Category: fox-news/politics/executive/law

Haley says Trump should not be ‘entirely immune’ from criminal penalties

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump's 2024 Republican primary rival Nikki Haley is backing the Supreme Court's decision to take up his immunity case and "settle it once and for all," arguing that commanders-in-chief should not be "entirely immune" from criminal penalties.

"The Supreme Court should take up this question and settle it once and for all.  No person should be entirely immune from penalties for crimes committed, not even a president – not Clinton, not Biden, and not Trump," Haley told Fox News Digital on Thursday.

In a win for the former president, the court agreed to review whether he has immunity from prosecution in the Special Counsel's federal election interference case. The court, stacked with three justices nominated by Trump, moved to expedite the matter, planning to begin arguments the week of April 22 and producing a ruling by late June. Trump's criminal trial has been put on hold pending resolution of the matter.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO EXTEND DELAY IN ELECTION CASE, CLAIMING PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY

Sen. Ron Johnson R-Wis., applauded the development, telling Fox News Digital, "The fact that the Supreme Court took it up is pretty telling." 

Discussing the delay in Trump's federal election interference case as a result, Johnson claimed, "I think these very partisan prosecutions, that's what they're designed to do." The Supreme Court's agreement to hear the appeal is likely to push Trump's federal trial into the late summer or early fall, not far from the November presidential election.

"They are election interference to a far greater extent than anything Russia or China ever could hope to accomplish," he continued.

The senator was hopeful the court's choice signaled some resistance to the "election interference," but noted, "We'll see how the Supreme Court rules."

Trump foes, meanwhile, criticized the Supreme Court for being willing to hear the case.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed the court is "placing itself on trial" with the decision and questioned "whether the justices will uphold the fundamental American value that no one is above the law – not even a former president." 

Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., also slammed the court's plan to review Trump's claim of presidential immunity. "Delaying the January 6 trial suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear," she wrote on X. 

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

"Donald Trump attempted to overturn an election and seize power. Our justice system must be able to bring him to trial before the next election. SCOTUS should decide this case promptly," she added. 

Cheney was a part of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack before her House term ended. She ran for reelection but was defeated in her Republican primary by Rep. Harriet Hageman. R-Wyo. 

An impeachment manager for Trump's second impeachment trial, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., predicted the Supreme Court taking up the case could help guarantee a "blue wave" in November.

"My view of the SCOTUS action: if the trial is delayed until after November, we will see THE LARGEST BLUE WAVE IN HISTORY," Lieu wrote on X. "If November becomes a referendum on whether Trump faces justice, then Democrats will absolutely flip the House. keep the White House and expand the Senate."

Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said on the social media platform that the Supreme Court decision will "help Donald Trump run out the clock and avoid justice."

Hunter Biden’s Hollywood lawyer ‘sugar bro’ allegedly violated professional conduct rules: Bar complaint

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Hollywood attorney and Hunter Biden confidant Patrick Kevin Morris may have violated California’s bar rules with his lavish spending on the president’s son, says a complaint by America First Legal. 

The AFL, a conservative legal group founded by former Trump White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, filed the complaint Tuesday with the State Bar of California alleging Morris violated California’s rule that prohibits a lawyer from funding the lifestyle of a client or potential client.

The complaint came ahead of Morris' closed-door testimony to the House Oversight Committee Thursday.

Morris reportedly spent $4.9 million financially supporting the president’s son. Included in the sum was a $2 million loan for Hunter to pay off his back taxes, and $875,000 was a purchase Hunter Biden’s art. 

A Los Angeles Times story characterized Morris’s relationship with Hunter Biden as, "foremost as his lawyer, but also his friend, confidant and bankroller." And, when Hunter Biden made a surprise visit to Capitol Hill, last week, he was flanked by Morris and his attorney Abbe Lowell. 

ART DEALER REVEALS HUNTER BIDEN KNEW ‘SUGAR BROTHER; WAS TOP BUYER, MAKING WH ETHICS PLEDGE A ’SHAM': COMER

"However, if Mr. Morris has provided personal funds to an individual who has now been confirmed to be a client – or who would reasonably believe himself to be Mr. Morris’s client – Mr. Morris would have violated both the text of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the well-established norms of the legal profession," the America First Legal complaint says. 

Morris was reportedly scheduled to do a transcribed interview with the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and the House Judiciary Committee this week, as part of the formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden for potential actions or benefitting from alleged influence peddling by family members, including his son. 

HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER WHO INTRODUCED. HUNTER BIDEN TO ART DEALER RAISED AT LEAST $25K FOR JOE BIDEN'S CAMPAIGN

Specifically, State Bar of California Rule 1.8.5(a), states that "[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client."

"If Hunter Biden or a similarly situated person would reasonably anticipate that Mr. Morris was obligated to provide legal services, the alleged funding of the lifestyle of a client or potential client justifies the immediate opening of a misconduct investigation under Rule 1.8.5," the complaint says. 

On Capitol Hill, and on other occasions, Lowell has been the lawyer who spoke as Hunter Biden’s representative. However, the same Times story said, "Morris strode shoulder to shoulder with the president’s son as they made a surprise appearance at a congressional contempt hearing on Capitol Hill. On Thursday, he is expected to be seated behind him in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom as Hunter Biden is scheduled to be arraigned Thursday on criminal tax charges, much as he did in a Delaware courtroom."

Morris did not respond Wednesday to Fox News Digital for this story after phone calls were made to his firm, PKM Law.

The State Bar of California would not confirm or deny if an investigation was underway. 

"By law, disciplinary investigations are confidential, unless confidentiality is waived pursuant to the provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6086.1(b) or (c)," a state bar spokesman said in an email to Fox News Digital. 

Wisconsin Republican push to impeach elections official faces internal opposition

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Republican attempt to impeach Wisconsin's nonpartisan top elections official is nothing more than "a big show for the cameras" and will be ignored, the Assembly's GOP majority leader said Thursday.

Several Republican lawmakers, including the state Senate president, have called for Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe to be impeached over her handling of the 2020 election won by President Biden. The Senate voted in October to fire Wolfe but later admitted that the vote was symbolic and had no legal effect.

In the Assembly, state Rep. Janel Brandtjen has introduced a resolution to impeach Wolfe. As of Thursday, it had just five co-sponsors in addition to Brandtjen. It would require 50 votes to pass.

WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS CLASH OVER MEDICAL MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION PLAN

Brandtjen tried in vain on Tuesday to be recognized to speak in an attempt to get a vote on her proposal. Brandtjen, who has endorsed discredited conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, accused Republican leaders of being "Administrator Wolfe's PR team."

During a news conference before Thursday's session, Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August said Brandtjen's proposal would not be voted on because it doesn't have enough support to get out of committee or be approved by a majority of the Assembly.

"We have a process that has been utilized in this building for decades of how to bring a bill or a resolution to the floor," August said. "And that’s the process that we’ll continue to use."

August said if Brandtjen has enough support to bring the measure forward for a vote, she can.

"But the fact is she doesn’t," August said. "Our caucus is focused on real things, not grifting and not making a big show for the cameras. And that’s all she’s interested in doing."

Even as the impeachment effort stalls, Republicans have called for Wolfe to be replaced. But she has said she will remain in her post at least through the November election.

WISCONSIN GOP TO PROPOSE TAX CUTS FOR FAMILIES EARNING UP TO $200K

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos is being targeted for recall by supporters of former President Donald Trump, in part over his opposition to the Wolfe impeachment. Trump in November posted a news release on his social media platform Truth Social from Brandtjen criticizing Vos for not doing more to remove Wolfe.

The Assembly can only vote to impeach state officials for corrupt conduct in office or for committing a crime or misdemeanor. If a majority of the Assembly were to vote to impeach, the case would move to a Senate trial in which a two-thirds vote would be required for conviction.

Although Wolfe is the administrator of elections, it is the more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections in the presidential battleground state. The commission she oversees is run by a bipartisan board with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.

Brandtjen and others who support impeaching Wolfe had pushed for decertification of Biden's 2020 win. Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm’s review, and multiple state and federal lawsuits.

Experts bash White House claims of shrouding Hunter Biden’s art buyers: ‘Proved as abstract’ as his art

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Top legal and ethical experts weighed in on art gallerist Georges Bergès' revelation of Hunter Biden's knowledge of his art buyers, saying the American people were "misled."

Fox News Digital reached out to several legal and ethical experts on Bergès' revelation during his closed-door, transcribed interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees earlier this month.

Bergès told the committees that an agreement to shield the knowledge of Hunter Biden's buyers from him was not put in place for months after the White House's statement that a "system" had been "established" to do so.

HUNTER BIDEN KNEW 70% OF ART BUYERS, CONTRADICTING WHITE HOUSE NARRATIVE ON ‘ANONYMOUS' COLLECTORS: GALLERIST

Hunter Biden's gallerist said that the first son knew the identities of approximately 70% of those buyers.

"The White House effort was the ultimate example of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted," George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital.

"The clear message given repeatedly to Congress and the public was that an ethical plan was in place to prevent such knowledge," he continued.

"The ethical claims of the White House proved as abstract as Hunter's art pieces," Turley said. "In reality, the breach had occurred long before the ethical plan was implemented."

"The testimony that Bergès did not have interactions with the White House on the plan further undermines these claims. Indeed, Bergès admitted that he was reading these statements from the White House with no knowledge of what they were referencing. Yet, Bergès and the Bidens proceeded knowing that the public was being misled."

Former Bush administration ethics chief Richard Painter told Fox News Digital that the White House's "whole arrangement of keeping the buyers secret was completely the wrong way to go."

Painter said the White House "should have had nothing to do" with Bergès, and that the "best approach" for Hunter Biden would have been to "not sell the art at all during his father's presidency and certainly not sell it at those prices."

"The worst option is what they chose, which is to keep it all, to say it's all going to be confidential, and Hunter Biden won't know and nobody will know," Painter said. "And this is exactly what I said happens, is that the word gets around."

"Of course you find out who bought the art," Painter continued. "People hang the art on the wall."

"They don't stick it in closet," he added.

Attorney Sol Weisenberg said that we "don’t know right now the full ethical implications, if any, of this latest White House falsehood regarding Hunter Biden’s special privileges and ethical/legal lapses."

"It is simply another example of the Biden family’s leisurely approach to influence peddling," Weisenberg said. "As a citizen, I would rather know who is buying the paintings and how much they are paying than operating under the false illusion that Hunter and the family are being kept in the dark about the source of this latest largesse."

Fox News Digital reached out to Bergès and the White House for comment.

Bergès' interview with the committees came as part of the House Republicans' impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

House investigators, during his interview, showed Bergès a statement made by then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki on July 9, 2021.

"After careful consideration, a system has been established that allows for Hunter Biden to work in his profession within reasonable safeguards," she said. "All interactions regarding the selling of art and the setting of prices will be handled by professional galleries, adhering to the highest industry standards. Any offer out of the normal court would be rejected out of hand."

Psaki added, "The galleries will not share information about buyers or prospective buyers, including their identities, with Hunter Biden or the administration, which provides quite a level of protection."

When pressed further, Psaki stressed that "it would be challenging for an anonymous person who we don’t know and Hunter Biden doesn’t know to have influence — so that’s a protection." 

However, Bergès testified that at the time of the White House’s July 2021 statement, he had an agreement with Hunter Biden which called for him, instead, "to disclose to Hunter Biden who the purchasers of his art were." Bergès said that contract was agreed to in December 2020. 

Bergès said that it was not until September 2021 that a new agreement with Hunter Biden was created. That agreement stated that "the gallery will not disclose the name of any buyers of artist’s artwork to artist or any agent of artist."

Bergès stressed, though, that there was not a "White House-involved agreement," and that Hunter Biden did know the identities of approximately 70% of the buyers of his art. Meanwhile, Bergès testified that he had spoken to President Biden both on the phone and in person.

The art gallerist previously told Fox News Digital he "never violated the agreement we had with Hunter Biden."

"If he knew the identities of some of the buyers — it’s because they were his friends or by happenstance," Bergès said. "My obligation to Hunter is to not disclose the buyers — which I haven’t." 

Fox News Digital's Brooke Singman contributed reporting.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court debates future of impeachment trial for Philadelphia Prosecutor Larry Krasner

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Pennsylvania's highest court on Tuesday weighed whether the Legislature can proceed with an impeachment trial against Philadelphia's elected progressive prosecutor and whether the court or lawmakers should determine what qualifies as misbehavior in office.

What the justices decide after oral arguments in the Supreme Court chambers in Harrisburg will determine the future of efforts to remove District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, on claims he should have prosecuted some minor crimes, his bail policies and how he has managed his office.

Krasner was impeached by the state House in November 2022, a year after he was overwhelmingly reelected to a second term, sending the matter to the state Senate for trial.

PHILADELPHIA DA LARRY KRASNER IMPEACHED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAWMAKERS IN GOP-LED EFFORT: 'CRISIS OF CRIME'

PROGRESSIVE DA WILL INVESTIGATE IF PHILLY RIOTERS ARE 'FUNDAMENTALLY LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE' BEFORE PROSECUTION

Justice Kevin Brobson, one of the two Republicans on the bench Tuesday, questioned why the court should get involved at this point and suggested the Senate may not get the two-thirds majority necessary to convict and remove Krasner from office.

"Just as I would not want the General Assembly to stick its nose into a court proceeding, I am shy about whether it makes sense, constitutionally, jurisprudentially, for us at this stage to stick our noses" into the impeachment process, he said.

Justice Christine Donohue, among the four Democratic justices at the hearing, said she was not comfortable delving "into the weeds" of what the impeachable offenses were, but indicated it should be up to the Supreme Court to define misbehavior in office, the grounds for removal.

"It would go through the Senate once we define what misbehavior in office means, whatever that is, and then it would never come back again because then there would be a definition of what misbehavior in office is," she said.

Another Democrat, Justice David Wecht, seemed to chafe at an argument by lawyers for the two Republican House members managing the impeachment trial that lawmakers should determine what constitutes misbehavior.

"It’s not just akin to indicting a ham sandwich," Wecht said. He went on to say, "They could have totally different ham sandwiches in mind."

"I mean, it’s whatever the House wakes up to today and what they have for breakfast and then they bring impeachment. And then tomorrow the Senate wakes up and they think of the polar opposite as what any misbehavior means," Wecht said.

PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE REPUBLICANS ANNOUNCE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PHILADELPHIA DA LARRY KRASNER

Krasner has dismissed the House Republicans’ claims as targeting his policies, and a lower court issued a split ruling in the matter.

A panel of lower-court judges rejected two of Krasner’s challenges — that the opportunity for a trial died along with the end last year’s session and that as a local official he could not be impeached by the General Assembly. But it agreed with him that the impeachment articles do not meet the state constitution’s definition of misbehavior in office.

Krasner’s appeal seeks reconsideration of the Commonwealth Court’s decision.

The Republican representatives who spearheaded the impeachment and the GOP-controlled Senate leadership also appealed, arguing that impeachment proceedings exist outside of the rules of lawmaking and could continue into a new legislative session. Krasner, as a district attorney, gets state funding and that distinguishes him from purely local officials, they argued.

Wisconsin governor expected to approve bill for early processing of absentee ballots

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said Thursday that he will sign into law a bill that would allow Wisconsin elections officials to process absentee ballots the day before an election if the Republican-controlled Legislature passes the measure in its current form.

The Republican-backed proposal, which was up for a vote in the state Assembly on Thursday, is intended to ease the workload of local clerks and their staff, who run elections, and prevent ballot-counting from stretching late into election night. The state Senate would also need to pass it before it would go to the governor.

Evers and the Republicans who control the Legislature have seldom found common ground on elections proposals. The governor has vetoed numerous GOP-sponsored elections bills in recent years that he said would make it harder to vote.

WISCONSIN GOP LEADER DOWNPLAYS PRESSURE TO IMPEACH NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS CZAR

WISCONSIN DEMOCRATS LAUNCH $4M AD BLITZ TARGETING GOP LAWMAKERS CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT OF NEW LIBERAL JUSTICE

"Gov. Evers will veto any bill that enables politicians to interfere with our elections or makes it harder for eligible Wisconsinites to cast their ballot, but if there are common-sense proposals that help ensure Wisconsin’s elections continue to be fair, secure, and safe, he’ll certainly consider signing them," Evers' spokesperson, Britt Cudaback, said in a statement.

Under the bill, elections workers would not be allowed to count votes until after polls close on election day, but they could work ahead to check ballot envelopes for necessary information, verify voter eligibility and take ballots out of envelopes to prepare them for tallying.

Currently, Wisconsin elections workers cannot process absentee ballots until polls open at 7 a.m. on election day. This has led to long processing times for larger cities such as Madison and Milwaukee, sometimes causing swings in initial tallies when large batches of election results are reported late at night. Former President Donald Trump and election skeptics have falsely claimed that those so-called ballot dumps are the result of election fraud.

WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS ADVANCE ELECTION REFORM-CENTRIC CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

The Legislature has rejected similar proposals that would have allowed early ballot processing in recent years, despite them receiving bipartisan support. The bill up for a vote on Thursday, which also includes new reporting requirements for local elections officials on election night, was not sponsored by any Democratic lawmakers.

Evers proposed allowing early ballot processing in his budget proposal earlier this year, but that plan was scrapped by Republicans.

If the bill up for a vote Thursday passes in its current form without any "poison pill" additions from the Legislature, Evers will sign it, Cudaback said.

"Gov. Evers for years has proposed allowing county and municipal clerks to begin canvassing absentee ballots the day before an election and is glad to see this effort finally has bipartisan support," she said.

Hunter Biden sues Rudy Giuliani over laptop, accuses ex-Trump lawyer of ‘hacking’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Hunter Biden on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani alleging the former President Trump lawyer violated his privacy rights by illegally disseminating content from Biden's infamous laptop.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California states Giuliani is "primarily responsible" for the "total annihilation" of Biden's digital privacy. It also names Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor who previously represented Giuliani, as a defendant, Fox News has confirmed. 

"For the past many months and even years, Defendants have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time and energy toward looking for, hacking into, tampering with, manipulating, copying, disseminating, and generally obsessing over data that they were given that was taken or stolen from Plaintiff's devices or storage platforms, including what Defendants claim to have obtained from Plaintiff's alleged ‘laptop’ computer," Biden's attorneys wrote in the complaint, claiming that the data was not even from a "laptop," but from an "external drive."

The contents of this "external drive" include pictures, videos, emails and other data that since their initial publication by the New York Post in 2020, have paced Biden in legal jeopardy and caused political problems for this father, President Biden.

NEWSOM'S LONGTIME TIES TO HUNTER BIDEN EMERGE AFTER HE JUSTIFIES HIS BUISNESS DEALS: ‘HERE’S MY DIRECT EMAIL'

Giuliani and Costello have openly acknowledged that they obtained copies of files from a hard drive device that Biden allegedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. Giuliani provided that information to the Post in October 2020, which published a story based on Hunter Biden's emails that implicated President Biden in a business deal with a Ukrainian company that had hired Hunter on its board. 

House Republicans have launched an impeachment inquiry into President Biden based on claims that he used his position, then as vice president, to deter Ukrainian prosecutors from investigating the company that his son worked for. GOP lawmakers further allege, based on their follow-up investigations, that the president was involved in several business deals arranged by his son Hunter. 

The president has repeatedly denied any involvement in his son's business dealings.

BOB MENENDEZ ENLISTS HUNTER BIDEN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN BRIBERY CASE

Hunter Biden's attorneys previously issued cease-and-desist letters to Giuliani and others who obtained and disseminated the laptop's contents.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to prevent Giuliani and others from accessing, tampering with, manipulating or copying Biden's data and have them return the "device/hard drive" to Biden, along with any backup files, cloud files or copies of the same data.

Neither attorneys for Hunter Biden nor a representative for Giuliani immediately responded to a request for comment. 

The lawsuit filed Tuesday is the latest effort from Biden and his lawyers to hit back after leaks of the information catapulted his sordid private life onto the front page of many conservative media outlets.

HUNTER BIDEN SUES FORMER WH AIDE FOR ALTERING, PUBLISHING ‘PORNOGRAPHIC’ PHOTOS FROM THE LAPTOP HE DENIES IS HIS

Earlier this month, the president's son sued former President Trump aide Garrett Ziegler, alleging that Ziegler and his company spread "tens of thousands of emails, thousands of photos, and dozens of videos and recordings" that were considered "pornographic" from the device.

In March, Biden initiated a countersuit asserting that the Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair shop owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, had unlawfully disseminated Biden's personal information, and leveled six invasion of privacy charges against him. Mac Isaac first filed a lawsuit against the president’s son — as well as CNN, Politico, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.— in October 2022 for defamation.

According to Mac Isaac, Biden did not return for the laptop within three months after dropping it off, and he could not be reached. He then alerted the FBI after seeing emails illustrating information about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s purported foreign business dealings and videos of Biden taking drugs and performing sex acts with prostitutes.

Before federal agents picked up the device, Mac Isaac made a copy of its hard drive and gave it to Giuliani the following year.

Biden was expected to plead guilty in July to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax as part of a plea deal to avoid jail time on a felony gun charge. Instead, he pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and one felony gun charge last month.

Fox News' Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.

NRA gets unanimous GOP backing in suit to dismantle governor’s ‘unlawful’ gun order

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: The National Rifle Association hit Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham with a lawsuit Thursday in the state's Supreme Court over an "unconstitutional" rule temporarily suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and the surrounding county. 

"Please rescind your unlawful and blatantly unconstitutional orders and uphold your oath to defend the constitutional rights of those in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Until then, we’ll see you in court," NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch wrote to Lujan Grisham on Thursday, according to a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital. 

The suit, filed Thursday in the New Mexico Supreme Court, names Lujan Grisham, Chief of New Mexico State Police Troy Weisler and New Mexico Department of Health Secretary Patrick Allen. 

The NRA was joined by every single GOP state House and Senate member, along with retired law enforcement, the Republican Party of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party of New Mexico as petitioners. 

NRA SLAMS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR'S GUN ORDER, ISSUES HARSH ADVICE

The lawsuit argues Lujan Grisham's gun order is unconstitutional and unlawful, and called on the state's highest court to "issue an extraordinary writ invalidating" the order. 

Lujan Grisham temporarily suspended open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, where Albuquerque is located, for at least 30 days in a public health order announced Friday. The governor cited the fatal shootings of a 13-year-old girl in July, a 5-year-old girl in August and an 11-year-old boy this month as motivation behind the rule. 

The governor has been hit with at least four other lawsuits over the order, all of which argue the rule defies the U.S. Constitution. On Wednesday, a federal judge appointed by President Biden blocked part of the public health order that suspended carrying firearms in public. 

Lujan Grisham argued following the judge's ruling that she will "stand up to protect families and children" from crimes involving guns. 

"I refuse to be resigned to the status quo. As governor, I see the pain of families who lost their loved ones to gun violence every single day, and I will never stop fighting to prevent other families from enduring these tragedies," she said. 

Lujan Grisham said when she announced the order that she anticipated legal challenges and raised some eyebrows over her remarks on the Constitution. 

"No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," Lujan Grisham told a reporter who asked whether it’s "unconstitutional" to order Americans not to exercise their right to bear arms.

Kozuch, the director of the NRA's lobbying arm, hit back in his letter to Lujan Grisham Thursday that the NRA "strongly disagrees" with her comment that her oath is not "absolute."

"You claim that your oath to uphold the rights covered by these amendments is ‘not absolute.’ The National Rifle Association strongly disagrees. New Mexicans and other law-abiding Americans visiting or travelling through Albuquerque and Bernalillo County have an absolute right to carry the firearm of their choosing to defend themselves and their families," he wrote. 

GOP ASKS UNLIKELY BIDEN ADMIN ALLY TO STEP IN TO STOP NM'S 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB'

The NRA pointed to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico state Constitution as both "clearly" protecting "the right of peaceable people to carry firearms for self-defense." 

Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution states: "[n]o law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

Quickly following the announcement last week, Second Amendment groups, New Mexico residents, Democrats and even gun control activist David Hogg spoke out that the rule was unconstitutional. 

"In a shocking move, Governor Lujan Grisham is suspending Second Amendment rights by administrative fiat, ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution," Kozuch told Fox News Digital earlier this week. 

"Instead of undermining the fundamental rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, she should address the soft-on-criminal policies which truly endanger its citizens," he added. 

Kozuch again stressed in his letter Thursday that the governor should "hold criminals responsible" for spreading violence, and highlighted that even the governor admitted in her press conference last week that criminals would not follow the 30-day gun ban. 

"When announcing these orders, you claimed that they are meant to deal with the very real problem of violent crime in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Yet, in the very press conference where you made that claim, you admitted that the criminals responsible for that rising violence will not follow these orders," he wrote. 

"The NRA urges you to hold criminals responsible for the damage they inflict, but we will not stand by as you attempt to blame and restrict the rights of peaceful Americans who simply want to protect themselves, their families, and their community."

NEW MEXICO GOV. GRISHAM SWIPES AT FELLOW DEMOCRAT WHO CALLED HER GUN CARRY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The governor's press secretary Caroline Sweeney told Fox News Digital on Sunday that the "order does not suspend the Constitution but instead state laws over which the governor has jurisdiction." Sweeney added that the governor "was elected to serve the people of New Mexico, and not a day goes by that she doesn’t hear from a constituent asking for more to be done to curb this horrific violence."

Before the lawsuits against the order grew larger Thursday, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez distanced himself from the governor, telling her he would not defend her administration in court. 

NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS CALL FOR DEM GOV. GRISHAM'S IMPEACHMENT AFTER GUN ORDER: 'SHE'S ROGUE'

"Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico's chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence. Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster," Torrez wrote in his letter to Lujan Grisham this week. 

The governor also does not have support from the Bernalillo County Sheriff, who called the order "unconstitutional," while Bernalillo County district attorney, the Albuquerque police chief, and Albuquerque mayor have all said they won’t enforce the order. Lujan Grisham said the state police would enforce the order, and that violations could carry a fine of up to $5,000.

Gov Kemp says special session to remove DA Willis isn’t going to happen

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp says ill-fated attempts by state Republicans to call a special session to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis are not going to work.

Kemp made the comments during a press conference on Thursday, saying it has nothing to do with his personal feelings surrounding the district attorney's case against former President Trump.

"Up to this point, I have not seen any evidence that DA Willis's actions or lack thereof warrant action by the prosecuting attorney oversight commission. As long as I'm governor, we are going to follow the law and the Constitution — regardless of who it helps politically," Kemp said.

GOV. BRIAN KEMP HASN'T RECEIVED 'ANY EVIDENCE' STATE SEN. MOORE HAS MAJORITY NECESSARY FOR WILLIS IMPEACHMENT

In a letter to the governor filed earlier this month, State Sen. Colton Moore claimed to have the support of "3/5 of each respective house" in the state legislature regarding his efforts to impeach Willis.

Moore, in a statement to Fox News Digital, later admitted that the statement in the letter alluding to having a majority in both houses was not accurate.

"We have a law in the state of Georgia that clearly outlines the legal steps that can be taken if constituents believe their local prosecutors are violating their oath by engaging in unethical or illegal behavior," Kemp said Thursday at the press conference.

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROBING DA FANI WILLIS REGARDING MOTIVATIONS FOR TRUMP PROSECUTION

Since Moore's stunt, other state Republicans have demanded similar obstructions to the Georgia case against Trump with similar lack of success.

Willis filed a motion Tuesday afternoon asking the Fulton County, Georgia, judge presiding over the case against former President Trump and 18 others to expedite the trial.

All 19 defendants – Trump, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, his former attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, and others – are being tried together on charges related to Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. 

Willis’ motion asks that the defendants be given a deadline to be able to sever themselves from the larger case.

"The State of Georgia further respectfully requests that the Court set a deadline for any Defendant wishing to file a motion to sever, allow the parties, including the State of Georgia, sufficient time to brief the severance issue, and hold a hearing on any filed motion to sever so that the Court may consider the factors set forth in Cain and its progeny, as required by Georgia law," the motion states.

Fox News Digital's Jessica Chasmar contributed to this report.

Georgia Judge blocks provision prohibiting the distribution of water at voting polls

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal judge in Georgia temporarily blocked a provision in the state's voting law barring people from giving food and water to voters waiting in line to vote on election day, and stopped a requirement that voters include their date of birth on their absentee ballots.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee is still allowing the enforcement of penalties against people who provide food and water to voters waiting in line if they are within 150 feet of the building where voting is taking place. But the judge paused enforcement of the ban in other areas within 25 feet of a voter standing in line.

"Central to this conclusion was the fact that, unlike the Buffer Zone’s reasonable 150-foot radius, the Supplemental Zone has no boundary," he wrote. "S.B. 202 prohibits organizations (such as Plaintiffs) from engaging in line relief activities in the Supplemental Zone, i.e., if they are within twenty-five feet of a voter—even if the organizations are outside the 150-foot Buffer Zone."

Boulee also blocked a part of the law requiring voters to provide their date of birth on the outer envelopes of absentee ballots. He wrote that the state "did not present any evidence that absentee ballots rejected for failure to comply with the Birthdate Requirement were fraudulent ballots."

GEORGIA EARLY VOTING SETS ALL-TIME RECORD FOR MIDTERM ELECTION DESPITE CLAIMS OF VOTER SUPPRESSION

But the judge rejected the groups' claims that certain restrictions imposed by the law deny voters with disabilities meaningful access to absentee voting.

The Election Integrity Act was passed by state lawmakers and signed into law by GOP Gov. Brian Kemp in the spring of 2021. Other provisions in the law include requiring identification to vote, extending the early voting period and ensuring a ballot drop box will be available in every county.

The controversial election law seeking to strengthen voting rules came shortly after the 2020 election and prompted criticism from Democrats and large corporations, including Major League Baseball and Coca-Cola. The MLB moved its 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver in response to the election law.

Critics of the law, including President Biden and twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, claimed it would restrict voting access, particularly for people of color. But Georgia saw record turnout in the primary and general elections in 2022, leading Republicans to argue the criticism was not justified.

Several civil rights and voting rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the law.

DESANTIS MEETS WITH KEMP AMID TRUMP CASE, IMPEACHMENT CALLS AGAINST FANI WILLIS

Both sides declared victory after Boulee's mixed ruling on Friday.

NAACP Legal Defense Fund assistant counsel John Cusick said in a statement that the decisions "are important wins for our democracy and protecting access to the ballot box in Georgia."

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the Peach State "continues to have one of the most secure and accessible voting systems in the country for all voters, including voters with disabilities." 

"I am glad that the court upheld Georgia's common sense rules banning ballot harvesting and securing absentee ballot drop boxes," he said in a news release. "Georgia's voting system is accessible to all voters, with multiple options for voters to choose how they want to exercise their right to vote."

A ruling on Texas' election law, which is similar to the one in Georgia, was also handed down Friday from a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez struck down a provision of Texas' law requiring mail voters to provide the same identification number they used when they registered to vote. He ruled the requirement violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act because it prevented people from being able to cast ballots over an issue irrelevant to whether they are registered.

The provision led to skyrocketing mail ballot rejections in the first election after the law was passed in September 2021, and the U.S. Department of Justice challenged the provision.

"This ruling sends a clear message that states may not impose unlawful and unnecessary requirements that disenfranchise eligible voters seeking to participate in our democracy," Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement after the ruling.

Several election integrity bills have passed in GOP-controlled states since 2020 after the election that year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.