Category: fox-news/politics/judiciary/federal-courts

‘Corrupt, dangerous’: GOP Rep moves to impeach judge who blocked Trump federal funds freeze

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde is formally introducing his articles of impeachment against a Rhode Island judge who previously ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal funds. 

The articles, first shared with Fox News Digital, charge Chief U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. with abuse of power and conflicts of interest, stating he "knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs."  

If McConnell is found guilty of such charges, the articles read, he should be removed from office. 

SCOOP: IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP TREN DE ARAGUA DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

McConnell is currently overseeing a lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia that challenges the Trump administration's move to withhold federal grant funds. After McConnell ordered the administration to comply with a restraining order, the government appealed to the First Circuit – which refused to stay the orders. 

"The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in November, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient," Clyde told Fox News Digital. "Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people. Judge McConnell’s actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment."

COURT ORDER HALTING DEPORTATION FLIGHTS ‘UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPEDES’ EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TRUMP ALLIES ARGUE

Clyde announced plans to draft impeachment articles in early February, after McConnell ordered the Trump administration to reinstate paused federal grants and loans. The articles formalize the charges. 

McConnell has also come under fire from Trump supporters and conservatives in recent weeks after a 2021 video resurfaced in which he warned that courts must "stand and enforce the rule of law … against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant or could be whatnot." 

The articles cite that video, claiming McConnell "has allowed his personal, political opinions to influence his decisions and rulings," and that he has demonstrated a "bias that would warp his decision" in the federal freeze case. 

In a statement, Clyde said "judicial activism" is "the Left’s latest form of lawfare."

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IMPEACHAPALOOZA IS HERE TO STAY

"Congress bears the responsibility and the constitutional authority to hold activist judges accountable through impeachment," he continued. "I applaud the work of my colleagues to hold other rogue judges accountable, and I hope we see swift action on this critical matter in the House very soon."

When contacted, the court declined to comment. 

Clyde's impeachment resolution follows a similar move by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who earlier filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg. The Washington, D.C.-based federal judge is overseeing a separate case challenging President Donald Trump's use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador who were linked to the violent gang Tren de Aragua. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gill accuses Boasberg of abusing his power by pausing the deportation order under the 1789 law. 

The mounting criticism of lower court judges who have ruled against the Trump administration prompted U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an unusual statement in response this month.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. 

Judges v Trump: Here are the key court battles halting the White House agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The recent wave of preliminary injunctions from federal judges has stymied President Donald Trump's early agenda in his second White House term, prompting new questions as to how far the administration might go if it opts to challenge these court orders. 

Federal judges across the country have blocked Trump's ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military, ordered the reinstatement of core functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and halted Elon Musk's government efficiency organization, DOGE, from oversight and access to government agencies, among other things. They've also temporarily halted deportations, or attempted to, so judges can consider the relevant laws.

Combined, the wave of rulings has been met with outrage from Trump administration officials, some of whom said they plan to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court, if needed. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has used her podium to rail against "radical left-wing judges," who she has alleged are acting with a political agenda to block Trump's executive orders.

"These judicial activists want to unilaterally stop President Trump from deporting foreign terrorists, hiring and firing executive branch employees, and determining the readiness of our troops," Leavitt said on X, expanding on remarks made Wednesday at a press briefing.

LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP'S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS

"They MUST be reined in," she added.

Some of Trump's supporters in Congress have threatened judges who block the president's agenda with impeachment, while his critics worry the president's attacks on the judiciary will collapse the constitutional system, bringing to the fore an impassioned debate over the separation of powers in the Constitution. 

Here's a rundown of where things stand. 

U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, ruled on Tuesday that DOGE's efforts to dismantle USAID "on an accelerated basis" likely violated the U.S. Constitution "in multiple ways" and ordered the partial restoration of the agency's functions, including reinstatement of personnel access to email and payment systems.

Chuang's preliminary injunction is believed to be the first to directly invoke Musk himself. It said Musk could interact with USAID employees only after being granted "express authorization" from an agency official, and it blocked DOGE from engaging in any further work at USAID.

Hours later, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump's order on transgender persons serving in the military.

Reyes, the first openly gay member of the court, wrote in a scathing 79-page ruling that the Trump administration failed to demonstrate that transgender service members would hinder military readiness, relying on what she described as "pure conjecture" to attempt to justify the policy and thus causing undue harm to thousands of current U.S. service members.  

SHELTERS, JESUS, AND MISS PAC-MAN: US JUDGE GRILLS DOJ OVER TRANS POLICY IN DIZZYING LINE OF QUESTIONING

Both rulings are almost certain to be challenged by the Trump administration. In fact, Reyes was so confident that the Justice Department would file an emergency appeal that she delayed her ruling from taking force until Friday to allow the Trump administration time to file for an emergency stay.

Reyes wasn't wrong. Senior administration officials vowed to challenge the wave of court rulings, which they said are an attempt by the courts to unduly infringe on presidential powers.

"We are appealing this decision, and we will win," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on social media.

"District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?" White House policy adviser Stephen Miller said later in a post on X. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

Several other high-profile cases are playing out in real time that could test the fraught relationship between the courts and the executive branch, and next steps remain deeply uncertain.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg warned the Trump administration on Wednesday that it could face consequences for violating his court order temporarily blocking it from invoking a little-known wartime law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals from U.S. soil, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua, for 14 days. 

Boasberg handed down the temporary restraining order Saturday evening, around the time that the Trump administration proceeded to deport hundreds of migrants, including Venezuelan nationals subject to the Alien Enemies Act, to El Salvador. He also ordered in a bench ruling shortly after that any planes carrying these individuals return to the U.S. 

But at least one plane with migrants deported by the law in question touched down later that evening in El Salvador.

"Oopsie, too late," El Salvador's president said in a post on X.

In the days since, government lawyers citing national security protections have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so.

The White House has repeatedly asserted that lower court judges like Boasberg should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what it argues is a lawful agenda, though the judges in question have disagreed that the president's actions all follow the law.

"A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil," Leavitt told Fox News.

Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, said in an interview on "Fox & Friends" this week: "We are not stopping."

"I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming," Homan said, adding, "Another fight. Another fight every day."

SCOTUS RULES ON NEARLY $2 BILLION IN FROZEN USAID PAYMENTS

The administration's appeals, which are all almost guaranteed, may have a better chance of success than previous cases that reached appellate courts, including one in which the Supreme Court ruled against the president.

There are two types of near-term relief that federal judges can offer plaintiffs before convening both parties to the court for a full case on the merits: a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, or a TRO. 

A TRO immediately blocks an action for 14 days to allow more time for consideration. But it's a difficult test for plaintiffs to satisfy: they must prove that the order in question would pose immediate and "irreparable harm"– an especially burdensome level of proof, especially if it hinges on an action or order that has not yet come into force. 

The outcomes, as a result, are very narrow in scope. One could look to the TRO request granted by U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali earlier this month, which required the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in owed money for previously completed USAID projects. 

Since it did not deal with current contracts or ongoing payments, the Supreme Court, which upheld Ali's ruling, 5-4, had little room to intervene.

The request for a preliminary injunction, however, is a bit more in depth. Successful plaintiffs must demonstrate to the court four things in seeking the ruling: First, that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim when it is heard later on; that the balance of equities tips in their favor; that the injunction is considered within the sphere of public interest; and finally, that they are "likely" to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of court action.

This wider level of discretion granted to the district courts in a preliminary injunction ruling invites much more scrutiny, and more room for the government to appeal the ruling to higher courts should they see fit. 

It's a strategy both legal analysts and even Trump himself dangled as a likely possibility as they look to enforce some of their most sweeping policy actions. 

Trump suggested this week that Boasberg, tasked with overseeing the escalating deportation fight, be impeached, describing him in a post on Truth Social as a "crooked" judge and someone who, unlike himself, was not elected president.

"He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump said.

The post earned the rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that it broke with 200 years of established law. And on Thursday, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, James Blair, appeared to punt the issue to Congress.

He told Politico in an interview that Trump’s remarks were shining "a big old spotlight" on what it views as a partisan decision, but noted impeaching a judge would be up to Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who he said would ultimately "figure out what can be passed or not" in Congress.

"That’s the speaker’s job. And I won’t speak for what the speaker’s opinion of that is," he said. "I think the thing that is important right now is the president is highlighting a critical issue."

California Sen Adam Schiff changes tune on DOJ, reams increasingly ‘Orwellian’ leadership

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Sen. Adam Schiff, once a staunch defender of the Justice Department’s independence, now warns it has become an ‘Orwellian’ tool for President Donald Trump and ripe for political abuse.

The California Democrat and former U.S. prosecutor, who served four House terms before his election to the Senate last fall, has long been an outspoken Trump foe, using his former posts as chair of the House Oversight Committee and impeachment probes to urge a more independent-minded Justice Department. 

"The rule of law is a core foundation of our nation," Schiff previously told Time Magazine during Trump's first term in office. "No one, not even the president, is above it."

Schiff once served as a federal prosecutor at the Justice Department, where he helped successfully convict an ex-FBI agent on charges of spying for the Soviet Union. Throughout his later service in the House, he repeatedly defended the Justice Department as independent-minded and asserted that its career officials operate above the political fray. 

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

He also chided his Republican colleagues who, in his view, too harshly criticized the agency, warning them that doing so could lead to an erosion of trust.

Fewer than four years later, however, Schiff is singing a different tune. 

Now in the Senate, the California Democrat is one of the most vocal critics, sounding the alarm about Trump's efforts to reform the Justice Department to his liking. 

On Monday, he pushed back against Trump's claim that he and other members of the House committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot could be subject to "investigation at the highest level," as the president threatened in a Truth Social post.

"The members of the Jan 6 Committee are all proud of our work," Schiff wrote on X, in response to Trump's remarks. "Your threats will not intimidate us. Or silence us."

Earlier this month, Schiff took aim at the current leadership of the Justice Department in a blistering floor speech, noting that the DOJ’s three most senior officials, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and John Sauer, all formerly represented Trump in criminal court proceedings. 

By so frequently claiming the Justice Department has been improperly "weaponized" against him, Schiff said, Trump has arguably given his officials a green light, "in Orwellian fashion, to do what they have accused others of doing," which is "to weaponize the department. … To use the department as a sword and as a shield."

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY DEFENDS TRUMP'S FIRING OF INSPECTORS GENERAL

Schiff also blasted the Supreme Court decision last August that expanded the view of presidential immunity – a ruling, he said, that "has turbocharged the ability to weaponize the Department of Justice by a president who wishes to use it for that purpose."

Last month, Schiff joined other Democrats on the panel in urging the administration to turn over information that prompted their decision to remove or reassign dozens of career Justice Department officials and FBI personnel. 

Lawmakers also cited concerns about a sprawling questionnaire sent by Justice Department officials to thousands of FBI agents and supervisors in January asking detailed questions about their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot investigation.

FBI AGENTS GROUP TELLS CONGRESS TO TAKE URGENT ACTION TO PROTECT AGAINST POLITICIZATION

That questionnaire is also the subject of a lawsuit filed this year by current and former FBI agents, who are seeking to head off any retaliation or discriminatory action against personnel involved in the Jan. 6 probe. A judge is expected to hear from both parties in court later this month.

Most recently, Trump attempted to strip security clearances and access to federal government buildings for all Perkins Coie employees, a law firm he sees as opposed to his political agenda, prompting a federal judge to step in and block the order.

 "An American President is not a king – not even an 'elected' one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute," U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a court order this month that blocked one of Trump’s executive orders from taking force.

Schiff, for his part, appears to share that view.

"There could be no more frontal assault on the post-Watergate policy of having some division between the White House and the Justice Department than the Supreme Court of the United States saying, ‘Break down that wall. Use the department any way you wish. Create cases where there’s no evidence. Dismiss cases where there’s plenty of evidence. And you will never face accountability. No matter how corrupt a motive,'" Schiff said this month. 

Reached for comment about his evolving views on the Justice Department, Schiff's office pointed Fox News Digital to his previous remarks, including a February interview on MSNBC’s "The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell." Asked about his claims that Trump has weaponized the Justice Department – and the severity of the issue – Schiff responded, "We’ve had a debate about what level of constitutional crisis we’re in, and frankly, I think we’re already there."

Trump calls for judge in deportation legal battle to be impeached

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of a judge in a Truth Social post on Tuesday, apparently referring to U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg who recently sought to block deportation flights to El Salvador.

"This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President - He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY," Trump declared in the post.

"I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" the president added.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.

Scott Walker calls nixing of landmark WI law that led to mass protests in 2011 a ‘brazen political action’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker spoke out after a county judge in Madison struck down major parts of a 2011 law geared toward public employee unions. 

Dane County Judge Jacob Frost ruled that the provisions of a law known as Act 10, which selectively exempt certain public workers from its restrictions on unionization and collective bargaining, are unconstitutional. The controversial law sought to close a budget deficit by limiting collective bargaining, thereby moderating public workers' benefits that Walker said at the time helped solve a fiscal situation he was required to address.

The original passage in 2011 led to weekslong protests inside the state Capitol, and even saw legislative Democrats flee to neighboring Illinois to prevent Republicans from reaching a quorum to vote on it. Walker later survived a 2012 recall election over the law's passage and rode his success into a decent showing in the 2016 presidential race, where he eventually bowed out of the primary that ultimately went to Donald Trump. 

On Tuesday, Walker, who currently leads the conservative-training nonprofit Young America's Foundation (YAF), said his law simply took power "out of the hands of the big union bosses and put it firmly into the hands of the hardworking taxpayers…"

"And what this court decision did as brazen political action was to throw that out and put power back in the hands of those union bosses," he said in an interview, calling collective bargaining not a right but an "expensive entitlement."

POMPEO CLAIMS TEACHERS' UNION BOSS IS AMONG THE ‘MOST DANGEROUS PEOPLE' IN US

Asked about Frost’s assertion that disparate treatment of collective bargaining rights of certain "public safety" workers and other public workers was unconstitutional, Walker said it was a "bogus political argument." 

Frost stripped more than 60 sections of the law from the books.

The law was upheld multiple times at the state and federal levels, Walker replied, adding a new issue is that of a potentially-growing "liberal activist majority" on the officially nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court that may hear any appeal of the ruling.

Walker said that if appealed, the first place the case will land is in Waukesha court, which he predicted would overturn Frost. But a subsequent appeal by the left would bring it before the state’s high bench.

"It’s all the more reason why the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin this spring (2025) is more important than ever," he said.

Walker went on to discuss the roots of Act 10, and how it was his way of abiding by Wisconsin’s balanced-budget requirement. He noted the original name was the "Budget Repair Act" and that a prior Democratic administration instead chose to cut funding for municipalities, which instead resulted in layoffs.

Instead of risking job loss or Medicare cuts, Walker opted to require public workers to contribute more to their entitlements in return for keeping their pensions solvent.

WALKER SAYS WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS ARE MOTIVATED

In addition, Wisconsin Senate President Chris Kapenga echoed Walker’s claim that partisan politics played a role in the ruling:

"[I]t’s proof there is very little justice left in our justice system. Wisconsin's legislature should be discussing impeachment, as we are the only check on their power," said Kapenga, R-Oconomowoc.

"Believing Dane County judges and the liberal majority in our state Supreme Court are independent jurists is almost as far-fetched as believing the border is secure, inflation's not a problem, or [President Biden] won't pardon his son."

"The left keeps telling us, ‘Don't believe what you see’ — Wisconsinites see right through it," he said.

As for Walker’s current role as president of YAF, he said his organization is preparing for conservative leadership to return to Washington as he brought it to Madison in 2010.

Walker said he is thrilled by the prospect of seeing many YAF alumni in the new Trump administration, including Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump and formerly ex-Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Sergio Gor, a longtime aide to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was named Trump’s head of presidential personnel last month. Walker praised Gor's prior work leading YAF’s George Washington University chapter.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Four years ago, younger voters sided with Biden by 25 points," Walker said. "This election, that shrunk right down to 5 or 6 points. And most interestingly, young men four years ago went with Biden by 15 points. In this election, they shifted to Trump by 14. What we need to do is lock that in."

Lawmakers harshly criticize Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter: ‘Liar’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Lawmakers reacted with harsh criticism on Sunday after President Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who earlier this year was convicted in two separate federal cases.

The pardon comes after Biden and his communications team continued to insist the president’s son would not be pardoned.

Hunter pleaded guilty to federal tax charges in September, which spared him from a public trial over his failure to pay taxes while he spent lavishly on drugs, escorts, luxury hotel stays, clothing and other personal items.

The first son was also convicted of three felony gun charges in June after lying on a mandatory gun purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

After Hunter was convicted, President Biden indicated he did not plan to pardon his son. That all changed on Sunday night.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., was quick to respond to Biden’s move to pardon his son, saying the president "has lied from start to finish about his family’s corrupt influence peddling activities."

"Not only has he falsely claimed that he never met with his son’s foreign business associates and that his son did nothing wrong, but he also lied when he said he would not pardon Hunter Biden," Comer said. "The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg in the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden Crime Family have lied about to the American people. It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability."

KJP SAYS PRESIDENT BIDEN STILL HAS NO PLANS TO PARDON HUNTER BIDEN FOR TAX FRAUD, GUN CHARGES

Another federal lawmaker who weighed in on the matter Sunday was House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

"Democrats said there was nothing to our impeachment inquiry," Jordan said. "If that’s the case, why did Joe Biden just issue Hunter Biden a pardon for the very things we were inquiring about?"

Jordan had been one of the key figures pushing to expose Biden family business dealings and an investigation into alleged corruption that Republicans suggest could have led to an impeachment against President Biden.

POLL COMPARES WHETHER TRUMP, HUNTER BIDEN SHOULD GET PRISON SENTENCES, ACCORDING TO US ADULTS

In September 2023, Hunter filed a lawsuit against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, alleging the former Trump lawyer violated his privacy rights by illegally disseminating content from a laptop the first son dropped off at a computer store in Delaware.

The complaint claimed Giuliani was "primarily responsible" for the "total annihilation" of Hunter's digital privacy, while also naming Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor who previously represented the former New York City mayor, as a defendant.

"Biden, who will not even meet with his granddaughter Navy, didn’t pardon his son because he’s a good father," Giuliani wrote on X after learning about the pardon. "He did so because, as his son admits on the Hard Drive, for 30 years Hunter has given half the millions he’s collected to the Boss of the Crime Family- Joe Biden."

WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS CIA 'STONEWALLED' IRS INTERVIEW WITH HUNTER BIDEN 'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS: HOUSE GOP

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, also responded to the pardon on X.

"I’m shocked Pres Biden pardoned his son Hunter [because] he said many many times he wouldn’t & I believed him," Grassley wrote. "Shame on me."

IRS WHISTLEBLOWER SHAPLEY SAID HE ‘COULD NO LONGER PURSUE’ HUNTER BIDEN SUGAR BROTHER KEVIN MORRIS DUE TO CIA

President-elect Trump had previously been asked whether Biden would pardon his son, and said, "I’ll bet you the father probably pardons him. Let’s see what happens."

On Sunday, the president-elect took to Truth Social to share his reaction.

"Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?" Trump asked. Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!"

Trump's transition team also responded to the news in a statement to Fox News.

"The failed witch hunts against President Trump have proven that the Democrat-controlled DOJ and other radical prosecutors are guilty of weaponizing the justice system," Steven Cheung, who served as Trump’s campaign communications director and has since been appointed to serve as his director of communications in the White House, said. "That system of justice must be fixed, and due process must be restored for all Americans, which is exactly what President Trump will do as he returns to the White House with an overwhelming mandate from the American people."

IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler, who blew the whistle on political interference into Hunter’s tax crimes, released a statement after learning about the pardon.

"No amount of lies or spin can hide the simple truth that the Justice Department nearly let the President's son off the hook for multiple felonies. We did our duty, told the truth, and followed the law," they said. "Anyone reading the President's excuses now should remember that Hunter Biden admitted to his tax crimes in federal court, that Hunter Biden's attorneys have targeted us for our lawful whistleblower disclosures, and that we are suing one of those attorneys for smearing us with false accusations.

"President Biden has the power to put his thumb on the scales of justice for his son, but at least he had to do it with a pardon explicitly for all the world to see rather than his political appointees doing it secretly behind the scenes," they continued. "Either way it is a sad day for law-abiding taxpayers to witness this special privilege for the powerful."

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment, but has not yet heard back.

Jordan demands Smith retain all records related to Trump prosecutions as special counsel’s office winds down

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is concerned that special counsel Jack Smith and prosecutors involved in the investigations of now President-elect Donald Trump will "purge" records to skirt oversight and is demanding they produce to Congress all documents related to the probes before the end of the month, Fox News Digital has learned. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., penned a letter to Smith on Friday, obtained by Fox News Digital. 

TRUMP VOWS TO LEAD ‘GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA' IN VICTORY SPEECH: ’FIX EVERYTHING'

"The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel. According to recent public reports, prosecutors in your office have been ‘gaming out legal options’ in the event that President Donald Trump won the election," they wrote. "With President Trump’s decisive victory this week, we are concerned that the Office of Special Counsel may attempt to purge relevant records, communications, and documents responsive to our numerous requests for information." 

Jordan and Loudermilk warned that the Office of Special Counsel "is not immune from transparency or above accountability for its actions." 

"We reiterate our requests, which are itemized in the attached appendix and incorporated herein, and ask that you produce the entirety of the requested material as soon as possible but no later than November 22, 2024," they wrote. 

Jordan and Loudermilk are demanding Smith turn over information about the use of FBI personnel on his team — a request first made in June 2023 — and whether any of those FBI employees "previously worked on any other matters concerning President Trump." 

They also renewed their request from August 2023, demanding records relating to Smith and prosecutor Jay Bratt visiting the White House or Executive Office of the President; a request from September 2023 for records related to lawyer Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump aide Walt Nauta; a request from December 2023 for communications between Attorney General Merrick Garland and the special counsel’s team; and more. 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKING TO WIND DOWN TRUMP CRIMINAL CASES AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

The Justice Department is looking to wind down two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in the White House — a decision that upholds a long-standing policy that prevents Justice Department attorneys from prosecuting a sitting president. 

DOJ officials have cited a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel filed in 2000, which upholds a Watergate-era argument that asserts it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the Justice Department to investigate a sitting president. 

It further notes that such proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."  

"In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’" the memo said in conclusion.

Smith was leading an investigation into the alleged retention of classified records. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges stemming from that probe. 

The case was eventually tossed completely by a federal judge in Florida, who ruled that Smith was improperly and unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

Smith also took over an investigation into alleged 2020 election interference. Trump also pleaded not guilty, but his attorneys took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue on the basis of presidential immunity. 

The high court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official presidential acts, forcing Smith to file a new indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to those new charges as well. Trump attorneys are now seeking to have the election interference charges dropped in Washington, D.C., similarly alleging that Smith was appointed unlawfully. 

Justice Department looking to wind down Trump criminal cases ahead of inauguration

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Justice Department is looking to wind down two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in the White House — a decision that upholds long-standing policy that prevents Justice Department attorneys from prosecuting a sitting president. 

In making this argument, Justice Department officials cited a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel filed in 2000, which upholds a Watergate-era argument that asserts it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the Justice Department to investigate a sitting president. 

It further notes that such proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."  

"In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’" the memo said in conclusion.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr also backed this contention Wednesday in an interview with Fox News Digital, noting that after Trump takes office in January, prosecutors will be unable to continue the cases during his term. 

TRUMP VOWS TO LEAD ‘GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA' IN VICTORY SPEECH: ’FIX EVERYTHING'

Barr told Fox News Digital that a Trump-appointed attorney general could immediately halt all federal cases brought by current Special Counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., and Florida. 

The charges in D.C. stem from Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In Florida, they are centered on Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2020.

And though Trump would be powerless to halt two state cases filed in Georgia and New York, Barr said local prosecutors and judges need to move on from the "spectacle" of prosecuting the president-elect.

"Further maneuvering on these cases in the weeks ahead would serve no legitimate purpose and only distract the country and the incoming administration from the task at hand," Barr said.

He also noted that voters were well aware of the criminal allegations against Trump when they voted to re-elect him for a second term.

"The American people have rendered their verdict on President Trump, and decisively chosen him to lead the country for the next four years," Barr said. 

"They did that with full knowledge of the claims against him by prosecutors around the country and I think Attorney General [Merrick] Garland and the state prosecutors should respect the people’s decision and dismiss the cases against President Trump now."

This is a breaking news story. Check back soon for more developments.

Amy Coney Barrett asserts her voice, carries on Scalia legacy

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

After her fourth term on the bench, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is asserting her voice and following in the footsteps of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a pioneer of originalism on the high court and her former boss. 

Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in October 2020 to fill the seat of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, surprised some this term by voting in a few key cases with the Democrat-appointed minority.

But legal experts say that the former law professor is proving that her interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with what the Founding Fathers intended, and that disagreements between her and her fellow conservative justices should be "celebrated."

"This term we have seen all the originalist justices engaged in a healthy debate about how to apply tenets of originalism and textualism in many different contexts," Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And that is a sign that the originalist project has matured, and that the justices are fleshing out these important principles, and it should be celebrated."

AOC FILES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST JUSTICES ALITO, THOMAS, ALLEGES 'UNCHECKED CORRUPTION'

For many years, a widely lauded and accepted judicial philosophy was that the Constitution was a "living and breathing document." But conservative legal practitioners contested that approach as too volatile to political whims, judicially inappropriate and a departure from what the founders actually wrote in their original intent. 

But in the 1980s, the concept of an originalist interpretation of the law started to grow, largely driven by Reagan-appointed Justice Scalia.  

"It used to be that the late, great, Justice Scalia was basically the only originalist on the court," said John Shu, a constitutional lawyer and former official in both Bush administrations. "Then, in 1991, it became Scalia and Thomas and sometimes Rehnquist. In 2005 and 2006, it became Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  And since 2017, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and of course Justice Barrett joined the Court, and she is very much following in Justice Scalia’s, for whom she clerked, footsteps."

Some experts say that approach bore out this term when Barrett sided with her liberal colleagues in the case in which the majority ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal "obstruction" crime. 

That case will likely aid the legal arguments of former President Trump who was charged with obstruction, among other crimes, by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT SAYS PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF SCOTUS IS 'WELCOME'

In her dissent, Barrett wrote that by "narrowing" a federal statute, the Court "failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches."

"[S]tatutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway," Barrett wrote, adding that the Court’s majority abandoned that approach and does "textual backflips to find some way— any way—to narrow the reach" of the statue at issue. 

Severino says that in her dissent, Barrett was "exactly in line" with Scalia's approach to that type of clause.

"Within originalism and textualism, there are people who in some particular instances may disagree on how those principles apply in a specific case," Severino wrote. "So it's not surprising that Barrett is going to have a different approach than Thomas or Alito or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. They all have their own slightly different flavors, different personality, to exactly how they apply those," Severino said. 

"It’s a great sign that the justices are openly discussing what's the best way to apply originalism and textualism, the original intent and the actual text, which is what good and fair judges are supposed to do," said Shu.

"Justice Barrett’s opinions from this term indicate that the Scalia approach, over time, carried the day," he said.  "He also was great at showing how the originalist perspective is the common-sense perspective, and the one most faithful to the law and to a judge’s responsibilities."

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, noted that Barrett "was law professor for a long time, so she has a different background than everybody else on the court."

"She's very thoughtful, she's very intellectual, she's very theoretical. She wants to get the theory right. She's a professor's justice," he observed. 

"She’s still very much in the Scalia mode. She's thinking about how to apply history and tradition and what that test means, and getting the theory of the matter right," he said. 

Which he said "was clear in the immunity decision, where she agreed fully with Robert's majority opinion, but said it would have been better to reframe this as an unconstitutional application of criminal law, rather than calling it immunity."

BIDEN'S SCOTUS CRITIQUES LARGELY UNPRECEDENTED, EXPERTS SAY, CONTRAST WITH CLINTON'S DEFERENCE IN 2000

"She's not a moderate. She's not a centrist. She’s not moving left," Shapiro said. "She’s an originalist and a textualist."

Jennifer Mascott, law professor at Catholic University and former Justice Department official, said Barrett’s writings this term "show a highly intelligent, careful principal jurist who is looking herself, as all the justices do, independently at the questions before her, and just taking the time for the American public to explain in important cases where she may have done something differently than the majority opinion." 

Notably, Barrett authored a concurrence in the case in which the high court unanimously ruled that Colorado could not remove Trump from 2024 election ballot. 

"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," she wrote. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."

The former Notre Dame professor is not without criticism on the right, with some conservative observers saying she can be too cautious or timid when it comes to upsetting precedent.

Giancarlo Canaparo, senior fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says Barrett is "extremely mindful of the difference between conservative judges and conservative politicians, and she's trying very hard to be a conservative judge."

"And that means, I think, for her, not only being faithful to the text of the law and the Constitution, but also making sure that the court doesn't move on a particular issue until it’s sort of aware of the downstream effects on this doctrine or that doctrine," he said.

Canaparo observed that Barrett "needs to feel like she knows everything that can possibly be known" about a matter in order to make a move. 

"She's going to take positions when she feels like she knows everything, which is often in in those few areas where she wrote that she wrote about as a professor, but in other cases, we see areas where she's unwilling to make moves based on whatever information she has on hand, which you know that can be a good thing sometimes. Sometimes not."

But "sometimes, like a general, you've got to go with what information you have," he said. 

"Sometimes it seems like maybe she doesn't actually want a particular party to win, or she doesn't want to make a particular move, and so she uses the claim that there isn't enough information in the record as sort of an out."

Canaparo's critique aside, though, conservative legal watchers appear to sign on to Bush administration veteran John Shu's opinion that, "all in all, I think it’s great that a former Scalia clerk is now on the Court to carry on his legacy."

Federal judge resigns from lifetime-tenured role after just 4 years

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Alaska has resigned after investigators determined he created a hostile work environment, engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a former law clerk and lied about it to his colleagues.

Joshua Kindred resigned from his post as a U.S. District Court judge for Alaska effective Monday after serving just four years on the bench. His resignation letter did not give reasons as to why.

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on the same day released a 30-page order that detailed its findings into Kindred’s alleged misconduct. 

"We conclude that Judge Kindred committed misconduct by creating a hostile work environment for his law clerks. That hostile work environment included ‘unwanted, offensive, and abusive sexual conduct, including sexual harassment,’" the order states.

JUDGE ARRESTED AT ATLANTA NIGHTCLUB REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR ‘JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT’

The order described more than 700 pages of text messages between Kindred and his law clerks, many of which were deemed "highly inappropriate." 

In one message, the order states that Kindred told his clerks, "Who gives a f--- about ethics, we need to get you paid." In another, the order says he joked about "punching multiple Supreme Court justices," and bringing Patrón tequila, heroin and "whip-its" – a slang term for a type of inhalant drug – to a dinner party in his chambers.

The council said it also found that Kindred had an "inappropriately sexualized relationship" with a female law clerk during her clerkship and after she became an assistant U.S. attorney for Alaska. 

Kindred engaged in sexual contact with her on two occasions, according to the order. The female former clerk said the second incident, which occurred at an Airbnb where Kindred was staying, was not consensual. Kindred has said it was consensual.

"The Council need not make a finding on whether the Airbnb incident was consensual to conclude that Judge Kindred committed misconduct," the order said.

GOP-LED STATES ASK SCOTUS TO TEMPORARILY BLOCK BIDEN'S STUDENT LOAN HANDOUT PROGRAM

When asked about the sexual encounter with his former law clerk during the investigation, Kindred lied to Chief Judge Mary Murguia, the Special Committee and the Council, denying the encounter ever happened until he was put under oath, according to the judges’ order.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, wrote on social media that Kindred’s resignation "is more than appropriate."

"Judges need to be held to the highest of standards and Mr. Kindred fell well short of that mark," Murkowski wrote. "I will be working quickly to advance a replacement nominee for consideration."

Though Kindred has resigned, the matter is not closed. The council referred the case to the Judicial Conference to consider impeachment.

Kindred was appointed to the position by former President Trump in 2019 and was sworn into office in 2020.