NationalWatch

The Biden administration abruptly announced Friday that it will delay regulations banning menthol cigarettes amid widespread opposition to the proposal.

In a statement, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra said his agency would not move to finalize the regulations and pointed to opposition from civil rights activists. Since they were first proposed by the HHS’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the regulations have sparked a contentious debate between health advocates and civil liberties and business groups.

“This rule has garnered historic attention and the public comment period has yielded an immense amount of feedback, including from various elements of the civil rights and criminal justice movement,” Becerra said in a statement. “It’s clear that there are still more conversations to have, and that will take significantly more time.”

Initiated 2 years ago

The announcement comes exactly two years after FDA initially proposed the regulations, paving the way for an historic ban on menthol cigarettes that the administration said would be a “critical” piece of President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative. FDA also argued at the time that the ban would broadly “reduce the appeal of cigarettes” and have substantial health impacts.

BIDEN ADMIN FACING CONGRESSIONAL PROBE OVER PROPOSED BAN ON MENTHOL CIGARETTES

FDA ultimately handed the regulations off to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval months ago after a lengthy public comment period. However, officials dragged their feet in moving forward with the regulations and missed multiple self-imposed deadlines to finalize them, igniting concerns among health advocates that the administration may change course.

“Unfortunately, the possibility of this administration making these rules a reality is shrinking with the passage of time, and ACS CAN is calling on the administration to not miss the opportunity to make a historic gain in the fight against cancer,” American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network CEO Karen Knudsen said in a statement on Friday ahead of Becerra’s announcement.

CONSERVATIVE GROUP UNLEASHES 6-FIGURE AD CAMPAIGN TARGETING BIDEN’S MENTHOL CIGARETTE BAN

‘Top priority’

OMB declined to comment and referred Fox News Digital back to Becerra’s statement. 

And an FDA spokesperson said the agency remains committed to issuing tobacco product standards for menthol in cigarettes and characterizing flavors in cigars.

“As we’ve made clear, these product standards remain at the top of our priorities,” the spokesperson said.

During the public comment period, associations representing convenience stores, police, consumers and minority groups warned the administration that a ban on menthol cigarettes could foster an illicit market for the product, while punishing small business owners and minorities who are the largest consumers of the product.

Groups representing minorities, like the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement and the nonprofit National Action Network — the latter of which was founded by civil rights leader the Rev. Al Sharpton — argued that banning menthol cigarettes while not restricting non-menthol cigarettes “puts a microscope on minority communities.” 

BIDEN ADMIN’S PROPOSED MENTHOL CIGARETTE BAN COULD BECOME LIABILITY IN 2024: ‘UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES’

White House meetings

The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement, National Action Network, National Newspaper Publishers Association and civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump met with Becerra, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden to discuss the proposal in November, according to White House records.

The White House also convened meetings with other stakeholders, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Lung Association, and the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). 

“The USHBC applauds President Biden for his leadership in delaying the menthol ban, recognizing the unintended consequences it would have had on convenience store sales nationwide and the livelihoods of over 600,000 workers,” Javier Palomarez, the president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Business Council, told Fox News Digital in a statement.

“Implementing a ban would have not only been ineffective but would also risk disproportionately criminalizing people of color, the very communities where menthol cigarettes are consumed,” Palomarez added. “We are delighted that the President has heard our concerns and we offer ourselves up as a resource to develop a comprehensive approach to public health.”

Dollars and cents

According to NACS, the rule would have led to a reduction of $72,285 a year in non-tobacco sundry sales and $160,107 a year in tobacco product sales for the typical convenience store nationwide. The organization projected that the convenience store industry could have collectively lost $2.16 billion in sales as a result of the regulations. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In addition, government watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) said the administration’s actions Friday confirmed its concerns it expressed last week when it sued HHS for withholding documents related to the regulations.

“This announcement appears to confirm the basis for our lawsuit a few weeks ago on the proposed menthol cigarette ban. Public health authorities following the polling rather than the science is not a good look. It’s also a major reason why trust in our public health officials is at an all-time low,” PPT Director Michael Chamberlain said. “This only heightens the need for transparency into what’s really driving decisions at the FDA.”

Former President Trump suggested the White House as the venue for a debate against President Biden, saying he “would be very comfortable.” 

The presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, after hours in a Manhattan courtroom for the eigth day of his criminal trial, has repeatedly said he will debate Biden “anywhere, anytime, anyplace.” 

Biden broke his silence on debating his 2024 opponent on Friday during an interview with radio host Howard Stern. Biden said he would be “happy” to debate Trump. 

TRUMP CAMPAIGN DEMANDS BIDEN DEBATE HIM ‘MUCH EARLIER’ AND MORE OFTEN

“I am, somewhere, I don’t know when,” Biden said, after Stern said he didn’t know whether Biden would participate in a debate. “I’m happy to debate him.” 

Trump, shortly after Biden’s interview, which he did during a visit to New York City Friday, posted to his Truth Social account inviting Biden to debate him at the courthouse in Lower Manhattan. 

“In the alternative, he’s in New York City today, although probably doesn’t know it, and so am I, stuck in one of the many Court cases that he instigated as ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT – A CONTINUING WITCH HUNT!” Trump posted to Truth Social. “It’s the only way he thinks he can win. In fact, let’s do the Debate at the Courthouse tonight – on National Television, I’ll wait around!” 

Trump, after court ended Friday, came out and reflected on the day of testimony. 

“We sit here day, after day, after day, which is their plan,” Trump said of the Democrats, who he said hope to win the election. “But I doubt it because the poll numbers are very good for us.” 

Trump told reporters he had invited Biden to debate. 

TRUMP CALLS FOR DEBATES WITH BIDEN ‘ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE’

“He can do it anytime he wants, including tonight. He can do it tonight,” Trump said. “I invited him to the courthouse that he has us tied up in. This is a well coordinated attack on a political opponent.” 

Trump added: “But I’m here, I’m ready, willing and able.” 

Trump said “if he wants, I’ll do it on Monday night, Tuesday night and Wednesday night.” 

Trump said Wednesday night he will campaign in Michigan, saying it is a state that Biden “has destroyed because of the auto industry” and said auto jobs are “all going over to China with his ridiculous electric vehicle mandate.” 

“But we’re willing to do it Monday night, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night on national television,” Trump said. “We’re ready. Just tell me where.” 

“We’ll do it at the White House,” Trump said. “That would be very comfortable, actually. You tell me where. We’re ready.” 

Trump told reporters that Biden was “obviously not showing up now” to the courthouse.

BIDEN SAYS DEBATING TRUMP ‘DEPENDS ON HIS BEHAVIOR’

“We’ve heard nothing, but he said today he’d love to debate,” Trump said. “But he won’t debate. I don’t think he’ll debate. Maybe he will. Maybe he will. I’m not sure he has a choice.” 

He added: “We’re ready, willing and able. We don’t see him and I don’t think he’ll be here. Maybe next week he’ll do it.” 

“I doubt it,” Trump said. “But maybe next week.” 

Earlier this month, the Trump campaign called for additional 2024 presidential debates and for them to take place “much earlier” than initially proposed by the debate commission. 

Trump, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital shortly after, said he is “totally committed” to debating President Biden “anytime, anywhere, anyplace.” 

As for Biden, before today, he had not yet committed to debating his opponent. 

When asked last month if he would debate the former president, Biden said it was dependent on Trump’s “behavior.” 

“Depends on his behavior,” Biden said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier this year, Biden addressed previous calls for earlier debates with Trump.

“If I were him, I would want to debate me, too,” Biden told reporters in Nevada when asked about Trump wanting to debate him earlier in the election cycle.

“He’s got nothing else to do,” Biden said.

Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail. 

What’s happening:

– Trump urges judge to lift gag order: Live updates from NY v. Trump…

– Terrorist-linked flag seen at Princeton demonstrations: Live updates on anti-Israel unrest…

– Biden makes rare live media appearance on Howard Stern’s show…

Squad members tour anti-Israel demonstrations to express support

New York Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman, both members of “The Squad,” were seen Friday mingling with anti-Israel agitators at Columbia University, where “support” was offered to those in the encampment established to protest the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza.

A smiling Ocasio-Cortez showed up in videos speaking to denizens of the encampment, and Bowman was seen cheerfully chatting with the demonstrators. Bowman also reportedly attended a Thursday evening Biden campaign fundraiser in Westchester County.

The visits by Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman to Columbia’s campus in New York City came one day after Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar traveled to the school with her daughter (who was arrested a week ago for trespassing as part of the demonstrations) to show her support for the protest of Israel’s war against Hamas.

Choosing Sides

‘PEACEFULLY PROTESTING’: Columbia anti-Israel agitators file civil rights complaint to Dept. of Education …Read more

CHOOSING SIDES: Flag used by terrorist group seen at ivy league anti-Israel encampment …Read more

WHO’S BEHIND IT?: Expert argues similarities in campus anti-Israel protests suggest foreign influence …Read more

UNSAFE SPACES: Columbia protest leader discussed ‘murdering Zionists,’ calling on them to die …Read more

‘WARMONGER’: Pelosi university speech interrupted by anti-Israel agitators …Read more

GUESS WHO: Anti-Israel protests nationwide fueled by left-wing groups backed by Soros, dark money …Read more

Capitol Hill

FOLLOW THE MONEY: House lawmakers urge major donors to cut off Columbia amid protests …Read more

NO WORDS: Republicans pushing for Johnson’s ouster silent on Trump support for speaker …Read more

SENATE SHOT: New Republican challenger to Elizabeth Warren says ‘no one has disappointed Massachusetts more’ …Read more

WELCOME TO SAN FRANCISCO: Schiff reportedly robbed in big city, forced to attend ritzy campaign dinner with no suit to wear …Read more

White House

POWER GRAB: Biden’s gas car crackdown faces major roadblock …Read more

UP THE ANTE: Biden’s latest tax hike could crush the economy, experts warn …Read more

LIGHTS OUT: Biden climate agenda threatening power grid, massive energy provider warns …Read more

‘UPHILL BATTLE’: Blue state in battle over AG’s illegal immigration dictate that ‘handcuffs’ police …Read more

Tales from the Campaign Trail

LET’S DEBATE: Biden tells Howard Stern he’s ‘happy’ to debate Trump this fall …Read more

SWING STATES SOURING: Biden adviser ducks poll showing swing state voters down on economy …Read more

‘HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE’: Surging GOP Senate candidate visits southern border as crisis rages …Read more

HANDS OFF: Republican makes major announcement aimed at keeping crucial voting bloc from Dems …Read more

HELPING HAND: Biden changes walking routine as questions about age continue …Read more

OPINION: DA Bragg’s legal strategy is filth by association …Read more

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

New York can move ahead with a law requiring internet service providers to offer heavily discounted rates to low-income residents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reverses a lower court ruling from 2021 that blocked the policy just days before it went into effect.

The law would force internet companies to give some low-income New Yorkers broadband service for as low as $15 a month, or face fines from the state.

BRAGG ‘ALLOWED POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS’ TO ‘INFECT’ PROSECUTION OF TRUMP, HOUSE JUDICIARY GOP SAYS

Telecoms trade groups sued over the law, arguing it would cost them too much money and that it wrongly superseded a federal law that governs internet service.

On Friday, the industry groups said they were weighing their next legal move.

“We are disappointed by the court’s decision and New York state’s move for rate regulation in competitive industries. It not only discourages the needed investment in our nation’s infrastructure, but also potentially risks the sustainability of broadband operations in many areas,” a statement read.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

New York state lawmakers approved the law in 2021 as part of the budget, with supporters arguing that the policy would give low-income residents a way to access the internet, which has become a vital utility.

A Democrat representative who is now running for Senate in battleground state Michigan is facing scrutiny over a Limited Liability Company she started in 2017 just weeks prior to announcing her congressional bid.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., established the LLC, called Pinpoint Consulting, weeks before announcing in 2017 that she was running for Congress to unseat an incumbent Republican. According to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, the business is “Not in Good Standing,” as of 2020. 

The last annual report for the business was filed in 2019. 

TOP SENATE DEM CALLS FOR PROBE INTO MUSLIMS PROSECUTED BY DOJ FOR ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS

“I’m a third-generation Michigander and spent my early life on a farm in Holly, Michigan where I currently live and run a small consulting business,” Slotkin’s campaign website, ElissaForCongress.com, stated in October 2017, according to an internet archive snapshot. 

In an ad launched by End Citizens United advocating for Slotkin in May 2018, the organization claimed, “she is a small business owner in Holly.” 

In a financial disclosure report filed with the House clerk in August 2023, Slotkin is still listed as the founder and CEO of Pinpoint Consulting. However, a comment on the document states, “Business has been inactive since 2017 and generates no income/revenue.”

Slotkin’s campaign did not say whether she ever had any clients, revenue, or employees. The congresswoman’s various disclosures don’t reveal any income coming from her firm at any time. 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for her said, “Rep. Slotkin set up a consulting firm after leaving the Department of Defense, when she was considering a number of different job opportunities. She ultimately decided to run for Congress.”

JEWISH DEMOCRAT CALLS OUT BERNIE SANDERS OVER OPPOSITION TO ISRAEL AID: ‘NOW DO ANTISEMITISM’

Slotkin served as an acting assistant secretary of defense until January 2017, per her official biography. The LLC was established with the state of Michigan on June 21, 2017. By July 10, she had announced her campaign for Congress to unseat then-Republican Rep. Mike Bishop. 

Her campaign further pointed to comments made in May 2018 to local outlet Lansing City Pulse. “I was looking for my next step after being in government for 14 years, and I was asked to do some work on an Iraq-related matter,” Slotkin said of her departure from the DOD at the time. “Every time I’ve had a sort of life change, I’ve come back to Michigan to reset, to find out what’s going on. That’s always the place I come back to figure out what my next steps [are].”

But some critics don’t think the company’s establishment and apparent inactivity are that simply explained.

“She was running against a sitting member of Congress in a Republican-leaning district and … everybody was wrapping their arms around small businesses” at the time, said Jason Cabel Roe, who led the Congressional Leadership Fund’s effort to support Bishop in the 2018 race.  

“What she tried to do in 2018 was make herself look like a moderate Republican to Republican voters that did not like Donald Trump,” he said. 

HELP CHAIRMAN BERNIE SANDERS AVOIDS AGREEING TO CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM HEARINGS

Roe explained the business “was a talking point that she relied on in 2018. But once she got elected, I bet she never talked about it again after 2019.”

Slotkin’s business is not mentioned in her Senate campaign. It’s also not featured in her official biography. “I mean, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” Roe said. 

“Elissa Slotkin created a consulting business on paper, so she could call herself a small business owner when she ran for Congress,” National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesperson Maggie Abboud told Fox News Digital in a statement.

“However, it does not appear that she ever actually had any clients. Slotkin’s misrepresentation of her experience in business could be a major issue for her campaign,” she added. 

GOP LAWMAKERS DEMAND BIDEN ADMIN PROSECUTE ‘PRO-TERRORIST MOBS,’ HOLD SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not provide comment to Fox News Digital in time for publication.

Slotkin is considered the front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination in Michigan to replace outgoing Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Actor Hill Harper is also running for the nomination but is far behind the congresswoman in polls of the primary race and with endorsements. Additionally, a Lebanese-born businessman from Dearborn is also running. Nasser Beydoun, an advocate for Gaza civilians amid the war between Israel and Hamas, was recently the chairman of the Arab American Civil Rights League in Michigan, which is home to one of the largest Arab populations in any state. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Senate primary in Michigan takes place on Aug. 6. The general election race is considered competitive by non-partisan political handicapper The Cook Political Report, which rated it “Lean Democratic.” 

On the Republican side, the likely nominee is less clear. However, former Rep. Mike Rogers boasts the endorsement of former President Trump, giving him an edge. Former Reps. Peter Meijer and Justin Amash are also running, as well as businessman Sandy Pensler, who was previously endorsed by former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. 

The three House Republican rebels pushing to oust Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are silent on former President Donald Trump’s support for the embattled congressional leader.

Roughly just six months after winning the speaker’s gavel following three weeks of chaos over the ouster of ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Johnson is already under threat of losing it after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., filed a resolution for a House-wide vote on his leadership, known as a motion to vacate the chair.

Two more lawmakers, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., signed onto her resolution in protest of Johnson’s $95 billion foreign aid plan, which included funds for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific but nothing on the U.S. border, much to some conservatives’ chagrin.

Johnson got some key backup earlier this week when Trump came to his defense, arguing Johnson is doing the best he can with a razor-thin House GOP majority.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE CALLS JOHNSON’S FOREIGN AID PACKAGE HIS ‘3RD BETRAYAL’ OF AMERICAN PEOPLE

“It’s not like he can go and do whatever he wants to do. I think he’s a very good person. You know, he stood very strongly with me on NATO when I said NATO has to pay up,” Trump told radio host John Fredericks after his Monday court appearance. “It’s a tough situation when you have what, I think, is a very good man. I think he’s trying very hard. And again, we’ve got to have a big election.”

Gosar’s office told Fox News Digital he had “no comment” on Trump’s defense of Johnson. Gosar has been one of Trump’s most ardent supporters in Congress.

Spokespeople for Greene and Massie similarly had nothing to share — Fox News Digital attempted to reach both offices multiple times for comment on Trump’s remarks but did not get responses.

3RD REPUBLICAN CALLS FOR SPEAKER JOHNSON’S OUSTER OVER $95B FOREIGN AID PLAN

Like Gosar, Greene has been a top Trump ally in Congress and a popular surrogate for him on the campaign trail. She’s also been one of Johnson’s fiercest critics over his bipartisan work on issues like government spending and foreign aid.

Massie has had a significantly frostier relationship with the former president, having supported his GOP primary rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, before DeSantis dropped out of the race earlier this year.

The Kentucky Republican has most recently accused Trump of “bullying” fellow Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla., when he called for a primary challenger to take her down.

TENSIONS ERUPT ON HOUSE FLOOR AS CONSERVATIVES CONFRONT JOHNSON ON $95B FOREIGN AID PLAN

Both Greene and Massie, however, have signaled that they’re unrepentant about their threats against Johnson in the days since Trump’s defense.

“It’s baffling hearing the establishment complain that it’s too much drama, too hard, and too risky to go through another Speaker race. Meanwhile, Americans are getting kicked in the teeth from the ridiculous drama inflicted on them from pathetic politicians in Washington,” Greene wrote Tuesday on X. “You know what Americans think is hard? Paying their bills. You know what Americans think is risky? Doing absolutely nothing but pass messaging bills about the daily deadly border invasion.”

Massie wrote on X that same day, “The weakest argument in defense of Speaker Johnson is ‘It’s a razor thin majority; you can’t get everything you want.’ We don’t expect to get everything, but we also won’t tolerate complete & total surrender.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

All eyes are on Greene; for now, there’s nothing compelling House leaders to bring her motion up for a vote. If she declares it a “privileged resolution,” lawmakers would be forced to take it up within two legislative days.

A majority of House Republican lawmakers have already signaled that they don’t have the appetite for another period of upheaval like what followed McCarthy’s ouster.

Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson’s office and the Trump campaign for comment.

EXCLUSIVE: A Republican running for re-election in a race key to a possible GOP Senate majority made a major announcement Friday aimed at keeping a crucial voting bloc away from the Democrats.

Florida Sen. Rick Scott announced the latest ad installment of a multimillion-dollar investment in Hispanic outreach, one that his campaign hopes will continue the demographic’s swing toward the GOP and further solidify the state as deep red.

“As parents, we teach values to our children, the difference between right and wrong, truth and lies. But then we send our kids to school where some radical socialist teacher doesn’t teach them math or English. No, they’re taught that men can have babies and become women, and that we should worship the god of government, not the God who created us. That is socialism,” Scott says in the ad, titled “Verdad,” which will run in both Spanish and English.

NEW POLL REVEALS HOW VOTERS’ VIEWS ON ABORTION HAVE CHANGED AS DEMS SEEK TO MAKE ISSUE A CENTRAL 2024 THEME

TRUMP LEADS BIDEN AMONG HISPANICS, REGISTERED VOTERS OVERALL: POLL

The ad will run in multiple TV and radio markets across Florida, as well as statewide on multiple digital platforms.

Socialism has been a major theme in Florida elections in recent years, especially considering the Hispanic population in the state has significant Cuban and Venezuelan heritage. 

Some election experts argue that has been one of the major factors in the shift of Hispanics toward the Republican Party, which has expanded into other Hispanic groups, such as the Puerto Rican community.

According to the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, 55% of Florida’s Hispanics supported Republican Sen. Marco Rubio in his 2022 re-election bid, as well as Miami-Dade County — traditionally a Democratic stronghold that Hillary Clinton won by 29 percentage points in 2016.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Scott, who is expected to sail to victory in the Republican primary on Aug. 20, will likely face Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the former representative of Florida’s 26th Congressional District ousted in the 2020 election.

Elections analysts rate the race as either “likely” or “solid” Republican.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

The prosecutor whose opening statement kicked off the historic trial of Former President Donald Trump left a lofty perch in the Biden administration Justice Department for his current comparatively modest New York City job – a career move that legal analysts describe as puzzling and one that’s prompted questions regarding motivation.

Even though Matthew Colangelo is only now sitting in a courtroom formally opposing the former president, his work has for years involved investigating Trump and his businesses, despite working for different prosecutorial offices at varying levels of government. Colangelo’s sudden switch from top DOJ official to a role with the DA’s office in the Big Apple has particularly raised eyebrows.

“It’s very odd. It’s usually the other way around. . . . And frankly, that sounds to me like somebody who thought, ‘Ah, here’s an opportunity to go and get Donald Trump,'” attorney and former member of the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky, told Fox News Digital in a phone interview this month. 

It’s rare to see successful, ambitious attorneys willingly climb several steps down the career ladder, experts note.

“It is a little unusual,” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zack Smith said of Colangelo’s career moves. “Particularly, the position he had at the Justice Department was a fairly high ranking one . . . he spent some time in the New York Attorney General’s office, he also spent some time as a career staffer in the DOJ Civil Rights Division. He was in leadership in the Justice Department, and then immediately from that leadership position – an acting leadership position – went to the DA’s office.”

NY PROSECUTORS REVEAL ‘ANOTHER CRIME’ TRUMP ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO CONCEAL WITH FALSIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS

Colangelo’s current case marks the first time a former president has stood trial on criminal charges. It stems from payments made by Trump’s former personal attorney to a former pornographic actress ahead of the 2016 election and was brought forth last year by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The trial began in earnest this week – after a week of jury selection – as Colangelo delivered his opening on Monday, seeking to make the prosecution’s case that Trump had illegally falsified business records to conceal another crime. 

Trump is no fan of Colangelo’s. He has slammed the attorney as a “radical left [prosecutor] who was put into the state working for Letitia James and was then put into the District Attorney’s office to run the trial against Trump.” That comment came before the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, imposed a gag order that prevents Trump from speaking publicly about witnesses or the prosecution team. 

Colangelo has a lengthy government resume, working in a variety of legal roles that date to the Obama administration. He most recently served nearly two years in Biden’s DOJ, including as acting associate attorney general and overseeing the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Environment and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions.

Colangelo’s background includes time spent clerking for Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and seven years at the NAACP’s legal defense and educational fund. Afterward, Colangelo worked for three years in the DOJ’s civil rights division during the Obama administration. He also served as deputy director of the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Economic Council and as chief of staff at the Labor Department under the Obama administration, the DA’s office detailed in a press release. 

Colangelo’s decision in 2017 to take a job in the New York Attorney General’s Office – filling a role left vacant by the departure of his future boss, Bragg – led to the first in a series of cases against Trump. 

Colangelo assisted a case in 2018 that dissolved Trump’s former NY-based charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, after prosecutors alleged that it had illegally coordinated with Trump’s 2016 campaign. The charity was dissolved after a judge found that Trump had “breached his fiduciary duty.”

That same year, Colangelo worked as lead prosecutor in a case involving the Trump administration’s push to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census. The Justice Department ultimately decided to print the 2020 Census without the citizenship question due to lengthy court battles that included having the Supreme Court weigh in that the question could not be added for the time being. 

“I think given his time at the AG’s office, in the Justice Department, and now at the district attorney’s office, it certainly appears like his career path in the past several years has been designed to target and essentially try to bring charges against Donald Trump in whatever form or fashion he can do so,” Smith said.

TRUMP URGED TO IGNORE SUPREME COURT, PRINT CENSUS QUESTION: ‘BECAUSE WE SHOULD,’ GOP LAWMAKER SAYS

Von Spakovsky cited Colangelo’s previous employment with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division as a potential concern, calling the DOJ department a home for “some of the most unethical lawyers” he’s ever met. Von Spakovsky worked in the Civil Rights Division from 2001 to 2005 but did not overlap with Colangelo. He spoke to Fox Digital about what he had personally experienced in the office and how he viewed the operation of the office in the years that followed. 

“I’ve now been a lawyer for four decades. I work at Heritage. I’ve worked in the federal government. I was in private practice. I was in-house corporate counsel,” he said. “I have never in my entire career met lawyers more partisan, more far-left radical ideologues than I met in the Civil Rights Division in the career ranks. 

“I was in the voting section to start with . . . they had about 100 people – half lawyers, about half support staff. I have never in my life been met with the kinds of hostility I was met with when I started my job there.”

Von Spakovsky said he believes the reason for his chilly reception was “because they knew that politically I was a conservative,” though noting he was a career employee, and not a political appointee.

He pointed to an IG report published in 2013 that detailed concern that the office predominantly hired from “liberal” civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, NAACP and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law, and noted that the report showed “political and ideological hiring going on into the career ranks, which is not supposed to happen.”

“Because they’re all hired from these liberal advocacy organizations, they never make the transition to understanding that they now are a government lawyer and that their client is the public,” he said. “What they all think is, ‘Oh, I used to work for the ACLU. Well, now I can continue doing that work for the ACLU, but I have the power of the government behind me.'”

After moving from the New York AG’s office to the DOJ and then finally to Bragg’s office, Colangelo now finds himself at the heart of the New York v. Trump case unfolding in Manhattan criminal court. 

TRUMP TRIAL: FORMER PRESIDENT ‘INNOCENT,’ DEFENSE SAYS AS DA ALLEGES ‘CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’

The trial’s origins reach back to October of 2016, when Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, paid former pornographic actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to allegedly stop her claims about an alleged extramarital affair she had with the then-real estate tycoon in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels. 

Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen, and fraudulently logged the payments as legal expenses.   

“During the election, TRUMP and others employed a ‘catch and kill’ scheme to identify, purchase and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects,” Bragg said last year. “TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.”

“Catch-and-kill” schemes are understood as tactics used by media and publishing companies to buy the rights to a person’s story with the intention of burying the information.

BRAGG SAYS HE WILL TRY TO ‘DISCREDIT’ TRUMP IF HE TESTIFIES IN HIS DEFENSE DURING CRIMINAL TRIAL

Bragg was elected district attorney in 2021, succeeding Cyrus Vance, who did not run for re-election. Vance left the office with the massive case hanging in the air despite saying he was “committed to moving the case as far along in the decision-making as I can while I’m here.” 

Bragg officially took office in January 2022, with the nation wondering whether he would indict Trump. 

By March of that year, however, two prosecutors in the office who were investigating Trump’s net worth, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, resigned. Pomerantz charged that Bragg had stopped pursuing the case against Trump and suspended the investigation “indefinitely.”

“You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time,” Pomerantz wrote in his resignation letter, Fox Digital previously reported. “The investigation has been suspended indefinitely.”

MANHATTAN DA BRAGG SUSPENDED TRUMP INVESTIGATION ‘INDEFINITELY,’ STOPPED PURSUING CHARGES

His letter continued: “Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely.”

He added, however, that “a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong.”

Months later, in December, Bragg announced a new hire: Colangelo. 

“Matthew Colangelo brings a wealth of economic justice experience combined with complex white-collar investigations, and he has the sound judgment and integrity needed to pursue justice against powerful people and institutions when they abuse their power,” Bragg said at the time. “Those who would harass tenants, steal wages, endanger workers or defraud the public should know that the Manhattan D.A.’s Office has never had a stronger, more dedicated team in place to enforce our laws and hold them accountable.” 

Four months after Colangelo left the DOJ for the DA’s office, Trump was indicted on 34 counts of “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.”

NY VS TRUMP: THE EVIDENCE PROSECUTORS CAN PRESENT IF FORMER PRESIDENT TESTIFIES

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. Prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which would be a felony. This week, prosecutors revealed that the other crime in the case is “conspiracy to promote or prevent election,” a violation of New York election law. 

​​Colangelo said during his opening argument on Monday that the case against Trump “is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up.” He argued that Trump, Cohen and the then-CEO of American Media Inc., David Pecker, had “conspired to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Prosecutors say that Pecker had helped to facilitate “catch-and-kill schemes” by purchasing exclusive rights to stories that could have damaged Trump’s run for the White House and then not publishing the stories. 

TRUMP TRIAL: OPENING ARGUMENTS TO BEGIN AS TRUMP FLOUTS GAG ORDER AND ATTORNEY PREVIEWS DEFENSE

“Some of the charges he’s trying to bring are false-records charges against Donald Trump, which are ordinarily misdemeanors, unless they were done in furtherance of another felony, simply to cover up another felony,” Smith told Fox News Digital. 

Prosecutors say that Trump violated a New York election law, though he had already been examined by federal bodies that oversee elections. The Justice Department in 2019, for example, “effectively concluded” its investigation into Trump’s payments. In 2021, the Federal Elections Commission, the agency dedicated to enforcing campaign finance laws, announced that it had dropped a case looking into whether Trump had violated election laws with the payment to Daniels. 

Von Spakovsky also underscored to Fox News Digital that both the FEC and DOJ had declined to pursue the case. 

“The [FEC] looked at this and said that this settlement was not a violation of federal law. The Justice Department also has criminal enforcement authority over federal campaign finance laws, and the Justice Department has also not considered this a crime,” he said. 

Von Spakovsky added that he couldn’t speculate whether Colangelo had been hired by the DA’s office for the purpose of prosecuting Trump, but argued that he believed no “objective lawyer” would have carried through with the case. 

“I think any objective lawyer, without any kind of partisan goals, would have taken a look at the facts and the law in this case and would not have decided to go forward,” he said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump’s trial is ongoing and anticipated to last at least six weeks. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the district attorney’s office, the White House and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division for comment but did not receive responses.

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

After a marathon debate over whether former President Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by Special Counsel Jack Smith, legal experts tell Fox News Digital that most of the Supreme Court justices appear concerned with how the ruling will impact the future functioning of the executive branch. 

In nearly three hours of debate on Thursday, the high court wrestled with this question: “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?”

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while it appeared the majority wasn’t sold on the idea of absolute immunity, they could determine that Trump, and any future former presidents, should be granted a qualified version of it.

“I think the court recognizes that it would be a dangerous precedent if future presidents can prosecute their political rivals,” Mark Brnovich, former attorney general of Arizona, told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED

“They will set a limiting principle because, under the prosecutor’s theory, future prosecutors would have a lot of power to persecute their political rivals,” Brnovich said. 

Over the course of questioning, the justices seemed generally split along ideological lines. 

“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?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked in an exchange with Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer.

“Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office,” Jackson said. 

LIVE UPDATES: TRUMP NY TRIAL TESTIMONY RESUMES AS SUPREME COURT HEARS IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

Conversely, Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether limiting immunity for a former president would send the country into a destabilizing cycle.

“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible 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? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” Alito remarked. 

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch later stated. 

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN ‘THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT’ AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

John Shu, a constitutional scholar and former official in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital that the justices indicated “they believe this case isn’t really about Trump per se. It’s about the Office of the President, what future presidents can do, and whether they’ll be prosecuted for their choices.”

“It’s a very important issue and the Biden administration set a very bad precedent to go after not only a former president, but one who also is challenging Biden’s re-election,” he said.

“What the Biden administration has done here gives the terrible appearance of vindictiveness, and on an international or foreign policy level, it makes us look like just another banana republic that we generally criticize for prosecuting or trying to jail their political opponents,” he stated. 

Shu added that “many of the justices perhaps find what Trump did after the 2020 election distasteful.” 

“But they also seem uncomfortable with either granting blanket immunity on the one hand, or no immunity at all on the other. As often happens, the middle ground is where the discussions will be,” he said. 

John Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley, said Trump’s argument “had much more success than many court watchers expected.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Only the three liberal justices seemed to reject the idea of immunity outright. The six conservative justices recognized the need to prevent future presidents from criminalizing policy and constitutional differences with their predecessors,” Yoo said. 

He added that a possible outcome could be that the justices punt the question back to the lower courts and ask them to first determine whether Trump’s actions amounted to “official” or “private” acts, before they decide whether immunity might extend to official acts.

A decision in the case is expected early this summer. 

The special counsel’s office declined to comment when reached by Fox News Digital.

Fox News’ Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report. 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday asked Justice Department attorneys whether presidents would have to fear prosecution by a “bitter political opponent” if justices reject former President Trump’s immunity claims.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of presidential immunity, which could set a precedent for whether former presidents have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution.  

SCOTUS SEES ‘DANGEROUS PRECEDENT’ IN TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE IF PRESIDENTS CAN PROSECUTE RIVALS: EXPERTS

Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday, during arguments from Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben — who presented arguments on behalf of Smith — questioned the repercussions of charging a former president. 

“Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity 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,” Alito asked. 

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED

“Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” he said. 

“I think it’s exactly the opposite,” Dreeben replied. “There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election.” Dreeben went on to discuss Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election in the courts.

The official question the Supreme Court is considering is: “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.”

The question stems from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged former President Trump. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argues he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the U.S. 

It’s unclear how soon the Supreme Court will rule on the presidential immunity issue. 

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents, but raised sharply different concerns.

“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?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, asked.

“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,” she said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes for the court’s decision: “This will have huge implications for the presidency.”

“I’m not talking about the present, so I’m talking about the future,” Kavanaugh said. 

And Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed during questioning: “We’re writing a rule for, yes, for the ages.“

TRUMP BLASTS ‘BIDEN TRIALS,’ SAYS PRESIDENT IS WEAPONIZING DOJ TO ‘TRY TO KNOCK OUT’ HIS ‘POLITICAL OPPONENT’

As for Alito’s question, the former president has repeatedly claimed that he is being prosecuted by his political opponents, warning Americans and voters that all cases against him, in all jurisdictions, are being brought by his opponent — President Biden — and being done in coordination with the White House. 

Trump says his opponents want to keep him confined to the courtroom during the 2024 election cycle to prevent him from campaigning. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The former president, who was prohibited by New York Judge Juan Merchan from attending the Supreme Court arguments Thursday, instead sat in a Manhattan courtroom for his criminal trial out of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. 

Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump pleaded not guilty. 

Democratic Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser is refusing to meet with a father who lost three sons to violent crimes in the city despite his continued quest for answers from officials concerning the crime crisis plaguing him and his fellow residents.

“No,” Bowser abruptly told a local Fox affiliate when asked if she planned to meet with John Evans, who has been asking for a meeting with city officials since the death of his third son, Avion Evans. Authorities say Avion was shot and killed at D.C.’s Brookland Metro station on April 4.

Avion’s older brother, Johnny Evans III, was stabbed to death at D.C.’s Deanwood Metro station eight years earlier in April 2016, and his half brother, John Coleman, was reportedly shot to death while doing handiwork for a neighbor last May.

SEC. BUTTIGIEG SAYS HE CAN ‘SAFELY’ WALK DOG, BUT DC NATIVE IS MORE FRIGHTENED: ‘PRISONER IN YOUR OWN HOME’

According to Fox 5 DC, the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement contacted the family, but Evans wants to speak with city leadership about his concerns over crime. He has yet to hear from anyone despite three weeks passing since his latest son’s death.

The affiliate asked Bowser about the shooting on April 10, but she replied, “I’m not going to talk about their concerns with you. I’ll talk to them about it because, obviously, that’s troubling to us.”

It asked Bowser again on Wednesday if she had spoken with the Evans family.

HARRIS TEETER IS COMBATING DC THEFT SURGE WITH NEW POLICIES, INCLUDING BAG RESTRICTIONS

“I don’t talk about my discussions with families,” she responded, but the reporter pressed her, clarifying that she was asking whether she planned to meet with Evans, and not about the nature of any conversation.

After saying she was not, the reporter asked why. “I’ve answered your question. Any other questions?” Bowser said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Bowser’s office for comment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Crime dipped in some major cities across the country in recent years, but the nation’s capital has faced a surge, ending 2023 with 274 murders – the most in over two decades, according to Metropolitan Police Department data. 

Robberies and thefts spiked 67% and 23%, respectively, while motor vehicle thefts almost doubled.

Fox News Megan Myers contributed to this report.

Alabama lawmakers on Thursday advanced legislation that could see librarians prosecuted under the state’s obscenity law for providing “harmful” materials to minors, the latest in a wave of bills in Republican-led states targeting library content and decisions.

The Alabama House of Representatives voted 72-28 for the bill that now moves to the Alabama Senate. The legislation comes amid a soaring number of book challenges — often centered on LGBTQ content — and efforts in a number of states to ban drag queen story readings.

ALABAMA LAWMAKERS ADVANCE BILLS ENSURING BIDEN APPEARS ON NOVEMBER BALLOT

“This is an effort to protect children. It is not a Democrat bill. It’s not a Republican bill. It’s a people bill to try to protect children,” Republican Rep. Arnold Mooney, the bill’s sponsor, said during debate.

The Alabama bill removes the existing exemption for public libraries in the state’s obscenity law. It also expands the definition of prohibited sexual conduct to include any “sexual or gender oriented conduct” at K-12 public schools or public libraries that “exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd or lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities.”

Under the process laid out in the bill, a librarian in a public library or public K-12 school could face a misdemeanor charge if the librarian fails to remove material or cease conduct that violates the state’s obscenity law within seven days of receiving a written complaint from the public.

Opponents argued that proposal would threaten librarians with criminal prosecution at the whims of community members who disagreed with their decisions on books and programs.

“This process will be manipulated and used to arrest librarians that you don’t like, and not because they did anything criminal. It’s because you disagree with them,” Rep. Chris England, a Democrat from Tuscaloosa, said during debate.

Craig Scott, president of the Alabama Library Association, said libraries already have longstanding procedures for reviewing the suitability of content and for the public to submit challenges if they disagree with a decision.

“Why are they coming into libraries or thinking that they can come in and run the place better than us as professionals?” Scott said in a phone interview. He predicted the state will lose “lawsuit after lawsuit” if the bill becomes law.

A judge in July temporarily blocked Arkansas from enforcing a similar law that would have allowed criminal charges against librarians and booksellers for providing “harmful” materials to minors.

Scott, who began his career in 1977, said he has never seen anything like the current climate. He said the Gadsden Public Library where he works has seen one person — who eventually obtained a role in library governance — challenge 30 books. Most of the book challenges are related to books with content about gender identity. But they also have included a book about a boy who wants to become a ballet dancer, he said.

“We are for the entire community. We have to be. We’ve got some books in here that are far right. We’ve got some books on the far left. But the library is for the entire community. We’ve got to stay in the middle as best we can, and they want to push us way off to the far right,” Scott said.

Republican Rep. David Faulkner, who worked on a substitute version of the bill that was approved by the House, disputed that the bill could have wide-ranging impact. He said courts have long interpreted what is obscene material.

The law takes away immunity that K-12 and public libraries had under the obscenity law, but it puts limits on when prosecutions could occur, Faulkner said.

“It’s only going to be a misdemeanor, and it’s only if, after knowing about the material, they didn’t do anything about it,” he said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Neil Rafferty, a Democrat from Birmingham, said he was concerned that the bill’s language would allow someone to “target and harass people who might be dressed up in a Halloween costume” or wearing summer clothing that someone considered too revealing.

“I feel like this is a violation of the First Amendment, and it’s easily going to be abused,” he said.

Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail. 

What’s happening? 

-Fauci to testify for first time since retirement 

-New poll reveals insight on abortion views as 2024 looms

-Trump attorney clashes with Supreme Court Justice over coup question

After a marathon debate over whether former President Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by Special Counsel Jack Smith, legal experts tell Fox News Digital that most of the Supreme Court justices appear concerned with how the ruling will impact the future functioning of the executive branch. 

The Supreme Court heard arguments for nearly three hours Thursday the issue of presidential immunity, which could set a precedent for whether former presidents have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution.  

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether this could set off a cycle of retributive prosecutions for presidents, and whether future chief executives would have to fear “bitter political opponents” would throw them in jail after a close election.

White House

FISTICUFFS: Secret Service agent on VP Harris’ detail removed from assignment after physical fight while on duty …Read more

FIRED UP: Biden cracks down on power plants that fuel nation’s grid …Read more

Capitol Hill

RETURNING TO THE SCENE: Ilhan Omar and daughter visit Columbia anti-Israel encampment — one week after daughter’s arrest …Read more

RETURN OF THE FAUCH: Former top infectious disease doc to testify publicly for first time since retirement …Read more

‘WHY SO QUIET?’: Bernie Sanders called out by Jewish Democrat on antisemitism amid vote against Israel aid …Read more

TIDAL WAVE: Dems pounce on Johnson after Columbia speech condemning anti-Israel protests …Read more

‘POLITICAL PROSECUTION’: House GOP says Bragg ‘allowed political motivations’ to ‘infect’ prosecution of Trump …Read more

Tales from the Campaign Trail

RECORD HIGH: New poll reveals how voters’ views on abortion have changed as Dems seek to make issue a central 2024 theme …Read more

‘DISGUSTING INSULT’: Religious org hits out at Biden for making sign of the cross at abortion rally …Read more

‘MAKING A MISTAKE’: Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate says Republicans should be doing more on health care …Read more

SOCIAL MEDIA SWIPE: Trump has this reaction to former AG Bill Barr’s endorsement …Read more

‘AMAZING SHOW OF AFFECTION’: Trump greets supporters, union workers at NYC construction site …Read more

‘GOOD CHANCE’: Trump says he could win liberal stronghold, slams ‘Bidenomics’ …Read more

LACKING CONFIDENCE: Majority of voters doubt Biden’s physical, mental capabilities, Trump’s ethics: poll …Read more

Across America

‘MOST CONSEQUENTIAL’: Pennsylvania legislators ask Supreme Court to let them challenge Biden’s election EO …Read more

SQUAD VS. ‘SQUAD’: NYPD responds to AOC, says officers ‘have to teach’ anti-Israel mobs the ‘consequences of their actions’ …Read more

‘SURE SOUNDS BAD’: Trump attorney clashes with SCOTUS justice over hypothetical ‘coup’ question …Read more

MOTION REJECTED: Federal judge rejects Trump request for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case, says he must pay $83.3 million …Read more

PAW-SITIVE ENERGY: New plan would train shelter dogs as therapy animals for border agents …Read more

HORROR CRIME: Illegal immigrant charged with child sex crimes, home invasion …Read more

FAKERS: Arizona alleged ‘fake electors’ who backed Trump in 2020 indicted by grand jury …Read more

Subscribe now to get Fox News Politics newsletter in your inbox.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

Former President Donald Trump lauded the first witness in his trial in Manhattan, former tabloid publisher David Pecker, as a “nice guy” earlier Thursday ahead of court. 

“He’s been very nice. David’s been very nice. He’s a nice guy,” Trump told the media while meeting with construction crews in the city early Thursday morning. 

Pecker is the prosecution team’s first witness in the NY v. Trump case, where the 45th president is facing 34 charges of falsifying business records. 

Pecker is the former CEO of American Media Inc., the parent company of publications such as the National Enquirer, who has known Trump stretching back to the 1980s. The former media publisher took the stand earlier this week, where he testified regarding “catch and kill schemes” to allegedly bury negative information about Trump ahead of the 2016 election. 

LIVE UPDATES: TRUMP NY TRIAL TESTIMONY RESUMES AS SUPREME COURT HEARS IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

“Catch-and-kill” schemes are understood as tactics used by media and publishing companies to buy the rights of a person’s story with no intention of publishing it. The NY v. Trump case specifically revolves around a payment of $130,000 given to former pornographic actress Stormy Daniels by former Trump personal attorney in 2016 to allegedly silence her claims she had an extramarital affair with Trump in 2006. 

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE

Pecker testified Thursday that he first heard of Daniels’ claims of a sexual affair with Trump after the notorious “Access Hollywood” tape was unearthed ahead of the election in 2016. He said that Daniels was selling rights to her story for $120,000, which Pecker said the media company could not afford. 

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED

“I am not a bank,” Pecker said he told National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard of the tip and sale of Daniels’ story. Howard then told Pecker he would contact Cohen about the matter, Pecker said. 

Prosecutors allege that after Cohen paid Daniels in exchange for silence on the alleged affair, Trump fraudulently logged reimbursements to the personal lawyer as legal expenses. Prosecutors in the case are trying to prove that Trump falsified business records in “furtherance of another crime.” The DA’s office said the other crime is the violation of a New York law against “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN ‘THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT’ AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

Simultaneous to the trial Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for another Trump case: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference charges. The case charged Trump 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. The case stems from Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of Trump breached the U.S. Capitol. 

The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether Trump has presidential immunity in the case. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“We have a big case today — this judge wouldn’t allow me to go, but we have a big case today at the Supreme Court on presidential immunity,” Trump said to the press, referring to the Supreme Court weighing whether Trump is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case. 

“A president has to have immunity,” he added. “If you don’t have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.”

“We want Trump,” supporters of the president said during the event. 

A former tabloid publisher and key witness for the prosecution testified that he purchased stories about professional golfer Tiger Woods, former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, among others during questioning by defense attorneys for former President Trump. 

Prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office brought David Pecker, their first witness, to the stand for the third day Thursday. 

Pecker is the former CEO of American Media Inc., the parent company of publications such as the National Enquirer, who has known Trump stretching back to the 1980s. Prosecutors allege that Pecker worked closely with the Trump campaign to bury negative information about Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Trump is accused of falsifying records related to the alleged “catch and kill” scheme.

Pecker testified that he purchased negative stories about Trump before the 2016 election and did not publish them — known as a “catch and kill” scheme. The stories included allegations from adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal about affairs with Trump. 

NY PROSECUTORS REVEAL ‘ANOTHER CRIME’ TRUMP ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO CONCEAL WITH FALSIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS

With regard to negative stories coming out about Trump before the election, Pecker testified that Trump was concerned about what his family would say about it, specifically about how it would impact his wife Melania Trump and daughter Ivanka Trump. 

Pecker also testified that Trump was concerned about what the impact would be on his campaign in 2016. 

But under cross-examination by Trump defense attorney Emil Bove, Pecker testified he purchased stories about other high-profile individuals besides Trump. 

Pecker testified he purchased a story about professional golfer Tiger Woods, and a story about Rahm Emanuel in 2009 after he left the Obama White House. Pecker said he purchased the story about an alleged affair Emanuel had so that it would not be published. Emanuel also later served as ambassador to Japan. 

TRUMP TRIAL: FORMER PRESIDENT ‘INNOCENT,’ DEFENSE SAYS AS DA ALLEGES ‘CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’

Pecker also testified that he worked with Trump attorney Michael Cohen in his capacity as the former president’s personal attorney — not as part of the 2016 campaign. 

Pecker testified that American Media Inc., the owner of the National Enquirer, testified that before purchasing stories, the company would vet them for truthfulness. He also testified that there were instances AMI would purchase a story to use as leverage. 

When asked if this was standard, Pecker testified: “Yes.” 

Pecker also said Thursday that Trump “was my mentor.” 

“He helped me throughout my career,” Pecker said, saying Trump was often the first person to call him when he needed help. 

“Even though we haven’t spoken, I still considered him a friend,” Pecker said. 

Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Bragg alleges that Trump ex-attorney Michael Cohen orchestrated hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to prevent them from sharing their stories about alleged affairs with Trump. Bragg is trying to prove that Trump was aware of those payments, and allegedly falsified records of payments to Cohen as “legal expenses” rather than repayments for the hush money. 

NY VS TRUMP: THE EVIDENCE PROSECUTORS CAN PRESENT IF FORMER PRESIDENT TESTIFIES

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts and told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview on Thursday that he was simply paying Cohen legal fees because Cohen was his lawyer. 

Bragg also alleged American Media Inc., which Pecker was the CEO of, allegedly employed the “catch and kill” strategy to bury stories — specifically Karen McDougal’s. Bragg and prosecutors sought to convince the jury that Pecker’s work to do this was made with the blessing of Trump’s 2016 campaign. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Pecker, though, testified that he worked with Cohen in his capacity as Trump’s personal attorney. 

Pecker’s cross-examination is expected to continue Friday morning.

Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on Thursday visited the southern border in McAllen, Texas, as he campaigns for the open Maryland Senate seat — and as the ongoing crisis at the southern border remains a top political issue.

Hogan met with law enforcement and public safety officials and told Fox News in an exclusive statement that he visited the border to “get a firsthand understanding of this crisis, and what I’ve seen should appall every American.”

“This is a humanitarian catastrophe that is harming our communities and wreaking havoc across the country,” he said. “Every day Washington lets this crisis continue without bipartisan action, they are failing the American people.” 

GOP SENATE CANDIDATE LARRY HOGAN LAUNCHES MARYLAND BUS TOUR AS DEM CANDIDATES FACE OFF

“For decades, the politicians have played campaign politics with this issue instead of actually just solving the problem. Enough is enough,” he continued. “The solutions are not complicated. In the Senate, I will fight to make both parties finally put the politics aside and get this done.” 

The U.S. is in the grip of a border crisis now into its fourth year. There were a record 2.4 million migrant encounters at the southern border in FY 23. Thus far in FY 24, there have been more than 1.3 million, with six months still to go. 

VIDEO SHOWS SECRET METHODS USED TO SNEAK MIGRANTS INTO US BY ‘COYOTES’

Republicans and Democrats have struggled to find solutions that can pass both chambers of Congress. The Biden administration has called for more resources and immigration reform, while Republicans have largely blamed the rollback of Trump-era policies by the Biden administration for the crisis.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Hogan served as Maryland governor from 2015 to 2023 and made history when he became only the second Republican to win two terms in the state upon his re-election in 2018. The last Republican to do that was elected in 1954.

A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll last month showed the former governor defeating both top Democrats in the running, Rep. David Trone, D-Md., and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks. Hogan beat Trone 49% to 37%, while he bested Alsobrooks 50% to 36%. 

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Fox News’ Julia Johnson contributed to this report.

Former President Trump reacted to the “monumental” hearing on presidential immunity at the Supreme Court Thursday, saying he thinks it was “made clear” that a president “has to have immunity.” 

The former president spoke to reporters after sitting in a Manhattan courtroom for hours Thursday—the seventh day of his criminal trial stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 charges of falsifying business records in the first degree. 

While Trump sat in court listening to witness testimony, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of presidential immunity, and whether he is immune from prosecution in a separate case—Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case related to 2020 election interference. 

Trump had requested to attend arguments in Washington D.C., but was rejected by New York Judge Juan Merchan, who has required the former president to be in court for each day of his criminal trial. 

“I was forced to be here, and I’m glad I was, because it was a very interesting day in a certain way,” Trump told reporters. 

“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity,” Trump said. “And I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear that a president has to have immunity.” 

Trump echoed his past argument that without immunity, the president would be reduced to just a “ceremonial” position. 

“That’s not what the founders had in mind,” he said. “We want presidents that can get quite amazing—quite amazing.” 

The former president said the Supreme Court justices “were on their game.” 

“So let’s see how that turns out,” he said. “But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.” 

The Supreme Court heard arguments from John Sauer, who delivered arguments on the matter on behalf of the former president and 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department prosecutor, delivered arguments on behalf of the government and Special Counsel Jack Smith. 

The high court is expected to rule on the matter by mid-June.

The state governments in Oklahoma and Florida are telling schools not to conform to President Biden’s changes to Title IX policies.

Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters announced Thursday morning that he has instructed schools within his state not to comply with the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX, which include gender identity protections.

“In discussion with several other state education leaders and legal counsel, there are some serious concerns with the legality of these rule changes, especially as it relates to its redefinition of ‘sex’ to include gender identity,” Walters wrote in a letter to state superintendents. 

BIDEN DISMANTLES TRUMP-ERA TITLE IX RULES, SIDESTEPS ISSUE OF TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS’ SPORTS

Walters said in his announcement that he expects legal challenges to the Title IX alterations in the coming days and urged schools to refrain from implementing changes until the matter is settled.

“Please do not make any district policy changes based on the new Title IX regulations,” Walters instructed state educators. “These federal rule changes are illegal and making policy changes before the courts come to a definitive ruling on the legality of these rules could put your district out of compliance with other current and legal state and federal statute.”

GOP LAWMAKERS SLAM BIDNE ADMINISTRATION’S NEW TITLE IX PROTECTIONS FOR ‘GENDER IDENTITY’

Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. announced a similar intention to fight the Title IX changes on Wednesday, calling the new guidelines absurd.

“The Biden Administration maims the statute beyond recognition in an attempt to gaslight the country into believing that biological sex no longer has any meaning,” Diaz said previously.

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Diaz and Walters but did not receive a response.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., also signaled a coming legal battle, writing on social media, “This rule is a wish list for the far left, including unlawfully expanding the scope of the rule off campus, lowering due process protections for students accused of misconduct, entrenching kangaroo courts, and delinking ‘sex discrimination’ from biological sex.”

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Biden administration unveiled the new rules last week to address concerns expressed by LGBTQ+ groups regarding gender identity protections.

New regulations included expanding the definition of sex discrimination to include both sexual orientation and gender identity, which the president’s administration touts as protection for LGBT students.

“No one should face bullying or discrimination just because of who they are, who they love,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said. “Sadly, this happens all too often.”

The unveiled rule changes also rolled back regulations put in place by former Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos that ensured due process for the accused. 

Fox News’ Julia Johnson and Michael Dorgan contributed to this report.

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.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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).

EXCLUSIVE: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office “allowed political motivations and animus to infect its prosecutorial discretion,” the House Judiciary Committee argued in a report Thursday, saying charges were brought against former President Trump employed a “dangerously low threshold” to prosecute “political opponents.”

The GOP-led committee released a 300-page report Thursday, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital, titled “An Anatomy of a Political Prosecution: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Vendetta Against President Donald J. Trump.” 

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN ‘THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT’ AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

The committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has been investigating the “unprecedented” multi-year investigation into Trump led by the Manhattan’s DA office since last year, when current DA Alvin Bragg indicted Trump. 

Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree related to alleged hush money payments made before the 2016 presidential election. Trump pleaded not guilty. His criminal trial is currently taking place in New York City. 

“The DANY has been investigating President Trump since at least 2018, searching for any legal theory on which to bring charges,” the report states. “These charges are normally misdemeanors subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but Bragg used a novel and untested legal theory—previously declined by federal prosecutors—to bootstrap the misdemeanor allegations as a felony, which extended the statute of limitations to five years, by alleging that records were falsified to conceal a second crime.” 

Prosecutors revealed during the criminal trial this week that the alleged “second crime” was a violation of a New York law called “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.” Prosecutors will try to prove that the alleged conspiracy was to conceal a conspiracy to unlawfully promote his candidacy.

“The facts at the center of Bragg’s political prosecution have not changed since 2018 and no new witnesses emerged between then and the date on which Bragg filed the indictment,” the report states. “The Justice Department examined the facts in 2019 and chose not to prosecute the case.” 

But the report points out that even with the DOJ’s decision, Bragg “convened a new grand jury in January [2023] to evaluate the issue.” 

TRUMP TRIAL: FORMER PRESIDENT ‘INNOCENT,’ SAYS DEFENSE AS DA ALLEGES ‘CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’

“Bragg ultimately settled on a novel legal theory untested anywhere in the country and one that federal authorities declined to pursue to resurrect the matter,” the report states. 

Republicans added that “the only intervening factor, it appears, was President Trump’s announcement that he would be a candidate for President in 2024.” 

The report states that Congress “has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically-motivated prosecutions of current and former presidents by elected state and local prosecutors, particularly in jurisdictions—like New York County—where the prosecutor is popularly elected and trial-level judges lack life tenure.” 

Bragg’s decision to bring charges against Trump after he became a candidate for president “required the Committee to consider potential legislative reforms to insulate current and former Presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions,” the report states. 

NY PROSECUTORS REVEAL ‘ANOTHER CRIME’ TRUMP ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO CONCEAL WITH FALSIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS

Former Manhattan DA prosecutor Mark Pomerantz testified before the committee in a deposition as part of the investigation. Pomerantz declined to answer most questions, but told the committee that was largely due to the then-pending investigation into Trump.

Pomerantz, a donor to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, previously worked on the Trump investigation with ex-prosecutor Carey Dunne under Bragg’s predecessor, former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance. Both Pomerantz and Dunne resigned after Bragg took the helm and raised doubts about pursuing a case against Trump. 

After Pomerantz resigned, he wrote a tell-all book based on the investigation, which was still ongoing. The book seemingly made the case to charge Trump. 

The committee quoted Pomerantz’s book, which they said revealed “his animus, both personally and politically against Trump.” 

Pomerantz wrote in his book of his “enthusiasm to work on the investigation,” but said it “had nothing to do with [his] views about Trump’s politics.” However, he admitted that he was “not a fan” of Trump, and “had little regard” for him. 

TRUMP FACES MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF 136 YEARS IN PRISON FOR 34-COUNT INDICTMENT

Chairman Jim Jordan told Fox News Digital on Thursday that Pomerantz “left retirement to pursue a passion project of prosecuting President Trump.” 

“He looked high and low for all the possible ways to take down the president. When nothing panned out, he left Alvin Bragg’s office in disgust and wrote a book for the purpose of bringing public pressure on Bragg to bring some charge–and it worked,” Jordan said. “The whole trial is entirely political and everyone knows it.” 

The committee said Bragg’s tenure as district attorney contributed to rising crime in New York City.

“Against the backdrop of District Attorney Bragg’s decision to find any reason to prosecute President Trump are Bragg’s actions to institute pro-crime, anti-victim policies that resulted in an increase in violent crime and created a dangerous community for New York City residents.” 

Bragg issued an early memo directing assistant DAs to avoid prosecuting certain crimes, including trespassing and prostitution.

The memo stated that armed robberies should not be prosecuted as felonies. Instead, the new DA directed armed robberies to be considered as misdemeanor larceny unless someone was shot during the robbery. Bragg also stated that his office would not seek prison sentences except for homicides and other particularly “heinous crimes” like domestic violence felonies, sex crimes, and public corruption. 

TRUMP FILES MOTION REQUESTING JUDGE IN HUSH MONEY TRIAL BE RECUSED AMID DAUGHTER’S DEMOCRAT-AFFILIATED WORK

The committee said that Bragg’s indictment of Trump “opened a dangerous new possibility of politically motivated prosecutions or threatened prosecutions of political opponents, including presidents.” 

“This case establishes a dangerously low threshold for these investigations and prosecutions to commence,” the report states, adding that Bragg has “opened the door for future prosecutions of a former president–or current candidate–that would widely be perceived as politically motivated.” 

Committee Republicans said Bragg inspired other prosecutors to pursue “politically motivated investigations and indictments of President Trump.” 

FLASHBACK: TOP PROSECUTORS IN MANHATTAN DA CASE AGAINST TRUMP RESIGN

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The fundamental mission of any prosecutor’s office is to uphold the rule of law,” the report states. “And one of the hallmarks of this mission is to ensure that justice is blind—applied fairly and equally. Bragg’s politically motivated indictment of President Trump threatens to destroy this notion of blind justice by using the criminal justice system to attack an individual he disagrees with politically, and, in turn, eroding the confidence of the American people.” 

Bragg’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.