Solar company found to have ‘reaped billions’ from top Biden law leads to outcry: ‘Appeasing the rich’
Reaction came swiftly after a bombshell report that one of the largest solar companies that had donated millions to Democrats “reaped billions” from one of President Biden’s signature policies. First Solar executives donated at least $2 million to Democrats in the 2020 cycle, with a majority of that amount going to Biden’s presidential campaign, according to the Associated Press. The company, the largest manufacturer of solar panels in the U.S., was “perhaps the biggest beneficiary” from $1 billion in Inflation Reduction Act spending geared toward environmental concerns. Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, called the report “revealing on so many levels.” “It shows just how deeply embedded the renewables industry is with the Democratic political machine, how dependent solar is on government handouts, and how the self-described ‘monumental’ climate bill is nothing more than a political payoff for President Biden’s biggest corporate donors,” Pyle said. “Meanwhile, taxpayers get stuck with the bill, ratepayers get to pay even more for their electricity, and environmental treasures like hundred-year-old Joshua trees get mowed down to make room for the solar panels.” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., the top Republican on the Senate Energy & Commerce Committee, also slammed the news, saying First Solar investors are enriching themselves through their political connections. “President Biden is happy to throw billions of dollars in tax credits at a company that has forced people in foreign countries to work under slave-like conditions. Subsidizing First Solar is another blatant example of Democrats putting their wealthy donors ahead of the American people,” Barrasso said. In the House’s equivalent committee, Rep. John James, R-Mich., said Americans should not be surprised. “Since day one, Biden’s energy policies have been great for his wealthy liberal elite donors and devastating for everyday Michiganders and Americans,” James said. “Biden has appeased the rich, while he steals from the working class to usher in his Green New Deal agenda that is being forced on the American people by his anarcho-climate activist friends.” EPA SUED OVER ‘CAPRICIOUS’ BIG-RIG EMISSIONS STANDARDS CRITICS CLAIM COULD CRIPPLE CORN INDUSTRY While First Solar did not respond to requests for comment, CEO Mark Widmar nodded to the company’s larger U.S. footprint than other solar panel makers tied to rival nations, in remarks to the AP: “Unlike others who routinely spend substantially more lobbying on behalf of Chinese companies that circumvent US laws and deepen strategic vulnerabilities, our interests lie in a diverse, competitive domestic solar manufacturing base supporting American jobs, economic value, and energy security,” Widmar said. The company has two factories in Ohio with two more elsewhere in the country on the way, according to congressional testimony from fellow executive Samantha Sloan. First Solar stock nearly doubled in the time since the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022, and two company officials reportedly attended a celebration of the law’s passage in September of that year. At the event, Sloan called the law “one of the most consequential pieces of legislation of our lifetimes.” One First Solar investor was reportedly added to Forbes’ 2023 billionaires list through his minority stake in the company. Farhad Ebrahimi, co-founder of Quark and a Democratic donor, reportedly rode his 5% investment into the lucrative catalog. A review of other OpenSecrets.org political donation records for several top executives depicts somewhat more Democratic but overall bipartisan contributions. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Outside of thousands in donations to a First Solar PAC, Sloan offered a small 2022 contribution to Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. In 2017, Widmar gave $3,000 to former Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, according to the records, as well as thousands to Biden’s 2020 bid, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Kaptur and former Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. Small donations were also made to Sen. John Hickenlooper’s, D-Colo., and former Montana Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock’s past campaigns. First Solar executives were also reportedly privy to meetings with officials like White House clean energy adviser John Podesta at the same time. Asked about the matter, a White House spokesperson told the AP Biden led and delivered the “most ambitious climate agenda in history, restoring America’s climate leadership at home and abroad.” “The White House regularly engages with industry leaders across all sectors, including clean energy manufacturers and gas and oil producers,” Angelo Fernandez Hernandez said. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Top House Dem admits Biden debate was a ‘setback,’ calls for a comeback after ‘underwhelming performance’
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., admitted that President Biden gave an “underwhelming performance” at the first presidential debate, despite most Democrats in leadership remaining quiet on the issue. Biden participated in a debate against former President Trump on Thursday, and concerns over the president’s ability to remain the Democrat nominee arose just minutes into the event. Viewers noticed throughout the night his raspy voice and how he lost his train of thought. Democrats, including the president himself, admitted that Biden was not at the top of his game, and Jeffries called the night a “setback.” “I’ve been very clear that it was an underwhelming performance on Thursday during the debate, as President Biden and his campaign have acknowledged,” Jeffries told MSNBC Sunday. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE SHOW DEMOCRATS ‘LIED’ ABOUT BIDEN: ‘I BLAME BARACK OBAMA’ Jeffries argued that Democrats can use the debate to have a “comeback moment,” as he works to help his party take back the House in November. AFTER BIDEN’S DISASTROUS DEBATE, CAMPAIGN EMAILS SUPPORTERS ON HOW TO DEFEND HIM: ‘BEDWETTING BRIGADE’ “I believe a setback is nothing more than a setup for a comeback. And the reality is, Joe Biden has confronted and had to come back from tragedy, from trials, from tribulations throughout his entire life,” the Democrat said Sunday. “It’s going to require all of us to lean in, articulate a forward-looking message as to why the Democratic platform is best equipped to deal with the challenges facing the American people.” Another top House Democrat, Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., told CNN after the debate that he “thought it was a tough night,” but added that his support for the president as the Democrat nominee is unwavering. Fox News Digital asked several top Democrats in the House and Senate about the debate, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., but the lawmakers did not return calls seeking comment.
Texas sets execution date for East Texas man accused in shaken baby case
Lawyers for Robert Robertson say the science used to sentence him to death is questionable and that prior health issues could explain the death of his 2-year-old daughter in 2003.
Amid stolen valor accusations, ex-commanding officer confirms he issued Rep. Troy Nehls’ second Bronze Star
Nehls’ commanding officer in Afghanistan told The Texas Tribune that he issued the congressman his second Bronze Star, which was called into question by a CBS report.
AOC threatens Supreme Court articles of impeachment over immunity ruling
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threatened to bring articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after Monday’s immunity ruling regarding former President Trump. “The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X. “Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.” The ruling in question said a president has absolute immunity from prosecution for “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” and “presumptive immunity” for official acts in general. The court said there is no immunity for unofficial acts. CONGRESSIONAL DEMS BLAST RULING ON TRUMP IMMUNITY: ‘EXTREME RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT’ Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional office seeking clarification on who in particular she intends to impeach, but did not immediately hear back. Ocasio-Cortez was not the only congressional Democrat to blast the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed that “House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.” NY DEM SLAMS ‘SQUAD’ MEMBER’S PROFANITY-LACED RANT AT RALLY WITH AOC: ‘UNHINGED’ “Today’s Supreme Court decision to grant legal immunity to a former President for crimes committed using his official power sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation,” Jeffries said. “This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on X. “The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.” The court’s ruling did not say whether any of Trump’s alleged actions fell under his constitutional powers, leaving such matters to be sorted out by a lower court. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
GOP Senate candidate ties opponent to Biden debate: Bob Casey knew
Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Dave McCormick is leveraging President Biden’s widely panned debate performance to challenge incumbent Sen. Bob Casey as other Democrats face similar criticism about their prior knowledge of the president’s apparent decline. “No question, he’s prepared to do this job today, and would be, were he re-elected,” Casey is heard saying in a new ad from McCormick’s campaign. The recording is from just a few months prior, in March. The ad further highlights the close friendship between Biden and Casey, with footage of Biden calling the Pennsylvania senator “one of my best buddies.” CONGRESSIONAL DEMS BLAST RULING ON TRUMP IMMUNITY: ‘EXTREME RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT’ On screen, the words, “Casey knew about Biden’s condition,” appear. The Pennsylvania senator’s campaign did not provide comment to Fox News Digital in time for publication. The criticism of Casey, specifically, for not coming forward about Biden’s ability or lack thereof ahead of the debate comes as Democrats in races across the country are facing similar scrutiny for not saying something. TRUMP ALLIES CELEBRATE BLOW TO ‘SENSELESS LAWFARE’ IN SUPREME COURT IMMUNITY DECISION One day following the debate between former President Trump and Biden, which was widely criticized across ideological lines as a poor showing by the latter, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) released an ad showing several sitting Democrats who are up for re-election and those running for open seats defending Biden’s mental acuity. BALANCE OF POWER: DEM REP SAYS PEOPLE WILL ‘WANT TO TALK ABOUT’ BIDEN STATUS ON TICKET AFTER DEBATE “Senate Democrats have spent years propping up Joe Biden despite his obvious mental deficiencies, now the world can see he isn’t fit for the job. This disaster is on their hands,” said NRSC spokesman Philip Letsou. Democrats have uniformly brushed off and denied concerns regarding Biden’s age and physical and mental abilities, assuring the media and public that he was up to the challenge of being president for another term. However, after his less than stellar performance on debate night, reports immediately emerged alleging Democratic panic behind closed doors. Even on CNN and MSNBC, hosts and analysts acknowledged Biden’s lackluster debate showing and the panic reportedly following it. Lawmakers such as Casey, Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Jon Tester, D-Mont., Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., were already in a difficult position as they tried to balance supporting their party with appealing to a broad group of voters to hold onto their seats. Now, they will certainly face questions about their previous statements of support for the president and their vouching for his mental acuity as fresh questions about Biden’s ability swirl.
Biden camp dismisses Trump immunity ruling: ‘Doesn’t change the facts’
The Biden campaign blasted former President Trump in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling granting him immunity for official acts while president, saying the presumptive Republican nominee “thinks he’s above the law.” “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election,” the Biden campaign said in a statement on Monday. “Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.” TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE: SUPREME COURT RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION The statement continued: “The American people already rejected Donald Trump’s self-obsessed quest for power once. Joe Biden will make sure they reject it for good in November.” The high court ruled on Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. But while Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” the justices left it to the lower court to determine exactly where the line is between official and unofficial. “The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.” In a 6-3 decision, the justices sent the matter back down to a lower court. The decision did not outline if Trump’s alleged actions related to the purported effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election constituted official or unofficial acts. “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Roberts wrote. “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.” The question examined by the court stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. TRUMP TOUTS SUPREME COURT’S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY RULING AS ‘BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND FOR DEMOCRACY’ Those charges were brought after Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol breach or if he participated in any alleged attempts to interfere with the results of the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts that occurred while he was president. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” “Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President… the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas penned a separate concurrence “to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure” – the appointment of Smith as special counsel. “In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States,” Thomas wrote. “But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure.” Thomas added: “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” Smith’s case against the former president and his plan to try Trump have been hanging in legal limbo amid the high court’s consideration of the issue. The former president touted the ruling in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital on Monday. “I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years,” Trump told Fox News Digital. “And now the courts have spoken.” He added: “This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll – by a lot – and we will make America great again.” Fox News’ Brianna Herlihy contributed to this report.
Clarence Thomas swipes at Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment in SCOTUS immunity case
In the Supreme Court’s monumental decision in former President Trump’s immunity case, one justice questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith – at the helm of Trump’s unprecedented prosecution – was constitutionally appointed. On Monday, a 6-3 majority ruled that a president has substantial immunity for official acts in office, and sent the case back down to lower courts to determine which acts at the center of Trump’s case were official. “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive,” the opinion said. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas looked to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure” – the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel. TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE: SUPREME COURT RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION “In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for ‘an energetic executive,’ because such an Executive is ‘essential to… the security of liberty,’” Thomas wrote. “Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,” Thomas said, adding that “[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.” Thomas explained that in this case, the attorney general “purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States.” “But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” he said. SPECIAL COUNSEL IN TRUMP CASE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FORMER REAGAN AG SAYS “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.” he said. Thomas added that “a private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” Thomas noted that “[n]o former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people.” The question of what immunity should be granted to Trump and future presidents stemmed from Smith’s federal election interference case in which he 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. Those charges were the result of Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president. In an amicus brief filed in the case before the high court, Ed Meese, attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, argued that the court should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request because he was unconstitutionally appointed in the first place. “Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the brief stated. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” he argued. Merrick Garland cited statutory authority for Smith’s appointment, none of which Meese argued “remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.” Thomas acknowledged that argument in his concurrence, saying, “It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office ‘established by Law,’ as required by the Constitution. When the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office.” CLARENCE THOMAS TAKES AIM AT ‘JUDICIAL POWER’ IN LANDMARK BROWN V BOARD OF EDUCATION DECISION Meese also argued that “even if one overlooks the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.” “Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute… and so directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation. No such statute exists for the Special Counsel,” he added. Thomas on Friday argued similarly. “Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause,” he said. “For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be,” he said. “Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed,” he added. “We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee,” he concluded.
House Republicans privately worry about Democrats replacing Biden: ‘Changes everything’
As questions continue to mount about President Biden’s fitness for office, some House Republicans are privately concerned that replacing him at the top of the Democratic ticket could result in the GOP losing the White House in November. “As a human, it’s probably good for Joe Biden that he’s now probably not going to have to be subjected to this another four years. But for the party, it’s not great. It’s not clear to me that it’s good for us, either,” one House Republican told Fox News Digital on the condition of anonymity. “We had Trump versus Biden, which was a very lopsided, in my opinion, a very lopsided fight… the Dems would be insane to run Biden again. Like, they can’t, it’s like they can’t at this point.” With a potentially younger and more popular replacement, the GOP lawmaker said it became “a tougher race.” “It changes everything. It’s just a completely unknown wildcard right now,” the GOP lawmaker said. JILL BIDEN BACKS HUSBAND AFTER BRUTAL DEBATE, TELLS VOGUE ‘WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT’ They suggested that California Gov. Gavin Newsom or a similar popular figure somewhere like New York could inspire higher turnout among Democratic voters in those states, putting Republican-held swing seats in jeopardy in down-ballot races. It comes after Biden’s poor performance in Thursday night’s CNN Presidential Debate, his first debate against former President Trump since 2020. The 81-year-old president spoke with a hoarse voice, reportedly due to a cold, and stumbled over his own answers several times during the primetime event. Viewers also observed him appearing tired and noticeably less sharp than he looked the last time he faced Trump. FETTERMAN CITES OWN ‘DIFFICULT’ DEBATE IN ARGUING BIDEN CAN STILL WIN Even Biden’s top allies in Congress conceded he had a bad showing. One House Democrat told Fox News Digital, “Obviously, there are conversations that I believe need to be had at all levels, with the realization of, this is not just about the presidency, this is about down-ballot.” Republicans have long contended that Biden is unfit for office. However, the new speculation among Democrats poses a political problem for the right – having to deal with the opponent they know, or being forced to weigh a completely different scenario less than six months before the election. “I think both [scenarios] are risky,” a second House Republican lawmaker told Fox News Digital. “We know what we know with Biden at the top… we don’t know what we don’t know with someone else.” A senior House GOP aide was more straightforward in their assessment, telling Fox News Digital point-blank that Biden running gives Republicans the best chance at victory. “Virtually any Democrat that potentially replaces Biden has an exponentially better chance of defeating Trump. Biden staying at the top of the ticket is the best-case scenario for a Republican trifecta,” the senior House GOP aide said. BIDEN’S INNER CIRCLE SILENT AS PARTY REELS FOLLOWING ‘EMBARRASSING’ DEBATE PERFORMANCE However, not everyone within the House GOP is concerned. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., argued that voters will be focused on Biden’s policies while in office, which the majority of Democrats support, but Republicans argue have hurt the country. He said a new candidate would ultimately be distilled to a “shinier, cleaner version of Joe Biden.” “What are they gonna do different?” Burchett asked, speculating that voters would assume a new candidate would back “the same policies that got us into this mess.” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital in response to House GOP concerns, “President Trump delivered the most dominant debate performance in history as Americans witnessed a clear contrast of proven America First policies versus Joe Biden’s failed leadership at every turn…Democrats and their media enablers have created this problem by turning a blind eye to Biden’s clear cognitive and physical decline for the last four years. Now they have to face the reckoning of having an inept candidate as their nominee.” A new CBS News and YouGov poll released over the weekend showed nearly three quarters of Democratic voters believe Biden does not have the cognitive health to serve as president. Despite the fallout from his debate performance, however, Biden has shown no intention of stepping aside, and top Democratic allies have publicly coalesced around his decision. Biden’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.
India lift the ICC Trophy after 11 years; wishes from Amitabh Bachchan, Rachana & Rhythm, Indra Nooyi flow in!
India, under the captaincy of Rohit Sharma, secured the trophy on a thrilling Saturday night in Bridgetown, Barbados by defeating South Africa by seven runs, ending an 11-year wait for an ICC title.