Biden could pardon these Trump adversaries amid Dem fears that ‘revengeful first year’ is looming

President Biden’s days in office are coming down to the wire, and amid President-elect Donald Trump’s transition into the Oval Office, the 46th president is reportedly considering pardoning high-profile allies and fellow Democrats who are viewed as Trump's political foes.

After Trump’s election win over Vice President Harris last month, Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Ed Markey said he expects Trump to act in a "fascistic way" as president and called on Biden to pardon Democrats and the party's allies who could face prosecution under a second Trump administration.

"I think that, without question, Trump is going to try to act in a dictatorial way, in a fascistic way, in a revengeful first year at least of his administration toward individuals who he believes harmed him," Markey said during a local radio interview last month.

"If it’s clear by Jan. 19 that that is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people because that’s really what our country is going to need next year."

MOTHER OF HUNTER BIDEN'S DAUGHTER DEFENDS PARDON, SAYS HE'S 'TARGETED BECAUSE OF WHO HIS DAD IS'

The comments were soon echoed by other Democrats and ​​some legal experts in a bid for Biden to sink any prospect of Trump getting "revenge" against his political enemies.

"Biden should keep going with his pardons: Trump, Jack Smith & team, Mueller & team, and a blanket pardon for all on Trump’s enemies list for any and all political statements before December 25, 2024! Merry Christmas," John Dean, CNN contributor and former President Nixon’s White House counsel during the Watergate scandal, posted to social media this month. "​​Take the wind out of retribution/revenge!"

HOW BIDEN – AND TRUMP – HELPED MAKE THE PARDON GO HAYWIRE

As Biden wraps up his final days, Fox News Digital compiled a list of prominent Trump antagonists who have been rumored to be among those considered for pardons.

Cheney, the Republican former Wyoming congresswoman, and Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Jan. 6 House Select Committee chair, were the targets of Trump's ire during a recent interview on NBC's "Meet The Press."

"Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps," he said in the interview. "They deleted and destroyed all evidence."

"And Cheney was behind it, and so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee," he continued. "For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail."

The Jan. 6 committee was founded in July 2021 to investigate the breach of the U.S. Capitol earlier that year by supporters of Trump ahead of President Biden officially taking office on Jan. 20. The Jan. 6 committee’s investigation was carried out when Democrats held control of the House.

BIDEN'S PARDONING OF HUNTER INDICATES HE HAS 'A LOT MORE TO HIDE': LARA TRUMP

Cheney slammed Trump’s remarks in a statement this week, saying they were a "​​continuation of his assault on the rule of law," but she did not address a potential blanket pardon or whether she would accept such an offer.

"There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting – a Justice Department investigation of the work of a congressional committee – and any lawyer who attempts to pursue that course would quickly find themselves engaged in sanctionable conduct," Cheney said in her statement. 

Thompson’s office also slammed Trump’s comment in a statement provided to Fox Digital this week, arguing that "no election, no conspiracy theory, no pardon, and no threat of vengeful prosecution can rewrite history or wipe away his responsibility for the deadly violence on that horrific day."

"We stood up to him before, and we will continue to do so," he added.

The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, was a keystone of the nation's pandemic response, including advising then-President Trump in 2020 on how to handle COVID-19 as it swept across communities.

Fauci’s tenure under the first Trump administration, however, devolved with Trump slamming him and fellow pandemic task force adviser Dr. Deborah Birx as "two self-promoters trying to reinvent history to cover for their bad instincts and faulty recommendations."

FAUCI RIPPED OVER NEW PAPER CRITICIZING TRUMP ON CORONAVIRUS, PROMOTING NATURAL ORIGIN THEORY: 'EMBARRASSMENT'

Conservatives, including lawmakers such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., slammed Fauci for his promotion of mask mandates, vaccine mandates and strict lockdown orders that upended the day-to-day lives of Americans.

"Dr. Fauci should be voluntarily removed from TV because what he says is such a disservice, and such fearmongering and almost all of what he says isn’t even matched by the science of his own institute," Paul, who is a doctor, said in 2021 during an appearance on Fox Business.

"It doesn’t obey the science," he said at the time. "There is no scientific evidence that the lockdowns in Michigan have done anything or in California. In fact, the daily incidents of the disease in the last two months has been about almost one and a half times greater in California than it has been in Florida. The death rate is lower in Florida. So there is no real correlation between economic lockdowns, mask mandates or any of this."

Trump allies, including tech billionaire Elon Musk and Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, have endorsed calls to prosecute Fauci if evidence is found of any crimes during the pandemic, including the Wuhan lab leak in China.

BIDEN, TRUMP BOTH RIP DOJ AFTER PRESIDENT PARDONS HUNTER

"If there were crimes that he committed, of course I would tell the attorney general to prosecute him, not hold off," Kennedy said on Fox News last year.

Fauci has denied any wrongdoing amid the pandemic, and he told CNN this year, "I don't know what one would prosecute me for. … I played a major role in the development of the vaccine that was responsible for the saving of millions of lives. … I'm definitely guilty of that."

New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have been at the forefront of legal cases aimed at Trump ahead of the 2024 election, frequently landing in the upcoming president’s line of fire for criticism as he battled lawsuits he slammed as "shams."

James, a former City Council member in New York and public defender, launched her run for New York AG during the 2018 cycle while emphasizing that if she were elected, she would aggressively pursue charges against Trump. 

"What is fueling this campaign, what is fueling my soul right now, is Trump and his abuses, abuses against immigrants, against women, against our environment. We need an attorney general who will stand up to Donald Trump," James said on the campaign trail in 2018.

NEW YORK AG LETITIA JAMES SAYS SHE WON'T DROP CIVIL FRAUD CASE AGAINST TRUMP

About three months after taking office, James announced an investigation into the Trump Organization, alleging there was evidence indicating the president and his company had falsely valued assets to obtain loans, insurance coverage and tax deductions. The investigation began after Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who had previously served federal prison time for violating campaign finance laws, testified before Congress that the Trump Organization exaggerated the value of his assets.

James officially sued Trump, the Trump Organization and its senior leadership for allegedly falsely inflating "his net worth by billions of dollars to induce banks to lend money to the Trump Organization on more favorable terms than would otherwise have been available to the company, to satisfy continuing loan covenants, to induce insurers to provide insurance coverage for higher limits and at lower premiums, and to gain tax benefits, among other things."

Trump charged that James had launched a "witch hunt" against him after she explicitly campaigned on a platform to prosecute the president. Trump and his family denied any wrongdoing, with the former president saying his assets had been undervalued.

James was also caught on camera appearing gleeful as Donald Trump Jr. took the stand at his father's civil trial in November, after frequently sitting in the courtroom amid proceedings.

Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in September last year in the non-jury trial that Trump and his organization had committed fraud while building his real estate business by deceiving banks, insurers and others by overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth. Trump appealed the ruling in September this year.

James said this week that she will not drop Trump’s civil fraud judgment after his win last month. 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg emerged as another Trump political foe, leading the charge in his criminal trial this year after charging Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records after his Manhattan criminal trial in May. 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 affair with Trump in 2006. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case, and he has argued that it was "lawfare" promoted by the Biden administration and Democrats to injure his re-election efforts. 

Sentencing in the case was indefinitely postponed after Trump’s election win, with his legal team calling on the presiding judge to drop the case altogether.

Trump was hit with four separate indictments issued between March and August 2023, including Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecuting Trump in two of the cases: a classified documents case and a election interference case. 

In the classified documents case, the FBI agents seized 33 boxes of documents in August 2022 from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, spurring another legal battle that Trump has called a "scam." Smith, who Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed to the job, oversaw the case and charged Trump with 40 felony counts, including allegedly violating the Espionage Act, making false statements to investigators and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

PROSECUTORS REQUEST STAY IN TRUMP NY CASE UNTIL 2029 AS DEFENSE PLANS MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 'ONCE AND FOR ALL'

In the election interference case, which focused on alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Both cases were dropped after the presidential election, but Trump’s repeated criticisms and condemnation against Jack Smith, who he commonly referred to as "deranged," and other prosecutors have continued.

"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. Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME. Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before," Trump posted on social media after the election. 

In that same social media post, Trump also took issue with Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, ​​who led the prosecution of Trump in connection to a racketeering indictment for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Trump pleaded not guilty in that case and has maintained his innocence.

"They have also used State Prosecutors and District Attorneys, such as Fani Willis and her lover, Nathan Wade (who had absolutely zero experience in cases such as this, but was paid MILLIONS, enough for them to take numerous trips and cruises around the globe!)" Trump posted. "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!" 

California Sen. Adam Schiff, who won election to the Senate last month after serving in the U.S. House, has been a common target of Trump’s for spearheading the first impeachment trial.

The House impeached Trump in 2019 over allegedly leveraging U.S. military aid to Ukraine for political favors involving investigations of the Biden family. Schiff, who served as chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy "reads like a classic organized crime shakedown," opening the floodgates of Trump’s criticisms aimed at the Democrat.

TRUMP FIRES BACK AT 'CORRUPT' SCHIFF, 'PHONY' MAINSTREAM MEDIA DURING FIERY REMARKS ON IMPEACHMENT

The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in the first impeachment as well as his second impeachment involving allegations he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump and Schiff have continued trading barbs since the impeachment saga.

"We have two enemies. We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries," Trump told Fox News’ "Sunday Morning Futures" in October.

"But the thing that’s tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff – Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff," Trump added.

As speculation mounts over who Biden could pardon ahead of his White House exit, Schiff has balked at calls for blanket pardons for those viewed as Trump’s political foes.

​​"I don't think the idea of a blanket pardon of some kind is a good idea. And I would recommend against it," he told CBS News last week. ​

Just days ahead of the election, news broke that the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Gen. Mark Milley, slammed Trump as a "fascist" and "the most dangerous person to this country" in Washington Post editor Bob Woodward’s latest book.

Trump has repeatedly slammed Milley since leaving office, including after the United States' botched withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 when he called Milley a "loser who shamed us in Afghanistan and elsewhere!"

RETIRED GEN MILLEY SAYS AMERICA WILL 'BE OK' UNDER TRUMP AFTER REPORTEDLY SAYING HE WAS 'FASCIST TO THE CORE'

After the election, Milley apparently backtracked his characterization of Trump as a "fascist," saying ​​America will "be OK" under Trump’s second administration.

Trump minced no words on the 2016 campaign trail that if elected president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could face jail time, perhaps previewing a Biden pardon for the Democratic stalwart years later.  

It is "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," Clinton said during a presidential debate against Trump.

HILLARY CLINTON'S NEW STATE DEPARTMENT PORTRAIT INSPIRES MOCKERY ON SOCIAL MEDIA: 'YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL'

"Because you’d be in jail," Trump shot back in a mic-drop moment that earned praise from conservatives and condemnation from Democrats.

"Lock her up" became a common chant during Trump’s 2016 rallies.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who Trump appointed during his first administration, is set to be fired or voluntarily resign from the position as Trump tees up his new pick for FBI chief, Kash Patel, and as conservatives slam Wray for "failing" his duties at the FBI.

The FBI director has also repeatedly come under fire from Trump, including during his Sunday interview on NBC for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago in 2022.

GRASSLEY RIPS WRAY'S 'FAILED' LEADERSHIP AT FBI WITH 11 PAGES OF EXAMPLES IN BLISTERING 'NO-CONFIDENCE' LETTER

"He invaded my home. I’m suing the country over it. He invaded Mar-a-Lago. I’m very unhappy with the things he’s done. And crime is at an all-time high. Migrants are pouring into the country that are from prisons and from mental institutions, as we’ve discussed. I can’t say I’m thrilled," Trump said during the interview.

The FBI declined to comment.

Legal experts have grappled for years with whether a president could pardon himself, but no president has yet tested the waters and actually issued a self-pardon.

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution states that the president has the power to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The Constitution does not stipulate who a president can and can't pardon, instead granting them power to pardon any federal crime.

In Biden’s case, Trump has repeatedly slammed his Oval Office successor, including in June when he said Biden is a "criminal."

​"Joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he’s done," Trump said of Biden in June. 

"This man is a criminal. This man – you’re lucky. You’re lucky. I did nothing wrong. We’d have a system that was rigged and disgusting. I did nothing wrong."

Trump’s pick for FBI director, Patel, is known as a "deep state" crusader, who detailed in his book, "Government Gangsters," an alphabetical list of alleged "deep state" members who are either currently or formerly employed in the executive branch.

Among those on the list are Vice President Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Biden.

Patel has advocated for the firings of "corrupt actors" within the FBI and the federal government overall, "aggressive" congressional oversight over the agency, complete overhauls of special counsels, and moving the FBI out of Washington, D.C. His list of alleged "deep state" actors could indicate which political players could face investigation during a second Trump administration, and if Patel is confirmed by the Senate.

Fox News Digital's Gabriel Hays, Tyler Olson and Kristen Altus contributed to this report.

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

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.

Hunter Biden intends to plead guilty on federal tax charges brought by special counsel David Weiss

Hunter Biden plans to change his plea to guilty on federal tax charges brought against him by special counsel David Weiss, his attorney said in court Thursday, shocking federal prosecutors.

Abbe Lowell, the first son's attorney, said Thursday in federal court that Biden intends to switch his plea and intends to plead guilty. He initially pleaded not guilty. 

Federal prosecutor Leo Wise said that "this is the first we are hearing about this."

The trial began Thursday with jury selection in Los Angeles. 

Weiss charged Biden with three felonies and six misdemeanors concerning $1.4 million in owed taxes that have since been paid. Weiss alleged a "four-year scheme" when the president’s son did not pay his federal income taxes while also filing false tax reports. 

HUNTER BIDEN'S CRIMINAL TAX TRIAL BEGINS WITH JURY SELECTION IN CALIFORNIA

In the indictment, Weiss alleged that Biden "engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019, from in or about January 2017 through in or about October 15, 2020, and to evade the assessment of taxes for tax year 2018 when he filed false returns in or about February 2020."

Weiss said that, in "furtherance of that scheme," Biden "subverted the payroll and tax withholding process of his own company, Owasco, PC by withdrawing millions" from the company "outside of the payroll and tax withholding process that it was designed to perform."

HUNTER BIDEN TAX TRIAL POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER

The special counsel alleged that Biden "spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills," and that in 2018, he "stopped paying his outstanding and overdue taxes for tax year 2015."

Weiss alleged that Biden "willfully failed to pay his 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxes on time, despite having access to funds to pay some or all of these taxes," and that he "willfully failed to file his 2017 and 2018 tax returns on time."

This is the second time Biden is on trial this year stemming from charges out of Weiss' investigation. 

Biden was found guilty on all counts in Delaware after Weiss charged him with making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm; making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a licensed firearm dealer; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. 

A date has not yet been set for sentencing for those charges. With all counts combined, the total maximum prison time for the charges could be up to 25 years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000 and three years of supervised release. 

President Biden has vowed not to pardon his son. 

SCOTUS weighs monumental constitutional fight over Trump immunity claim

The Supreme Court waded cautiously Thursday in a landmark area of law it has never before encountered: whether former presidents have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution, stemming from the special counsel's federal election interference case.

In a special courtroom session lasting more than two and a half hours, the justices appeared to be looking for middle ground that might see at least some of Trump's sweeping claims dismissed, while still allowing future presidents to be criminally exempt from clearly official executive functions — like their role as commander in chief.

The official question the justices are confronting: "Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY AT ODDS OVER EMERGENCY ROOM ABORTION ACCESS IN STATES' RIGHTS CHALLENGE

In riveting arguments, a partisan divide developed early on the nine-member bench, as it weighed whether and when executive official duties versus private conduct in office could be subject to prosecution.

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents.

"If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?" asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."        

Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes, however the court rules: "This will have huge implications for the presidency."

Trump was not in attendance at the argument but talked about the stakes when greeting supporters at a New York construction site.

"A president has to have immunity," he said Thursday morning. "If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president, you won't have a president."

The underlying factor is time — whether the court's expedited ruling, expected in May or June, would allow any criminal trial to get underway before the November presidential election. Depending on the outcome, jury selection could begin by late summer or early fall, or the case could be delayed indefinitely or dismissed altogether. 

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY DIVIDED OVER ENFORCING MUNICIPAL HOMELESS CAMPING BAN

The stakes could not be higher, for both the immediate political prospects and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. 

As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his broad constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority — with three of its members having been appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Smith and several of his deputies attended the arguments. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW WHETHER TRUMP IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

The lengthy courtroom arguments raised a series of hypotheticals to explore the "outer perimeter" of criminal executive liability.

Several justices wondered whether a president could someday be prosecuted for ordering the assassination by his military of a political rival; ordering a nuclear weapons strike; or demanding a bribe for a political appointment.

"If you expunge the official part from the indictment, that's like a one-legged stool, right?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, suggesting official executive acts could be separated from partisan, unofficial acts. "I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange. And if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador of a particular country, that is official: the appointment that's within the president's prerogatives. The unofficial part: I'm going to get $1,000,000 for it."

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the president could stage a coup to remain in office. When John Sauer, Trump's attorney, hedged on an answer, Kagan replied, "That answer sounds to me as though, under my test, it's an official act," subject to post-office prosecution. "But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?"

She added there was no immunity clause in the Constitution for a good reason. "Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?"

Michael Dreeben, attorney for the Special Counsel’s office, defended the government’s position.

"It's baked into the Constitution that any president knows that they are exposed to potential criminal prosecution," he said. "It's common ground that all former presidents have known that they could be indicted and convicted. And Watergate cemented that understanding."

Sauer suggested only an impeachment and conviction in the Senate could lead to future criminal prosecution of an ex-president.

"There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, pointing to her colleagues, "and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment. So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn't say so?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the specific allegations facing Trump and other potential criminal liability, which no jury has yet considered. "I'm having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe and a countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that."

TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL 'CROOKED' JOE BIDEN

But Kavanaugh, who served as President George W. Bush's staff secretary, a key White House legal adviser on executive power, offered larger concerns.

"I'm not focused on the here and now of this case. I'm very concerned about the future," he said.

"We're writing a rule for the ages," added Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: another federal case over his handling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York case over alleged fraud involving hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York state case began April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Again, depending on how the court rules, proceedings may not get underway until later this summer, early fall, or perhaps much later.

The wildest of wildcards: Trump wins re-election and then, upon taking office, orders his attorney general to dismiss the special counsel and his cases. Some justices wondered if Trump — if re-elected — could execute a self-pardon for all past and future crimes.

But the practical fact is that Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited, so a ruling could come sooner. 

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" — meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume. 

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial. 

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean his election interference prosecution collapses and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases.

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court — an indefinite delay in any trial, that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.  

The case is Trump v. U.S. (23-939).

Supreme Court prepares to debate Trump immunity claim in election interference case

In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.

The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president's personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.  

The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted.

The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. 

TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL ENTERS DAY 2

On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. 

A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the three-judge panel wrote. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." 

Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

In its brief on the merits submitted this month, the Special Counsel told the high court that "presidents are not above the law."

"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," said the government. 

But Trump's legal team told the high court, "A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents."

His lawyers added: "The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency."

In a series of supporting briefs, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress are among those backing Trump's legal positions.

Some of the issues the court will have to consider:

Can a former president ever be prosecuted for "official acts," or does he enjoy "absolute immunity?"

By including the words "whether and to what extent" in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may be prepared to limit or narrow "absolute immunity," at least in this case.

But court precedent may give Trump some protection – that former presidents should not face civil liability "predicated on his official acts" (Fitzgerald v. Nixon, 1982). Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: Will the court now extend any implied civil protection to a criminal prosecution? 

What constitutes an official act of a president? Will the court distinguish between Trump's alleged election interference as clearly acting in his executive capacity, or was he acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an incumbent candidate? 

A federal appeals court that rejected Trump's arguments in a separate civil lawsuit alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his "Stop the Steal" rally remarks on Jan. 6, 2021 concluded that "his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act." Trump is making the same immunity claims in those pending lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate 2020 case involving Trump financial records sought by New York prosecutors, wrote, "This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from 'damages liability predicated on his official acts,' But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President's nonofficial conduct." 

Thomas cited the 1997 Clinton v. Jones case, which determined that a sitting president did not have immunity from civil suits over his conduct prior to taking office and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal prosecution, and the justices may weigh whether that deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims from both sides.

What acts are within the outer rim of a president's constitutional duties?  

The lower federal courts deciding the matter pointedly avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. Questions or hypotheticals from the bench may offer hints about how broadly the justices may want to explore the orbit of presidential authority, when weighing political or "discretionary" acts vs. duty-bound or "ministerial" acts.

During January oral arguments before the DC-based federal appeals court, Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, suggested that if a president were to order Seal Team Six military commandos to assassinate a political rival, he could then be criminally prosecuted only if first found guilty by Congress through the impeachment process. 

Given the stakes, the Supreme Court may compromise here and issue a mixed ruling: rejecting Trump's broad immunity claims while preserving certain vital executive functions, like the national security role of commander-in-chief. The big unknown is what side Trump's election-related conduct would fall, in the eyes of the nine justices.  

Do federal courts have any jurisdiction to consider a president's official discretionary decisions?  

On this separation-of-powers question, Smith's team and others have cited the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case that limited a president's power to seize private property – even in a wartime emergency – absent any express congressional authorization. That landmark ruling curbing executive power also affirmed the judiciary's binding role to review a president's actions in office.

Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide not to decide, and throw the competing issues back to the lower courts for further review?

The justices may get buyer's remorse and conclude that weighty questions were not fully considered at the intermediate appellate or trial court level. That could significantly delay any trial.

Or they may let the trial play out first, and give both sides a chance to make their claims before a jury. Depending on the verdict, the Supreme Court would then likely revisit the immunity questions. 

Despite Trump's urging, the court pointedly chose not to address another lingering issue: whether the criminal prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on "double jeopardy," since he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 for election subversion, following his second impeachment.       

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: He faces a federal case over his alleged mishandling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York fraud case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York case began on April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Depending on how the court rules, proceedings might not get underway until later this summer, in early fall or perhaps much later.

EXCUSED JUROR REVEALS SELECTION PROCESS FOR TRUMP'S HUSH MONEY TRIAL: 'NOT A FAN'

There is one other factor to consider: Trump could win re-election and then, upon taking office, order his attorney general to dismiss the Special Counsel and all his cases. Neither side's legal team has yet to publicly speculate on that scenario. 

So, Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited – so a ruling could come sooner.  

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" – meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume.  

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial.  

Chutkan said in December that she does not have jurisdiction over the matter while it is pending before the Supreme Court, and she put a pause on the case against him until the justices decide the matter on the merits.

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean that his election interference prosecution collapses, and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases. 

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win, even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court – an indefinite delay in any trial that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.   

FBI informant who lied about the Bidens’ ties to Ukrainian energy company had high-level Russian contacts: DOJ

A former FBI informant charged with lying about a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme between a Ukrainian energy company and the Bidens had contacts with Russian intelligence officials, prosecutors said Tuesday. 

In court filings, prosecutors said Alexander Smirnov admitted during an interview before his arrest last week that "officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story" about the president’s son, Hunter Biden. They said Smirnov's contacts with Russian officials were recent and extensive, and said Smirnov had planned to meet with one official during an upcoming overseas trip.

They said Smirnov has had numerous contacts with a person he described as the "son of a former high-ranking government official" and "someone with ties to a particular Russian intelligence service." They said there is a serious risk that Smirnov could flee overseas to avoid facing trial.

Prosecutors revealed the alleged contact as they urged a judge to keep Smirnov behind bars while he awaits trial. 

HUNTER BIDEN WAS PAID $100K A MONTH THROUGH CHINESE FIRM VENTURE, EX-ASSOCIATE TESTIFIED

Smirnov, who holds dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, is charged with falsely reporting to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each in 2015 or 2016. 

Smirnov had only routine business dealings with the company starting in 2017 and made the bribery allegations after he "expressed bias" against Joe Biden while he was a presidential candidate, prosecutors said. Special Counsel David Weiss said Smirnov’s lies were aimed at affecting the 2024 presidential election. 

Smirnov is charged with making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record. The charges were filed in Los Angeles, where he lived for 16 years before relocating to Las Vegas two years ago.

Smirnov was due in court later Tuesday in Las Vegas. He has been in custody at a facility in rural Pahrump, about an hour drive west of Las Vegas, since his arrest last week at the airport while returning from overseas.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts allowed Smirnov to be released from custody on electronic GPS monitoring while he awaits trial. He must stay in Clark County, Nevada, and is prohibited from applying for a new passport.

Before his arrest, Smirnov had been scheduled to leave the U.S. for a months-long, multi-country trip that – by his own admission – involved meetings with officials of foreign intelligence agencies and governments, prosecutors said. 

Ahead of Tuesday's hearing, Defense attorneys David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld had argued for Smirnov's release while he awaits trial "so he can effectively fight the power of the government."

Smirnov's claims have been central to the Republican effort in Congress to investigate the president and his family, and helped spark what is now a House impeachment inquiry into Biden. Democrats called for an end to the probe after the indictment came down last week, while Republicans distanced the inquiry from Smirnov's claims and said they would continue to "follow the facts."

Hunter Biden is expected to give a deposition next week.

The Burisma allegations became a flashpoint in Congress as Republicans pursuing investigations of President Biden and his family demanded the FBI release the unredacted form documenting the allegations. They acknowledged they couldn't confirm if the allegations were true.

Fox News' David Spunt and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Texas AG Ken Paxton sues 5 cities over marijuana amnesty policies, cites drug’s reported links to ‘psychosis’

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed lawsuits against five Texas cities – Austin, Denton, San Marcos, Killeen and Elgin – over their marijuana amnesty and non-prosecution policies. 

The litigation charges that the five municipalities adopted ordinances or policies instructing police not to enforce Texas drug laws concerning possession and distribution of marijuana, which the state attorney general's office describes as "an illicit substance that psychologists have increasingly linked to psychosis and other negative consequences."

"I will not stand idly by as cities run by pro-crime extremists deliberately violate Texas law and promote the use of illicit drugs that harm our communities," Paxton said in a statement Wednesday. "This unconstitutional action by municipalities demonstrates why Texas must have a law to ‘follow the law.’ It’s quite simple: the legislature passes every law after a full debate on the issues, and we don’t allow cities the ability to create anarchy by picking and choosing the laws they enforce."

The ordinances notably prevent city funds from going toward or personnel from even testing suspected marijuana seized by police officers, with limited exceptions. 

The attorney general's office said Paxton "remains committed to maintaining law and order in Texas when cities violate the lawful statutes designed to protect the public from crime, drugs, and violence. He continues to seek accountability for the rogue district attorneys whose abuse of prosecutorial discretion has contributed to a deadly national crimewave." 

LAWYER FOR CALIFORNIA WOMAN AVOIDING JAIL IN MARIJUANA STABBING STANDS BY 'PSYCHOTIC' DEFENSE: 'NOT A CON JOB'

The lawsuits stress that Texas Local Government Code forbids any political subdivision from adopting "a policy under which the entity will not fully enforce laws relating to drugs." Further, the Texas Constitution notes that it is unlawful for municipalities to adopt ordinances that are inconsistent with the laws enacted by the Texas Legislature (Article 9, Section 5). 

Namely, with the Democratically-run city of Austin, Paxton's lawsuit takes issue with an order that became effective on July 3, 2020, instructing the Austin Police Department not to make an arrest or issue a citation for marijuana possession unless in the investigation of a violent felony or high priority felony-level narcotics case. 

A ballot measure known as Proposition A to further eliminate low-level marijuana enforcement later won the vote in 2022, and the City Council codified it into law as the Austin Freedom Act. 

In addition to limiting police from filing marijuana possession charges unless they come as part of a high-level probe or at the direction of a commander, the measure also states that no city funds or personnel shall be used to request, conduct, or obtain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) testing of any cannabis-related substance, except in some limited circumstances. It adds the caveat that the prohibition shall not limit the ability of police to conduct toxicology testing to ensure public safety, nor shall it limit THC testing for the purpose of any violent felony charge.

ALARMING NEW TREND IS EMERGING AS YOUNGER AMERICANS ESCHEW ALCOHOL ON DATES, GO MORE FOR CANNABIS

Austin, Denton, San Marcos, Killeen and Eligin are all considered "home-rule" jurisdictions, meaning they have the "full power of self-government" and do not need grants from the state legislature to enact local ordinances.

In Killeen, located next to the once embattled Fort Hood, since renamed Fort Cavazos, voters approved a Proposition A of their own in 2022. 

It similarly states that officers should not make arrests for marijuana possession or drug residue alone. If there is probable cause to believe a substance is marijuana, officers can seize the substance. But the ordinance requires that police then also write a detailed report and release the individual if possession of marijuana is the sole charge. 

In Denton, located in the Dallas Fort-Worth metro area, another similar measure enacted by City Council known as Proposition B says officers cannot issue citations or make arrests for Class A or B misdemeanor marijuana possession. Elgin, considered a suburb of Austin, and San Marcos, which sits on the corridor between Austin and San Antonio, also both adopted similar ordinances designed to stifle marijuana enforcement in conflict with state law, according to Paxton's lawsuits.

The litigation comes after headline-making news out of California, where a judge recently ruled a woman who stabbed her boyfriend 108 times before slicing her own neck as police tried to stop her will not serve any prison time because she had fallen into a pot-fueled psychosis after getting high on drugs at the time. 

Though unrelated, the marijuana lawsuits were filed just a day after the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to temporarily halt Paxton's scheduled testimony in a whistleblower lawsuit that was at the heart of the impeachment charges brought against him in 2023, delaying what could have been the Republican’s first sworn statements on corruption allegations. 

NRA prepares for legal battles against blue state governor ‘torching the Constitution’ with gun control

New Mexico is kicking off its 2024 legislative term with a number of gun control bills that the NRA is already teeing up to battle in court, Fox News Digital has learned. 

"Extremist Governor Lujan Grisham and her allies have unleashed a barrage of gun control proposals that punish the lawful … while ignoring criminals. Last year, Lujan Grisham effectively suspended the Second Amendment by denying citizens their right to carry and self-defense," NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) Executive Director Randy Kozuch told Fox News Digital. 

"Now, she's doubling down on her attacks, effectively torching the Constitution with her latest gun control insanity."

Lujan Grisham held her State of the State address Tuesday afternoon and called for the passage of a gun safety package she said would better protect residents from crime and violence, especially children. 

NRA GETS UNANIMOUS GOP BACKING IN SUIT TO DISMANTLE GOVERNOR’S ‘UNLAWFUL’ GUN ORDER

"I'm calling for a gun safety package. It bans assault weapons, raises the legal purchase for all guns to 21, institutes a 14-day waiting period, increasing penalties for felons in possession of a firearm, keeps guns out of parks and playgrounds and allows law enforcement officers to now file extreme risk protection orders," Lujan Grisham said Tuesday.

"I want to be very clear: No responsible gun owner should be punished or prevented from exercising their right. And no child should ever be put in danger by a weapon of war, especially one wielded by a person who can't pass a background check or can't wait two weeks to get a firearm." 

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

Lujan Grisham's remarks came after the governor was repeatedly interrupted by protesters with videos on social media showing protesters wearing "cease-fire now" shirts, referring to the war in Israel. 

There are six gun control bills filed in the state House and Senate this legislative season and an "assault weapons ban" that has not yet been introduced but is detailed in a recent press release from the governor as a bill aimed at regulating "the manufacture, possession and sale of weapons of war, most often the gun used in mass casualty event." 

Lujan Grisham announced her "public safety legislative agenda" last week, which she described as the "largest" safety package in New Mexico history, while pinning blame on gun violence for recent crime trends. 

"This is, without a doubt, the largest and most comprehensive public safety package in our state’s history," Lujan Grisham said last week of the package, according to a press release. "Gun violence is a significant contributor to the cycles of crime in our communities, and we will continue to use every tool at our disposal to end this epidemic. 

"Likewise, we will strengthen our support for law enforcement, increase penalties for violent crimes and, once again, pursue legislation to keep violent offenders behind bars pending trial. All of this will build upon the progress and investments we’ve made in previous years."

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

In the New Mexico House, four bills have already been filed, including House Bill 27, which would expand the state’s red flag confiscation laws to allow law enforcement and health officials to report a person’s potentially harmful behavior, which could require the individual to surrender guns to authorities. 

House Bill 114, if passed, would allow the New Mexico attorney general or local district attorneys to file lawsuits against the gun industry for injunctive relief and civil penalties. 

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

The other two bills, House Bill 127 and House Bill 129, would prohibit anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing and possessing a semi-automatic weapon and increase the waiting period on gun purchases to 14 business days, respectively. The NRA-ILA notes on its website that if House Bill 129 passes, New Mexico would have the longest gun purchase waiting period in the nation. 

The Senate has introduced its own version of a bill that would impose a 14-business day waiting period on gun purchases and a bill that would impose an 11% excise tax on guns, gun parts, suppressors and ammunition. The tax bill, styled after a similar California law that takes effect later this year, would collect the tax from gun retailers and place the funds in a victims reparation fund and a fund for abused children and families. 

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

"As a clear enemy of the Second Amendment and our self-defense rights, Governor Lujan Grisham is already being challenged by the NRA in the New Mexico Supreme Court. We remain on the front lines, ready to combat each and every one of her new oppressive gun control measures. The NRA stands with freedom-loving New Mexicans against Lujan Grisham's assault," Kozuch said. 

Lujan Grisham came under fierce condemnation last year after signing an emergency public health order that temporarily suspended open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and the surrounding county. 

NEW MEXICO DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR SLAMMED FOR 'ANTI-2ND AMENDMENT' PUSH: 'ILLEGALLY TRYING TO SNATCH GUNS'

The NRA responded with a lawsuit in the state's Supreme Court, arguing the order was unconstitutional, which earned unanimous support from GOP state House and Senate members and retired law enforcement officers, the Republican Party of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party of New Mexico.

As the number of lawsuits increased over the order, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, distanced himself from the governor, telling her he would not defend her administration in court. Other Democrats also spoke critically of the measure, as did gun control activist and Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg.

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

"No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," Lujan Grisham responded to a reporter in September when asked whether it’s "unconstitutional" to prevent Americans from exercising their right to bear arms.

Texas AG Ken Paxton, wife targeted by home ‘swatting’ on New Year’s Day

FIRST ON FOX: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife are the latest elected Republicans to fall victim to "swatting" after a false report using their home's address was made to authorities.

Addressing the swatting incident in a statement to Fox News Digital, Paxton and his wife, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, said they were not at their McKinney home on New Year's Day when first responders arrived on the scene. The couple described the false report to police as being a "life-threatening" situation.

"On New Year’s Day, a currently unidentified caller made a false report to 911 describing a life-threatening situation at our home in McKinney," the couple said. "As a result, the City of McKinney Police and Fire Departments quickly and bravely responded to what they believed could be a dangerous environment. We were not home at the time and were made aware of the false report when a state trooper, who was contacted by McKinney police, informed us of the incident."

"Making false reports to 911 is a crime which should be vigorously prosecuted when this criminal is identified. These fake calls divert resources from actual emergencies and crimes and could endanger our first responders," the couple continued. "We are grateful for the bravery and professionalism of the men and women serving in the McKinney police and fire departments."

WHAT IS 'SWATTING,' THE 'CRIMINAL HARASSMENT' HOAX THAT'S HIT 3 GOP LAWMAKERS SINCE CHRISTMAS?

"It is also important to acknowledge that this 'swatting' incident happened weeks after the disgraced Speaker of the House Dade Phelan, his lieutenants, and the Dallas Morning News doxed our family by publicly posting our address," they added. "We understand some people may not agree with our strong conservative efforts to secure the border, prevent election fraud, and protect our constitutional liberties, but compromising the effectiveness and safety of law enforcement is completely unacceptable."

The McKinney Police Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the matter.

"Swatting" is a crime that has become prominent in recent years, gaining more steam in the social media age when people's addresses are easily accessible.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital recently that swatting is a crime that could be "charged as a form of criminal threats."

"Swatting constitutes a false police report that can be criminally charged," Turley said. "Virginia recently passed a new law making swatting specifically a criminal misdemeanor. It can also be charged as a form of criminal threats."

The incident involving Paxton comes after three Republican lawmakers – Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene of Georgia, and Rep. Brandon Williams of New York – reported "swatting" incidents at their homes after the Christmas holiday.

"This is a crime that flourishes because there is insufficient deterrent," Turley added. "The anonymity and rare prosecutions combine to fuel this form of criminal harassment. … There is no mystery to how to address these crimes. There must be greater detection and penalties to achieve deterrence."

The crime targets an individual by calling in a false police report for a violent crime — such as a murder, a hostage situation or other crimes that would require a greater law enforcement response — to the home of the target.

The goal of the false police report is to elicit a SWAT team response by the police to the target's home. Consequently, swatting draws police resources away from real crimes while the state becomes the unwitting arm to terrorize a person at their own home.

MTG TO INTRODUCE BILL AIMED AT 'SWATTERS' AS RICK SCOTT BECOMES LATEST TARGET

Greene, who has been a victim of the move multiple times herself, announced last week on X that she would be "introducing legislation to make it much easier for law enforcement to arrest and prosecutors to prosecute these criminals" who engage in the false reports.

Over the course of the last year, Paxton has faced an onslaught of accusations from officials in the state, primarily Texas Democrats, who have accused the attorney general of being unfit for office.

Last May, the Texas House of Representatives voted to impeach Paxton over charges of bribery, disregard of official duties and abuse of public trust after hours of debate in an afternoon session – sending the case to the state Senate. The Texas Senate, however, acquitted Paxton of all impeachment articles filed against him for corruption and unfitness for office in September 2023.

Though there was support for impeachment on both sides of the aisle, votes to convict on each charge did not clear the required 21-vote threshold in the Senate. Republican Sens. Robert Nichols and Kelly Hancock joined all 12 Democrats to vote in favor of conviction on several charges.

"Today, the truth prevailed. The truth could not be buried by mudslinging politicians or their powerful benefactors," Paxton said in a statement at the time, thanking his supporters after the verdict was delivered. "The sham impeachment coordinated by the Biden Administration with liberal House Speaker Dade Phelan and his kangaroo court has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, disrupted the work of the Office of Attorney General and left a dark and permanent stain on the Texas House."

"Now that this shameful process is over, my work to defend our constitutional rights will resume. Thank you to everyone who has stood with us during this time," he added.

Prior to his acquittal, Paxton faced accusations that he misused his political power to help real estate developer Nate Paul. Paxton's opponents have argued that the attorney general accepted a bribe by hiring Paul.

Paxton was also previously indicted in June for allegedly making false statements to banks.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Paxton, who was suspended from office pending the trial's outcome, was not required to attend the proceedings. Paxton's wife, who has represented the state's eight district in the Senate since 2019, was required to be present for the whole trial but was prohibited from participating in debate or voting on the outcome of her husband's trial.

Paxton, who previously served as a member of both the Texas House and Senate, was first elected to serve as the Lone Star State's attorney general in 2014. He was re-elected to the position in 2018 and 2022.

Fox News' Chris Pandolfo, Houston Keene, and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

How recent ‘swatting’ calls targeting officials may prompt heavier penalties for hoax police calls

ATLANTA (AP) — A spate of false reports of shootings at the homes of public officials in recent days could be setting the stage for stricter penalties against so-called swatting in more states.

U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Georgia U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost have been among the victims.

OHIO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKER LATEST VICTIM OF ‘SWATTING’ INCIDENT

Several Georgia lawmakers targeted say they want increased penalties for swatting, like laws enacted this year in Ohio and Virginia. Similar bills are pending in other states and Congress.

Here's a look at the issue and what could be done about it:

WHAT IS ‘SWATTING’?

Swatting is the act of making a prank call to emergency services to prompt a response at a particular address. The goal is to get authorities, particularly a SWAT team, to show up.

Calls in multiple states in recent days featured the voice of a man calling himself "Jamal," claiming he had shot his wife because she was sleeping with another man and saying he was holding the boyfriend hostage, demanding $10,000.

Two Ohio lawmakers said they thought they were targeted recently for helping pass a law making swatting a felony in the state.

Georgia state Sen. Clint Dixon said the incident at his house in Buford on Christmas evening was "quite startling" for himself, his wife and three children.

"I was watching a little football and my wife was upstairs packing for a trip, and all of a sudden, I heard her, you know, start yelling, ‘There’s police running at the door.’ She saw on our Ring doorbell," he told WABE.

WHO'S BEEN TARGETED RECENTLY?

A man in New York called the Georgia suicide hotline just before 11 a.m. Monday, claiming that he had shot his girlfriend at Greene’s home in Rome, Georgia, and was going to kill himself next, said Kelly Madden, the Rome police spokesperson. The call was quickly transferred to police when suicide hotline responders recognized the congresswoman’s address.

The department said it contacted Greene’s private security detail to confirm she was safe and that there was no emergency. The call was then determined to be a swatting attempt so the response was canceled while police were on the way. Greene has been the subject of multiple swatting attempts.

Scott wrote on X that police were sent to his home in Naples, Florida, while he and his wife were out at dinner on Wednesday night. Police said they met Scott’s private security service at the home, but didn’t find anything out of place.

"These criminals wasted the time & resources of our law enforcement in a sick attempt to terrorize my family," Scott wrote.

In Boston, a male caller claimed on Monday that he had shot his wife and had tied her and another man up at Wu’s home. The Democratic mayor said she was surprised to open the door and see flashing lights, but said her home has been targeted by multiple swatting calls since she took office in 2021.

"For better or worse, my family are a bit used to it by now, and we have a good system with the department," Wu told WBUR.

Also targeted have been a Republican congressman from New York, Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and a former state senator in Nebraska. Dixon was among four Georgia state senators who were recently swatted. In Ohio, a total of three current or former state lawmakers were affected.

Jones said his home in a small town south of Atlanta was swatted on Wednesday, only to have a bomb threat called in on Thursday.

"Thankfully everyone is safe, and I commend our local law enforcement officers for their professionalism," Jones wrote on X. "Let me be clear — I will not be intimidated by those attempting to silence me," Jones wrote on X We will put an end to this madness.

HOW WIDESPREAD IS THE PROBLEM?

Hundreds of cases of swatting occur annually, with some using caller ID spoofing to disguise their number. And those targeted extend far beyond public officials.

Police in Lincoln, Nebraska, told KETV-TV that they had handled three swatting calls in the same 48-hour period in which they went to the unoccupied home of former state Sen. Adam Morfeld.

The FBI said earlier this year that it had created a national database in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies to track swatting incidents nationwide. Police had for months reported a huge surge in fake claims about active shooters at schools and colleges. There have also been reports of hundreds of swatting incidents and bomb threats against synagogues and other Jewish institutions since the Israel-Hamas war began.

The Anti-Defamation League estimates that by 2019 there were more than 1,000 incidents of swatting nationwide each year. That group says each incident can costs taxpayers thousands of dollars in emergency response costs.

DO FALSE THREATS POSE OTHER RISKS?

Such calls have proven dangerous and even outright deadly.

In 2017, a police officer in Wichita, Kansas, shot and killed a man while responding to a hoax emergency call. Earlier this year, the city agreed to pay $5 million to settle a related lawsuit, with the money to go to the two children of 28-year-old Andrew Finch.

In 2015, police in Maryland shot a 20-year-old man in the face with rubber bullets after a fake hostage situation was reported at his home.

In addition to putting innocent people at risk, police and officials say they worry about diverting resources from real emergencies.

WHAT KIND OF RESPONSE COULD THIS PROMPT?

Police are investigating the recent threats. No arrests have yet been reported.

Ohio earlier this year made it a felony offense to report a false emergency that prompts response by law enforcement. And Virginia increased the penalties for swatting to up to 12 months in jail.

Dixon, the Georgia state senator, said in a statement he planned to introduce a bill during the upcoming legislative session to strengthen penalties for false reporting and misuse of police forces.

"This issue goes beyond politics — it’s about public safety and preserving the integrity of our institutions," he said.

Jones, the Georgia lieutenant governor, promised "an end to this madness" after his home in a small town south of Atlanta was swatted on Wednesday, only to have a bomb threat called in to his office on Thursday.

"Let me be clear — I will not be intimidated by those attempting to silence me," Jones wrote on X.