catholic University event. If it is "totally stupid, and that’s what they’ve decided, you don’t go along with it just because it's decided" already.

How James Comey’s indictment could go south for the DOJ

As former FBI Director James Comey stares down a two-count federal indictment alleging he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, the Department of Justice faces an uphill climb in securing a conviction. 

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia is under pressure to move the prosecution forward against Comey’s formidable defense team, which has multiple ways to challenge the charges.

Halligan, a Trump ally and former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, is up against the possibility that Comey's lawyers will file requests to toss the case out. If Comey is unsuccessful and the case goes to trial, Halligan will then face a new hurdle: persuading a jury. Critics say President Donald Trump, Halligan and any others involved in the case could also see external repercussions for rushing to bring what they view as a flimsy, retributive indictment.

In terms of pre-trial efforts, several lawyers have speculated that Comey will argue to the court that his two charges should be dismissed on numerous grounds.

COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade of Michigan told Fox News Digital one possibility is that Comey could argue the prosecution was selective.

"To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show not only that the prosecution was motivated by an improper purpose, but also that other similarly situated individuals were treated differently," McQuade said.

She said it would be "remarkably easy to demonstrate the first factor," pointing to Trump’s extraordinary comments on social media openly saying he wanted Comey charged out of vengeance. Comey, one of Trump’s top political nemeses, led the FBI when it opened a controversial investigation into Trump over his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

McQuade said, however, that the second factor would be difficult to prove — that others have not been prosecuted for false statements to Congress — since that "essentially requires a defendant to prove a negative."

COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES 'I AM NOT AFRAID'

Jim Trusty, a former DOJ prosecutor who once worked on Trump’s defense team, told Fox News the indictment is still in an early stage, the specific allegations remain unclear and that a "wait and see" approach was best. Trusty said, though, that critics who claim Trump is weaponizing the DOJ against his enemies are misguided.

"Lawfare was certainly used as a weapon to go after Trump, but it also protected people, and so you can also look at this as four years of love from the Biden administration kept Comey out of the crosshairs," Trusty said.

Trusty said Comey’s indictment could be perceived as a "tit for tat," or it could simply be "overdue."

McQuade said that at this early stage, she viewed Comey's acquittal as the "more likely" way the DOJ would fail, pointing to what she said was "convoluted" language in the indictment.

She said it seemed to rely on congressional testimony Comey gave in 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, referenced a question asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2017 about whether Comey authorized a leak to the media. Cruz also slightly misquoted Grassley, she said.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO INDICT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO CONGRESS

"Because the prosecution must show that Comey knowingly and willfully made a false statement, that messy record may be a fatal flaw," McQuade said.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of the Western District of Virginia told Fox News Digital that if the court permits Comey to access any records related to the DOJ’s "internal deliberations" about the case, those details could undermine the prosecution and bolster a defense that the case was tainted by political motivations.

"The biggest potential fallout for DOJ will be if the judge permits the Comey legal team to get under the hood of the internal deliberations of DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute Comey," Fishwick told Fox News Digital. "The Comey team wants to argue this prosecution is just about politics and revenge, but they will need as much evidence as possible to buttress this claim as DOJ will counter the grand jury indicted Comey, not DOJ."

Trump’s appointment of Halligan as U.S. attorney was a last-minute move, as the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s testimony expired on Sept. 30. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the Virginia office, and brought in Halligan, a willing participant in Trump’s mission to take down his political rivals.

While Trump has suggested other indictments are coming down the pike, critics have zeroed in on Comey's case, calling it weak enough that Trump also risks impeachment over it and that Halligan and any other prosecutors who decide to join the case risk career penalties. No DOJ prosecutors have joined Halligan on the case at this stage.

Former DOJ official Harry Litman, host of "Talking Feds" and vocal Trump critic, said "some accountability" would come if Democrats take the House next year, advocating they impeach Trump for what he says is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

"If we can just get through the midterms and give the House of Representatives the power to subpoena all of these jokers on Capitol Hill, grill them and then impeach Trump again … all of the evidence of the crime that Donald Trump just committed will be laid out for public inspection," Litman said.

He also cited a report that career prosecutors advised Halligan against charging Comey, suggesting she faces the "possibility of serious professional sanctions" because of it.

How James Comey’s indictment could go south for the DOJ

As former FBI Director James Comey stares down a two-count federal indictment alleging he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, the Department of Justice faces an uphill climb in securing a conviction. 

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia is under pressure to move the prosecution forward against Comey’s formidable defense team, which has multiple ways to challenge the charges.

Halligan, a Trump ally and former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, is up against the possibility that Comey's lawyers will file requests to toss the case out. If Comey is unsuccessful and the case goes to trial, Halligan will then face a new hurdle: persuading a jury. Critics say President Donald Trump, Halligan and any others involved in the case could also see external repercussions for rushing to bring what they view as a flimsy, retributive indictment.

In terms of pre-trial efforts, several lawyers have speculated that Comey will argue to the court that his two charges should be dismissed on numerous grounds.

COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade of Michigan told Fox News Digital one possibility is that Comey could argue the prosecution was selective.

"To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show not only that the prosecution was motivated by an improper purpose, but also that other similarly situated individuals were treated differently," McQuade said.

She said it would be "remarkably easy to demonstrate the first factor," pointing to Trump’s extraordinary comments on social media openly saying he wanted Comey charged out of vengeance. Comey, one of Trump’s top political nemeses, led the FBI when it opened a controversial investigation into Trump over his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

McQuade said, however, that the second factor would be difficult to prove — that others have not been prosecuted for false statements to Congress — since that "essentially requires a defendant to prove a negative."

COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES 'I AM NOT AFRAID'

Jim Trusty, a former DOJ prosecutor who once worked on Trump’s defense team, told Fox News the indictment is still in an early stage, the specific allegations remain unclear and that a "wait and see" approach was best. Trusty said, though, that critics who claim Trump is weaponizing the DOJ against his enemies are misguided.

"Lawfare was certainly used as a weapon to go after Trump, but it also protected people, and so you can also look at this as four years of love from the Biden administration kept Comey out of the crosshairs," Trusty said.

Trusty said Comey’s indictment could be perceived as a "tit for tat," or it could simply be "overdue."

McQuade said that at this early stage, she viewed Comey's acquittal as the "more likely" way the DOJ would fail, pointing to what she said was "convoluted" language in the indictment.

She said it seemed to rely on congressional testimony Comey gave in 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, referenced a question asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2017 about whether Comey authorized a leak to the media. Cruz also slightly misquoted Grassley, she said.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO INDICT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO CONGRESS

"Because the prosecution must show that Comey knowingly and willfully made a false statement, that messy record may be a fatal flaw," McQuade said.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of the Western District of Virginia told Fox News Digital that if the court permits Comey to access any records related to the DOJ’s "internal deliberations" about the case, those details could undermine the prosecution and bolster a defense that the case was tainted by political motivations.

"The biggest potential fallout for DOJ will be if the judge permits the Comey legal team to get under the hood of the internal deliberations of DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute Comey," Fishwick told Fox News Digital. "The Comey team wants to argue this prosecution is just about politics and revenge, but they will need as much evidence as possible to buttress this claim as DOJ will counter the grand jury indicted Comey, not DOJ."

Trump’s appointment of Halligan as U.S. attorney was a last-minute move, as the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s testimony expired on Sept. 30. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the Virginia office, and brought in Halligan, a willing participant in Trump’s mission to take down his political rivals.

While Trump has suggested other indictments are coming down the pike, critics have zeroed in on Comey's case, calling it weak enough that Trump also risks impeachment over it and that Halligan and any other prosecutors who decide to join the case risk career penalties. No DOJ prosecutors have joined Halligan on the case at this stage.

Former DOJ official Harry Litman, host of "Talking Feds" and vocal Trump critic, said "some accountability" would come if Democrats take the House next year, advocating they impeach Trump for what he says is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

"If we can just get through the midterms and give the House of Representatives the power to subpoena all of these jokers on Capitol Hill, grill them and then impeach Trump again … all of the evidence of the crime that Donald Trump just committed will be laid out for public inspection," Litman said.

He also cited a report that career prosecutors advised Halligan against charging Comey, suggesting she faces the "possibility of serious professional sanctions" because of it.

Fox News Politics Newsletter: Zelenskyy questions effectiveness of UN amid global conflict

Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content. Here's what's happening…

-Mangione, Catholic Church shooter, Kirk shooter, ICE shooter all allegedly had engraved ammo

-DNC holds onto decades-old Jeffrey Epstein donations after other Dems returned theirs

-TPUSA to give away 5,000 Charlie Kirk ‘freedom’ shirts at Penn State-Oregon game Kirk planned to attend

Only "friends and weapons," not international laws, can protect against war and authoritarian ambitions, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned on Wednesday during an address to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

The Ukrainian leader, who has been pleading with the international community to do more to counter Russian President Vladimir Putin amid his more than three-and-a-half-year-long war, once again cautioned that Ukraine may have been the first European nation to bear Moscow’s affront to international order, but it will not be the last.

"Putin will keep driving the war forward wider and deeper. And we told you before, Ukraine is only the first. And now Russian drones are already flying across Europe," Zelenskyy said. "Russian operations are already spreading across countries, and Putin wants to continue this war by expanding it…Read more

CHA-CHING?: Trump tariffs haul over $200B in revenues as Supreme Court weighs challenge to legality

WEDDING BELLS: Congratulations pour in after White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino shares marriage proposal video

POWER ALLY: Kamala Harris plays up relationship with Hillary Clinton as wedge with Biden widens

LONG APPLAUSE: UN gives round of applause after Palestinian Authority president accuses Israel of ‘genocide’

ACCESS DENIED: Abbas to address UN after visa clash with US as questions swirl over Hamas

SYRIA'S UN MOMENT: Syrian president's historic UN speech joined by thousands rallying outside for peace and Trump's support

TRUTH COMES OUT: Gazan boy alive after ex-GHF 'whistleblower' falsely claimed IDF killed him

JETS FOR FUEL: Trump: Erdogan could be ‘influential’ in ending Putin’s war amid push to cease Russian oil sales

PEACE VIA STRENGTH: Lithuanian president credits Trump's 'strong' UN address

'A TERRIBLE MAYOR': Trump accuses London of wanting 'Sharia law' in UN speech, mayor hits back

MAFIA TACTICS: Senate progressive accuses Trump of ‘mafia-style blackmail’ in shutdown fight

SEEKING OUSTER: Michigan Democrat Rep. Stevens cites 'health care chaos' in impeachment move against RFK Jr.

SOUND OF SILENCE: Ilhan Omar silent after call to 'abolish ICE' over story on 5-year-old that NBC was forced to correct

GENERALS GATHER: Hegseth orders hundreds of military commanders to Virginia for unprecedented meeting

CLOCK RUNS OUT: In trying to secure Comey indictment, US prosecutors have short window — and a difficult case to make

GAVELED OUT: Chaos erupts during immigration hearing as Democrat lunges at chairman’s gavel: 'I'm tired of you'

HONOR CODE BUST: New Jersey governor hopeful blocked from Naval Academy graduation over cheating scandal

BALLOT BRAWL: Republican aiming to flip blue state rips Dem rival for blaming 'everything on Trump’

COMMISSION CHAOS: Ousted director says America250 leaders 'hate Trump more than they love America’ after firing for Kirk post

HEROES IN ACTION: Border Patrol agents rescue cyclist who fell 'more than 50 feet' into remote canyon

PERIMETER SECURED: Charlie Kirk's accused assassin encountered by police during return to crime scene: law enforcement sources

HIGH STAKES: Who is Kathryn Nester, Charlie Kirk assassination suspect Tyler Robinson’s attorney?

Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

Michigan Democrat Rep. Stevens cites ‘health care chaos’ in impeachment move against RFK Jr.

A congresswoman from Michigan announced Thursday that she will introduce articles of impeachment against Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., citing the "health care chaos" and rising costs during his tenure.

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., has repeatedly called for Kennedy's removal, most recently citing funding cuts for cancer research, infant death syndrome and combating addiction, as well as increased health care costs.

Kennedy’s restriction of vaccine access is another issue, as well as him spreading of "absurd conspiracies" that have put people’s lives in danger, Stevens said.

REPUBLICAN DOCTORS CLASH WITH RFK JR OVER VACCINES IN TENSE SENATE SHOWDOWN

"RFK Jr. is making our country less safe and making health care less affordable and accessible for Michiganders," Stevens said in a statement. "His contempt for science, the constant spreading of conspiracy theories, and his complete disregard for the thousands of research hours spent by America’s top doctors and experts are unprecedented, reckless, and dangerous.

"Enough is enough — we need leaders who put science over chaos, facts over lies, and people over politics, which is why I am announcing today that I have begun drafting articles of impeachment against Secretary Kennedy."

In a statement to Fox News Digital, HHS communications director Andrew Nixon said Kennedy "remains focused on the work of improving Americans’ health and lowering costs, not on partisan political stunts."

RFK JR AND TOP DEM CLASH DURING HEATED SENATE HEARING: 'THIS IS ABOUT KIDS'

Stevens also accused Kennedy of lying during his confirmation hearings about the promises he made that had not come to fruition. Chief among them is Kennedy's promise not to break up the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine panel of independent experts.

Stevens alleged Kennedy had failed to carry out the statutory duties of HHS in administering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the CDC.

The congresswoman also said Kennedy has politicized the FDA and ended public comment for HHS rulemaking.

Stevens is one of several Democrats calling for Kennedy to step down. The secretary most recently faced scrutiny over his firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez.