In an interview on Thursday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed her family’s shock and anguish as they watched the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Donald Trump’s supporters.
Clinton appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” as part of a promotional tour for her new memoir, “Something Lost, Something Gained.”
“Bill [Clinton] told me that there were rioters who were doing what they thought to be Trump’s bidding, trying to interrupt the certification of the election in the Congress and were in full riot mode,” Clinton said. “Bill had his—literally—head in his hands, he just could not believe it. I was looking at a place I’d gone to work in for eight years, I was stunned. Sickened.”
Clinton also noted that her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, who grew up in the public eye and has had cordial relationships with members of both parties, joined her and her husband “in a state of deep, deep worry and despair” watching the events unfold.
Clinton said her family questioned Trump’s failure to call off his supporters as they ransacked the building.
“[Trump] was enjoying what he was watching on television, that’s the only conclusion one can draw,” Clinton said. She cited Trump’s support of “raw power, intimidation, domination” and praise for authoritarian leaders like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to explain the motivation for his inaction on “one of the worst days in American history.”
Seven people died as a result of the attack and at least 174 police officers were assaulted. Trump was impeached—for a historic second time—for inciting the attack, and has been charged with federal crimes for attempting to interfere in the election process.
During his current presidential campaign, Trump has said if elected he would grant pardons to Jan. 6 rioters that have been convicted.
At the Sept. 10 presidential debate, Vice President Kamala Harris said the Jan. 6 events were the “worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War” and a key element of Trump’s presidential legacy.
Harris also said, “I was at the Capitol on January 6th. I was the vice president elect. I was also an acting senator. I was there. And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's capital to desecrate our nation's capital on that day.”
As Donald Trump’s campaign collapses into nothing but abject racism, the GOP has a predicament: how can they make whipping up a pogrom against Haitians in Ohio and running around with C-list racist influencers like Laura Loomer drive voter turnout in crucial swing states? The answer, of course, is they can’t.
Anyone who thinks this behavior is perfectly fine was already aboard the Trump Train. So, Republicans are doing what they do best: trying to manipulate the ballot and suppress the vote.
Consider North Carolina, which went for Trump in 2020 by only about 75,000 votes. The state is in play this year, with Vice President Kamala Harris currently leading Trump 49% to 46%, though that is within the poll’s margin of error. Harris had two rallies in the state last week, Gov. JD Vance showed up there over the weekend, and both Trump and Vance are going there this week.
But there’s more action behind the scenes, with GOP lawyers using the judicial process to create the most favorable conditions for a candidate who is not interested in appealing to voters and is instead just ranting about mass deportation.
Early last week, the GOP got the North Carolina Supreme Court to remove former Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name from the ballot. Kennedy admitted he is only attempting to remove his name in states where it helps Trump. This victory didn’t just give Trump the edge he was seeking—he polls better in a two-candidate race than with Kennedy on the ballot—it also forced the state to reprint millions of ballots and blow through a Sept. 6 state deadline to begin mailing out absentee ballots. Now, absentee ballots won’t start going out until Sept. 20
Not content with delaying absentee ballots for everyone in the state, the GOP then waited just two days to file another lawsuit. This one is targeted at college students, a demographic that Republicans frequently try to stop from voting. Three weeks ago, the North Carolina Board of Elections voted to allow students and faculty at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill to use their digital ID for voting. Switching to digital IDs isn’t some far-fetched thing that only woke schools are doing—beginning in 2025, North Carolina residents can choose a digital driver’s license stored on a smartphone.
The GOP complaint alleges, without any detail, that the mere approval of the use of the digital ID, well before any actual voting, has forced the state Republican party to “divert significant attention and resources into combatting election fraud.” Additionally, it alleges that the state party’s “organizational and voter outreach efforts” are frustrated by the approval of the use of a digital ID, and that it would result in hundreds or thousands of ineligible people voting.
Republicans love attacking the use of student IDs, digital and otherwise. North Dakota, Idaho, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas all require voters to show identification but do not allow any form of student ID. Student voter turnout jumped 14% from 2016 to 2020, and young voters are overwhelmingly Democratic. Making it harder for them to vote is just sound strategy when you otherwise have nothing to offer them.
Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign event, Thursday, Sept. 12, 2024, in Greensboro, N.C.
North Carolina isn’t the only swing state where Republicans are using the courts to gain an advantage they can’t obtain by getting voters to agree with their unhinged ideas. Look at Pennsylvania, where Harris visited six times in seven days, a stretch during which Trump, confusingly, went to California, a state he lost by millions of votes in 2020. Not a terribly sound campaign strategy on his part, but the GOP just prevailed in their lawsuit to block the state from counting any absentee ballots where voters fail to write a date or put the wrong date on their absentee ballot envelopes.
It’s a dumb technicality, and the best course of action, the one that maximizes the franchise of voting, would be to count all those ballots that are otherwise correct. This is an error on the envelope, not the ballot, and it’s one that doesn’t in any way affect determining who someone meant to vote for.
The failure to date or mis-dating is common, with over 4,000 ballots being rejected for dating issues during the April 2024 primary. Given that the 2024 primary turnout in Pennsylvania was less than half of the general election turnout in 2020, it’s inevitable the number of ballots rejected for this reason in the upcoming general election will well exceed 4,000. Biden only won the state by 80,000 votes in 2020, and Trump only won by 44,000 in 2016.
The GOP is trying the same thing in Michigan, where last week it sued Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson over guidance her office issued about verification of absentee ballots. The RNC says Benson’s guidance doesn’t adequately inform clerks that every absentee voter ballot return envelope must contain “a statement by the city or township clerk that the absent voter ballot is approved for tabulation.”
As with North Carolina, this isn’t an error on the ballot itself. This is about rejecting ballots because a state worker neglects to stamp an outside envelope on an otherwise valid absentee ballot.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein speaks at a news conference.
In Nevada, where Biden prevailed by roughly 34,000 votes in 2020, the state Supreme Court removed perennial spoiler candidate Jill Stein from the ballot because the Green Party used the wrong petition to get signatures. Minor party ballot access petitions require “the attestation that each signatory was a registered voter in the county of his or her residence,” but petitions for ballot referendums, which is what the Green Party used, do not contain that language.
Fresh off insisting the best thing for democracy in North Carolina was to remove a spoiler candidate from the ballot, the GOP ran to the United States Supreme Court to insist the best thing for democracy in Nevada is to keep a spoiler candidate on the ballot. Where in North Carolina, the concern was that Kennedy. would pull votes from Trump, in Nevada the GOP hope is that Stein would pull votes from Harris.
That’s why the lawyer petitioning the Supreme Court isn’t one who has been affiliated with the Green Party or who shares any of Stein’s views. Rather, it’s Jay Sekulow, who coordinated Trump’s personal legal team while Trump was in office and served as defense counsel for Trump’s first impeachment trial.
Normally, deciding who goes on the ballot would belong exclusively to the state. Indeed, that’s why each state has a different way of making that determination and it’s a core principle of federalism. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court ignored that principle earlier this year when it ordered Colorado to keep Trump on the ballot even though he no longer qualified under state law due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection. There’s no reason to believe the conservatives on this court won’t decide to throw Trump a helping hand in Nevada.
The GOP has outsourced its ground game and let Trump drain campaign coffers to cover his legal bills. They’re not presenting any appealing ideas to swing voters, instead leaning hard into their rabid, bloodthirsty base. But those voters aren’t enough, which means this path—the one that actively disenfranchises voters—is all they’ve got.
Former President Trump told reporters on Friday that California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Garvey "hasn’t reached out to MAGA" after the presidential nominee was asked why he hadn’t endorsed Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff’s opponent.
"I don’t know much about Steve Garvey. I think he’s made a big mistake because he hasn’t reached out to MAGA," Trump said outside his Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes following a press conference where he spoke out against "Comrade Kamala Harris and the communist left."
He said if the former Major League Baseball star Garvey "doesn’t have MAGA, he has no chance."
Trump was fundraising in California Thursday and Friday.
"Well, I haven’t spoken to him," Trump added of Garvey. "I’m hearing he wants the MAGA endorsement, but he’s got to call me. If he had the MAGA endorsement, he could win. If you had an honest election he’d win, but you don’t have an honest election."
Garvey previously told FOX 11 he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.
He told Fox News Digital in a statement, "Since day one, I've ran a different type of campaign, I have not taken or asked for a single political endorsement. The only endorsements I want are from the law enforcement community and first responders. This week, we launched a historic campaign dedicating all of our resources to talk with California's Latino community from now until the election.
"My focus is, and always has been, on the issues that truly matter to Californians — affordability, public safety, securing the border, fixing the homelessness crisis and restoring California's leadership. I'm running a ‘Steve Garvey’ campaign for all the people of California, not for partisan or special interests. I'm committed to tackling the challenges that families and communities face every day and making sure that California has the voice it deserves in Washington."
Trump also disparaged Schiff as "one of the sleaziest politicians in history, Crooked Adam Schiff. He’s one of the most disgusting human beings and to think he’s going to be a senator. That’s why you need me as president, because this guy is a sleazebag."
He called it "impossible to believe" Schiff could represent the area.
The former president has long disliked the Los Angeles-area congressman, who served as the lead impeachment manager in Trump's first Senate trial and was a vocal critic throughout his presidency.
Schiff responded to Trump's comments about him on X, writing, "I don’t think he likes me."
"Steve Garvey’s a nice guy. I don’t know him at all," Trump told reporters. "But if he doesn’t reach out to MAGA, he has absolutely no chance."
Schiff is heavily favored to win in the deep blue state that hasn’t had a Republican senator since John Seymor lost his election in 1992.
Thirty-two members of Congress have signed a “Unity Commitment” pledging to respect the results of the upcoming presidential election, certify the results, and attend the inauguration while calling for calm and opposing related political violence, according to a copy of the pledge obtained by Politico and released on Friday.
Historically, certifying election results has been a routine function of Congress, conducted without controversy or violence—until supporters of Donald Trump rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Six of the 32 pledge’s signatories are Republicans, with most coming from swing districts. They are Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon, and Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota, and Anthony D’Esposito, all from New York. The remaining 26 signatories are Democrats.
Bacon, who represents Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, organized the pledge with Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey. Bacon’s district is of unusual importance to the 2024 election because it exists in one of only two states (along with Maine) that allocates part of its Electoral College vote based on which candidate wins in the district. In 2020, President Joe Biden won one of his 306 electoral votes from the district, defeating Donald Trump. And Bacon was reelected to his seat in 2022 by less than 3 percentage points.
Similarly, Fitzpatrick, Lawler, Chavez-DeRemer, and D’Esposito won by just single digits that year, though LaLota won by 11 points. Those who were in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, also voted to certify Biden’s victory over Trump. In total, 147 Republicans—139 in the House, eight in the Senate—voted against certifying the 2020 results.
In all likelihood, the Republicans who signed the Unity Commitment face constituents who are less likely to buy into the election denialism promoted by right-wing figures like Donald Trump.
By contrast, on the same day the pledge was released, Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin said on CNN that he would not commit to certifying the results. Mullin’s home state has strongly supported Trump’s campaigns, with Trump winning it by over 30 points in 2020.
“I’m not going to sit up here and tell you what I’m going to do and not going to do until I see the results,” he told CNN host Pamela Brown.
Mullin’s remarks follow Trump once again lying during Tuesday’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that he won the 2020 race.
Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, similarly said in a recent interview that he would have supported fake electors in 2020 that falsely claimed Trump had won, a process which would have invalidated millions of Biden-Harris votes.
Law enforcement officials recently announced enhanced security procedures meant to prevent another Jan. 6-style event. The Secret Service on Wednesday said it had designated the upcoming certification of the presidential election as a “National Special Security Event,” following a request from Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser.
A Virginia congressional candidate whose brother was a star witness in the first then-President Donald Trump impeachment is facing allegations of campaign finance violations and misrepresenting his military record.
The campaign staff of Eugene Vindman, a Democratic candidate in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, referred press inquiries about the candidate’s military record to VoteVets, a political action committee (PAC) that supports progressive military veterans running for office. VoteVets has endorsed Vindman, a former Army infantry officer and Army lawyer.
Two watchdog groups – the Functional Government Initiative and the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust – allege in separate complaints to the Federal Election Commission that this is illegal coordination between the campaign and the super PAC. The FEC complaints allege VoteVets PAC provided a service to the Vindman campaign by managing its press inquiries.
"The law is quite clear that providing a service to a campaign is an in-kind contribution. Communication is something a campaign usually pays for, not having a super PAC make statements," Kendra Arnold, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), told Fox News Digital.
Eugene Vindman is the brother of Col. Alexander Vindman, a former National Security Council member who testified in the 2019 House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This led to Trump’s first House Democrat-led impeachment.
Eugene Vindman is running against Republican Derrick Anderson, a former Army Green Beret.
FACT is basing its complaint on a documented email exchange between a Washington Free Beacon reporter, Vindman’s campaign manager and Travis Tazelaar, the political director VoteVets PAC.
"We have seen campaigns push the limits with super PACs, but this is not just pushing the limits. It’s an explicit in-kind contribution," Arnold said.
Last month, Vindman's campaign manager Jeremy Levinson said in the email to a Washington Free Beacon reporter, "I am looping in VoteVets who is going to be providing comments on our behalf to your initial inquiry."
The campaign manager added, "All future questions on this matter or any matters can be directed to him."
To say "or any matters" is problematic, Arnold said.
"The traditional timeline for an FEC investigation is long. We hope they can expedite this case given the circumstances," Arnold said. "The Vindman campaign referred the press to VoteVets on this and any other issues."
In this case, Tazelaar responded to the Free Beacon’s media inquiry with a statement on Vindman's behalf.
A Vindman campaign spokesperson was dismissive of the FEC complaints.
"The bottom line is that we worked with the coordinated side of the VoteVets organization on the response to the Free Beacon outreach," a Vindman campaign spokesperson told Fox News Digital. "The FEC rules are clear that this interaction does not violate its rules and would not constitute an in-kind contribution."
Similarly, David Mitrani, the general counsel to VoteVets, said there was no FEC violation.
"The claims made in Functional Government Initiative’s complaint is simply false," Mitrani told Fox News Digital in a statement. "VoteVets’ activities are in full compliance with campaign finance laws."
The statement only addressed one complaint. In a follow-up email, a VoteVets spokesperson said the statement was intended to address complaints from both the Functional Government Initiative and the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.
The six-member Federal Election Commission is equally made up of Republicans and Democrats and rulings often end in tie votes.
Federal law on coordinated communication, or 11 CFR 109.21(h); 11 C.F.R. 106.1(c)(1), covers when campaign work "is paid for, in whole or in part, by a person other than that candidate, authorized committee, or political party committee." The law also prohibits an outside "vendor," within 120 days of the election from developing "media strategy, including the selection or purchasing of advertising slots," developing "the content of a public communication," and "producing a public communication."
The controversy over campaign finance laws stems from the questions over Vindman’s military record.
Vindman’s GOP opponent Derrick Anderson said Vindman "should answer all these legitimate questions about inflating his military resume."
"I respect that he served in the military, but voters deserve answers – not another D.C. politician that hides from them," Anderson told Fox News Digital in a statement. "Right now, Vindman won’t even debate me on TV because he’s not willing to answer questions about the simple fact that he’s not being straight with voters about his resume."
Vindman had previously said he "fought for our nation in combat," however a 2019 Daily Mail article said Vindman "has not seen combat." In mid-August, the Washington Free Beacon reported that when it contacted the Vindman campaign, campaign chief Levinson copied VoteVets Tazelaar and referred "all future questions" to the PAC.
In its response to the Beacon, the VoteVets spokesperson reportedly said, "There was no front line in Iraq — and the Vindman family was grateful that Eugene was able to return home unscathed while so many other of our brothers and sisters in arms did not."
The Harris-Walz campaign on Monday released a new ad highlighting major Republican figures who have worked with Donald Trump that have now shunned him and oppose his presidential campaign.
The ad, titled “The Best People,” is set to run on Fox News Channel and in West Palm Beach, Florida (where Trump’s home/resort Mar-A-Lago is located) ahead of the upcoming presidential debate.
Included in the ad are quotes from many who were part of Trump’s first administration: former Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, national security adviser John Bolton, and General Mark Milley.
“Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States. It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year,” Pence said.
When asked if the nation’s secrets are safe with Trump, Esper answered, “No, I mean, it's just irresponsible action that places our service members at risk, places our nation's security at risk.”
Bolton states that “Trump will cause a lot of damage. The only thing he cares about is Donald Trump.”
The ad follows recent announcements from former Rep. Liz Cheney and former Vice President Dick Cheney—both prominent Republicans—that they would be voting for Harris in the election, citing the threat that Trump represents to democracy.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He can never be trusted with power again,” Cheney said in a statement.
Trump infamously called on Pence to subvert the U.S. Constitution following their joint loss to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2020 presidential election. On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump posted on X, formerly Twitter, “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”
Pence declined to follow Trump’s demand and instead followed federal law by voting to certify the election results. Trump then encouraged his supporters to attack the Capitol, for which he was later impeached (for a second time).
The new ad also highlights the rupture in the relationship between Trump and Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump. Milley and the other heads of America’s military branches (Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard) sent out a statement in January 2021 condemning the Jan. 6 attack.
U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley
In a 2023 speech excerpted in the commercial, Milley warned of “wannabe dictators” in what was widely seen as a condemnation of Trump.
“We are unique among the world’s militaries. We don’t take an oath to a country, we don’t take an oath to a tribe, we don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator,” Milley said. “And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America—and we’re willing to die to protect it.”
As part of his campaign, Trump has said he would use the power of the presidency in a second term to round up and mass deport undocumented immigrants. Trump has also said he would seek retribution against his political enemies.
Since being sworn into office in 2021, Biden has used the presidency to advocate for freedom and has warned about the autocratic threat from Trump and the Republican Party. In his July address from the Oval Office announcing his decision to step down from the presidential race, Biden said the move was motivated by his support for democracy.
“The great thing about America is, here, kings and dictators do not rule. The people do. History is in your hands, the idea of America lies in your hands,” Biden said.
“Freedom” has been the central theme of Harris’ campaign since she took over from Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee. She has taken Trump to task for his decisions that directly led to Roe v. Wade being overturned and abortion rights being upended, as well as his actions to subvert democracy.
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in August, at the same site where Trump accepted the Republican nomination a few weeks before, Harris summarized the campaign’s theme.
“We are witnessing across our nation a full-on attack on hard-fought, hard-won, fundamental freedoms and rights across our nation, like the freedom to vote, the freedom to be safe from gun violence, the freedom to love who you love openly and with pride,” Harris said.
A judge agreed Friday to postpone Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money case until after the November election, granting him a hard-won reprieve as he navigates the aftermath of his criminal conviction and the homestretch of his presidential campaign.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan, who is also weighing a defense request to overturn the verdict on immunity grounds, delayed Trump’s sentencing until Nov. 26, several weeks after the final votes are cast in the presidential election.
It had been scheduled for Sept. 18, about seven weeks before Election Day.
Merchan wrote that he was postponing the sentencing “to avoid any appearance—however unwarranted—that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate.”
“The Court is a fair, impartial, and apolitical institution,” he added.
Trump’s lawyers pushed for the delay on multiple fronts, petitioning the judge and asking a federal court to intervene. They argued that punishing the former president and current Republican nominee in the thick of his campaign to retake the White House would amount to election interference.
Trump’s lawyers argued that delaying his sentencing until after the election would also allow him time to weigh next steps after Merchan rules on the defense’s request to reverse his conviction and dismiss the case because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s July presidential immunity ruling.
Judge Juan M. Merchan
In his order Friday, Merchan delayed a decision on that until Nov. 12.
A federal judge on Tuesday rejected Trump’s request to have the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize the case from Merchan’s state court. Had they been successful, Trump’s lawyers said they would have then sought to have the verdict overturned and the case dismissed on immunity grounds.
Trump is appealing the federal court ruling.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Trump’s case, deferred to Merchan and did not take a position on the defense’s delay request.
Messages seeking comment were left for Trump's lawyers and the district attorney's office.
Election Day is Nov. 5, but many states allow voters to cast ballots early, with some set to start the process just a few days before or after Sept. 18.
Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election. Daniels claims she and Trump had a sexual encounter a decade earlier after they met at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe.
Prosecutors cast the payout as part of a Trump-driven effort to keep voters from hearing salacious stories about him during his first presidential campaign. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels and was later reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses.
Trump maintains that the stories were false, that reimbursements were for legal work and logged correctly, and that the case—brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat—was part of a politically motivated “witch hunt” aimed at damaging his current campaign.
Democrats backing their party’s nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, have made his conviction a focus of their messaging.
In speeches at the party’s conviction in Chicago last month, President Joe Biden called Trump a “convicted felon” running against a former prosecutor. Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas labeled Trump a “career criminal, with 34 felonies, two impeachments, and one porn star to prove it.”
Trump’s 2016 Democratic opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, inspired chants of “lock him up” from the convention crowd when she quipped that Trump “fell asleep at his own trial, and when he woke up, he made his own kind of history: the first person to run for president with 34 felony convictions.”
Falsifying business records is punishable by up to four years behind bars. Other potential sentences include probation, a fine or a conditional discharge, which would require Trump to stay out of trouble to avoid additional punishment. Trump is the first ex-president convicted of a crime.
Trump has pledged to appeal, but that cannot happen until he is sentenced.
In seeking the delay, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove argued that the short time between the scheduled immunity ruling on Sept. 16 and sentencing, which was to have taken place two days later, was unfair to Trump.
To prepare for a Sept. 18 sentencing, the lawyers said, prosecutors would be submitting their punishment recommendation while Merchan is still weighing whether to dismiss the case. If Merchan rules against Trump, he would need “adequate time to assess and pursue state and federal appellate options,” they said.
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.
Trump’s lawyers argue that in light of the ruling, jurors in the hush money case should not have heard such evidence as former White House staffers describing how the then-president reacted to news coverage of the Daniels deal.
Congressional Republicans are claiming vindication after Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine federal tax-related charges on Thursday — and warning President Biden not to pardon his son.
Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital that he believes the plea "absolutely" affirms the accusations and findings GOP lawmakers have levied against the first family since before President Biden took office.
"It's also vindication for the whistleblowers," he added, accusing Hunter's defenders of trying to "wreck their careers."
Davidson said of Biden potentially pardoning his son, "I think it would be an abuse of that power for the president to do that, but I think a lot of people will be surprised if Joe Biden doesn't."
The White House has said multiple times that the president will not pardon his son, but that has not stopped Republican-led skepticism from pouring in.
It comes after a bombshell House GOP report, which the White House has pushed back on, that accused the president of committing "impeachable offenses" by allegedly helping enrich himself and his family through foreign deals.
Meanwhile, House Ways & Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., whose committee is one of three that was investigating Biden via impeachment inquiry, similarly said the guilty plea upheld the testimony of whistleblowers who came to his panel.
"Hunter Biden’s decision to plead guilty once again affirms the integrity of the IRS whistleblowers who recommended these exact charges over two years ago before being stonewalled by the Biden-Harris Justice Department. Had Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley not come forward, putting their reputations and careers at great risk in the process, Hunter Biden would have received a sweetheart plea deal for merely two misdemeanors," Smith told Fox News Digital.
Smith added as a veiled warning, "It remains to be seen whether President Biden will abuse the power of his office to ensure his son avoids the consequences of his felony tax crimes."
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., who also co-led the probe, said, "Hunter Biden is finally admitting the obvious: he didn’t pay taxes on income he received by selling access to his father, Joe Biden."
A member of that committee, Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital, "We also can’t let Hunter Biden’s plea deal distract from the fact that he was the bag man in the Biden family’s influence peddling scheme that saw them amass some $27 million by selling political access to ‘the big guy,’ Joe Biden."
"For more than a decade, Hunter and his associates enriched themselves at the expense of the American people. By all means, Hunter needs to be held to account, but this is by no means the end when it comes to equal justice under the law," Fallon said.
Biden and his allies have consistently pushed back on accusations levied by House Republicans, dismissing them as misrepresentations and political attacks.
But that has not convinced GOP lawmakers like Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., who warned Biden not to pardon his son.
"Hunter Biden’s bait-and-switch stunt is a clear effort to avoid a messy trial that would reveal his father’s role in the family’s corrupt business dealings. Americans will once again witness the Bidens’ corruption go unpunished as President Biden will likely pardon his son on his way out of the Oval Office," Biggs said.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Thursday that "no," Hunter Biden would not get a presidential pardon from his father, hours before he entered his guilty plea.
Biden himself said in June that he would "abide by the jury’s decision" when asked if he would pardon his son.
LOS ANGELES — Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to federal tax charges Thursday in a surprise move that spares President Joe Biden and his family another likely embarrassing and painful criminal trial of the president’s son.
Hunter Biden’s stunning decision to guilty plea to misdemeanor and felony charges without the benefits of a deal with prosecutors came hours after jury selection was supposed to begin in the case accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes.
The president’s son was already facing potential prison time after his June conviction on felony gun charges in a trial that aired unflattering and salacious details about his struggles with a crack cocaine addiction. The tax trial was expected to showcase more potentially lurid evidence as well as details about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, which Republicans have seized on to try to paint the Biden family as corrupt.
Although President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential election muted the potential political implications of the tax case, the trial was expected to carry a heavy emotional toll for the president in the final months of his five-decade political career.
“Enough is enough,” defense attorney Abbe Lowell told the judge before Hunter Biden entered his plea. “Mr. Biden is prepared, because of the public and private interest, to proceed today and finish this.”
Hunter Biden quickly responded “guilty” as the judge read out each of the nine counts. The charges carry up to 17 years behind bars, but federal sentencing guidelines are likely to call for a much shorter sentence. Sentencing is set for Dec. 16.
More than 100 potential jurors had been brought to the courthouse in Los Angeles on Thursday to begin the process of picking the panel to hear the case alleging a four-year scheme to avoid paying taxes while spending wildly on things like strippers, luxury hotels and exotic cars.
Prosecutors were caught off guard when Hunter Biden’s lawyer told the judge Thursday morning that Hunter wanted to enter what’s known as an Alford plea, under which a defendant maintains their innocence but acknowledges prosecutors have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
Prosecutors said they objected to such a plea, telling the judge that Hunter Biden “is not entitled to plead guilty on special terms that apply only to him.”
“Hunter Biden is not innocent. Hunter Biden is guilty,” prosecutor Leo Wise said.
Hunter Biden held hands with his wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, as he entered the courtroom on Sept. 5.
Hunter Biden walked into the courtroom holding hands with his wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, and flanked by Secret Service agents. Initially, he pleaded not guilty to the charges related to his 2016 through 2019 taxes and his attorneys had indicated they would argue he didn’t act “willfully,” or with the intention to break the law, in part because of his well-documented struggles with alcohol and drug addiction.
Hunter Biden had agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses last year in a deal with the Justice Department that would allow him to avoid prosecution in the gun case if he stayed out of trouble. But the agreement imploded after a judge questioned unusual aspects of it, and he was subsequently indicted in the two cases.
His decision to change his plea Thursday came after the judge issued some unfavorable pre-trial rulings for the defense, including rejecting a proposed defense expert lined up to testify about addiction.
Scarsi, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, also placed some restrictions on what jurors would be allowed to hear about the traumatic events that Hunter Biden's family, friends and attorneys say led to his drug addiction.
The judge barred attorneys from connecting his substance abuse struggles to the 2015 death of his brother Beau Biden from cancer or the car accident that killed his mother and sister when he was a toddler.
The indictment alleged that Hunter Biden lived lavishly while flouting the tax law, spending his cash on things like strippers and luxury hotels — “in short, everything but his taxes.”
Hunter Biden’s attorneys had asked Scarsi to also limit prosecutors from highlighting details of his expenses that they say amount to a “character assassination,” including payments made to strippers or pornographic websites. The judge has said in court papers that he will maintain “strict control” over the presentation of potentially salacious evidence.
Prosecutors had said they want to introduce evidence about Hunter Biden’s overseas dealings, which have been at the center of Republican investigations into the Biden family often seeking — without evidence— to tie the president to an alleged influence peddling scheme.
The special counsel’s team had planned to have a business associate of Hunter Biden's testify about their work for a Romanian businessman, who prosecutors say sought to “influence U.S. government policy” while Joe Biden was vice president.
Sentencing in Hunter Biden's Delaware conviction is set for Nov. 13. He could face up to 25 years in prison in that case, though he is likely to get far less time or avoid prison entirely.
