New York appeals court judges in Trump case routinely donated to Democrats, records show
The New York state court that will decide former President Trump’s appeal includes justices who have a history of donating to Democrat campaigns and were elected to lower court judgeships as Democrat candidates before their appointments to the appellate court. State campaign records show that some of the justices, when they served as judges in the lower courts, donated to Democrat candidates and campaign committees, an apparent violation of the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics rules that prohibit partisan political activities of sitting judges. The list of candidates from the justices’ history of political donations includes a wide variety of New York elected officials, from state legislature candidates to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 50 REASONS WHY $70 MILLION-PLUS IN SMALL DONATIONS POURED IN AFTER TRUMP VERDICT A review of federal and state election contribution records reveals that at least 14 of the 21 justices gave individual donations to Democrat campaigns and committees before their appointment to the court. Fox News could find no evidence of any donations by the justices to the New York state Republican, Conservative or Liberal parties or their candidates. The justices serve on the New York State Appellate Court, First Judicial Department, and will eventually hear the anticipated appeal from the former president’s lawyers of his conviction last Thursday on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. All but one of the court’s 21 justices were appointed by a New York Democrat governor, either David Patterson, Andrew Cuomo or Kathy Hochul. The sole justice put on the bench by a Republican, New York Gov. George Pataki, is Associate Justice David Friedman, who is the longest-serving justice since his appointment 25 years ago. Before his elevation to the court, Friedman was the Democrat, Republican and Conservative party candidate for Supreme Court justice in his judgeship election in 2011. In an appellate court’s ruling during Trump’s real estate fraud trial last year, Friedman sided with the former president. One justice who did not side with Trump is the newest member of the appellate panel, Associate Justice Marsha D. Michael. She was appointed by Hochul last October. On April 19, three days before opening arguments were scheduled to begin in Trump’s recently completed criminal trial in front of State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, Michael rejected a last-minute bid by Trump’s lawyers to stop the proceedings. Her ruling gave the green light for the trial that eventually convicted Trump to proceed. In 2014, Michael ran in the Democrat primary for the New York State Assembly in the 79th District in the Bronx. She was endorsed in that race by then-New York City Public Advocate Leticia James, who went on to be elected New York attorney general four years later. Last year, James prosecuted Trump and won her successful $454 million real estate fraud case. Back when Michael was stumping for the state legislature, James appeared with her on the campaign trail. On July 11, 2014, Michael answered questions about her candidacy from the nonpartisan good government group Citizens Union. She was asked if she supported a “merit-based appointment system through creation of a commission for the selection of judges in all of New York’s trial courts.” The justice did not support the idea that all judges should be chosen on the merits, writing, “I don’t think all courts should solely be merit-based.” Michael lost the Democrat primary race despite having the backing of the Bronx Democrat organization. She remained on the ballot in the general election as the candidate of the Working Families Party. The WFP is known today for supporting members of the so-called “Squad” in Congress, backing Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others. Four years after her defeat, Michael ran again as a Democrat candidate for a New York State Supreme Court seat and won in 2018. It was from that position that she was elevated to the Appellate Division eight months ago. Appellate Court Justice Ellen Gesmer was first elected as a judge in the New York State Civil Court in 2004. In 2011, she won a Supreme Court judgeship as both the Democrat and Republican candidate. Before Gesmer was elected to the bench, records show that she had donated thousands of dollars to Democrats. Federal Election Commission records show that Gesmer contributed to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and various Democratic Party committees when she was a lawyer in private practice. In 1998, she donated a total of $2,000 to Schumer’s election bid, a total of $1,725 to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 New York state Senate race, $1,700 to the New York State Democratic Committee and the Democratic National Committee, and in 2003, she chipped in $250 to support Dean’s presidential campaign. Appellate Justice Jeffrey K. Oing gave $900 to the New York State Democratic Committee in three payments in 2003, according to FEC records, one year before he was elected to the New York City Civil Court. The records from the New York State Board of Elections, which detail contributions to state-level races, reveal the extent of political donations made by judges during their election campaigns. The range of donations includes contributions to Democrat New York state Senate and Assembly candidates, party committees and local Democrat clubhouses, even as some of the judges served on the bench. The state’s judicial ethics rules state: “Neither a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity” that does not directly involve their own candidacy. The rules prohibit judges from “engaging in any partisan political activity” or “participating in any political campaign.” REP JORDAN URGES CONGRESS TO ‘DEFUND LAWFARE ACTIVITIES’ OF TRUMP PROSECUTORS Trump has accused Merchan of being “conflicted” because he donated $15 to President Biden’s 2016 election campaign and $10 to a group called Stop Republicans. In addition, Merchan’s daughter works for a political campaign consulting firm whose clients include many prominent Democrats, including
‘Sociopathic’: Biden blasted for ‘disgusting lie’ on Netanyahu’s handling of war with Hamas
President Biden was heavily criticized by conservatives on social media over an interview transcript in which he appeared to agree with the premise that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging his country’s war with Hamas for his own political gain. “Some in Israel have suggested that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation. Do you believe that?” Biden was asked by Time magazine in an interview published Tuesday. “I’m not going to comment on that,” Biden responded. “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion. And I would cite that as — before the war began, the blowback he was getting from the Israeli military for wanting to change the constitu … change the court. And so it’s an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it’s hard to say, but it has not been helpful.” Biden’s response drew immediate negative reactions from many on social media. NETANYAHU SAYS BIDEN PRESENTED ‘INCOMPLETE’ VERSION OF GAZA CEASE-FIRE “Israel says they are going into Raffah to get their hostages back,” The Spectator editor Stephen L. Miller posted on X. “Biden tells Israel to wait, sends Blinken to work with Qatar and Egypt. Builds a broken pier in Gaza Israel agrees. Biden now accuses Israel of prolonging a war it didn’t start. Straight up incompetent evil. An actual Political sociopath.” “Biden has been incoherently pressuring Israel not to finish the job for months & ‘there is every reason for people’ to draw the conclusion that it’s been for Biden’s own political self-preservation,” Fox News contributor Guy Benson posted on X. “How soon will Biden demand Israel not defend itself against the attacks in the north?” “A disgusting lie,” GOP Sen. Ted Cruz posted on X. “Tragically, the Biden White House is the most anti-Israel WH in history. Is there even a single Dem who will denounce Biden’s slander?” ‘SHAMEFUL’: GOP LAWMAKER SHREDS ‘AWOL’ BIDEN FOR THROWING JEWS ‘UNDER THE BUS’ AMID ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTS “I want everyone to read what Biden said this morning,” Fox News host and conservative commentator Mark Levin posted on X. “And what a loathsome, disgusting antisemite he is. Undermining Netanyahu because Biden demands that Israel surrender so Biden can declare peace in our time for his lousy, rotten reelection effort.” “This is all straightforwardly sociopathic,” Omri Ceren, a national security adviser for Sen. Cruz, posted on X. “Biden has mobilized unprecedented domestic and international pressure to slow Israel’s advance into Gaza. Bonkers campaigns. Politicizing US intel, leaking it, doing global diplomatic pincer moves where the US encourages allies to pressure Israel then tells the Israelis we can’t help them (relatedly, supporting binding UNSCRs knifing them), halting aid, threatening to halt more aid specifically if Israel moved into Rafah, the repeated ongoing ostentatious stunts about aid (airdrops and the pier), multiday news cycles about all of the above, etc. Now Biden is saying Netanyahu is prolonging the war for political reasons. Absolutely sociopathic.” “No one hears about what is happening in northern Israel,” former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren said in response to the interview. “The interview is an inappropriate attack on the political system in Israel. The U.S. should not interfere in what is happening in Israeli politics.” Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response. Biden appeared to walk back his comment in response to a question shouted by a reporter following a statement on an immigration executive order Tuesday. “I don’t think so. He’s trying to work out a serious problem he has,” Biden said when asked if Netanyahu is “playing politics” with the war.
Reform California chairman slams proposal mandating illegal immigrants be hired for taxpayer-funded state jobs
Reform California Chairman Carl DeMaio is blasting an assembly bill that Democrats in the California State Legislature are proposing that will direct the University of California system to begin hiring illegal immigrants for taxpayer-funded state jobs. “I have seen a lot of outrageous proposals from California Democrat politicians, bending over backwards to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get in and to get taxpayer benefits. But this one absolutely tops the list of insane ideas,” DeMaio told Fox News Digital. If passed, Assembly Bill 2586 would provide state government jobs at taxpayers’ expense for illegal immigrants. DeMaio said specifically, it mandates that illegal immigrants with no U.S. work authorization should be given access to apply for and take jobs provided through taxpayer-funded universities run by the state government. “By passing a law to mandate that illegal immigrants be hired for taxpayer-funded jobs in state government, California Democrats are not only making our border crisis worse, they are openly violating federal employment laws that prohibit the hiring of illegal immigrants!” DeMaio said. REP MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE THREATENS TO FORCE VOTE ON IMPEACHING BIDEN OVER BORDER CRISIS DeMaio said the bill is instructing the largest state government agency in California, the University of California system, the colleges and universities, to hire illegal immigrants, which violates federal employment law. “They are telling the managers of state government to knowingly break federal employment law, which is very clear, that it is against federal law for an employer to knowingly hire someone in this country that’s not authorized to work. And these illegal immigrants are not authorized to work,” DeMaio explained. He continued by stating that, despite this, the state government has decided to knowingly break the law. He said, according to university lawyers, this not only opens up the manager who’s doing the hiring to federal prosecution, but also puts the illegal immigrant in legal jeopardy. “This is insane. It’s offensive. Taxpayers should not be giving state government jobs to illegal immigrants in the state of California. On top of all the welfare benefits and all the other goodies that are being given out,” DeMaio said. BIDEN ADMIN QUIETLY DISMISSES OVER 350K ASYLUM APPLICATIONS FROM IMMIGRANTS SINCE 2022: TRAC DeMaio said even the University of California board, the regents, and the University of California system, which have a board of directors that the governor appoints, backed away from this proposal a year ago because university attorneys said the bill was going to create legal problems. “It’s a violation of federal law, an open and shut case. And because the UC board of directors chose not to implement this policy, now, California politicians in the state legislature want to mandate it by passing this law,” DeMaio explained. DeMaio emphasized that this law has been fast tracked. It sailed through the Assembly, passing by a 59-4 vote. Now it’s awaiting action in the state Senate, which he fears will pass it and make it law. He said it’s just like so many other “bad policies that incentivize illegal immigration in California.” “It’s a problem on two fronts. First, it’s offensive to be giving taxpayer-funded state government jobs to illegal immigrants in violation of federal law, putting everybody at legal jeopardy,” DeMaio said. “But second, let’s be very clear that California politicians are the marketing boosters for human trafficking. They are giving these goodies out whether it’s free health care at taxpayer expense or the sanctuary state law or these government jobs. They’re putting a whole bunch of goodies on the table, at taxpayer expense, that the human traffickers use to induce and incentivize illegal immigration across the California-Mexico border.” BIDEN’S DOJ THREATENS ANOTHER GOP STATE WITH LAWSUIT OVER ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION EFFORTS DeMaio said that not only is this a California problem, but it’s also a national problem. “This is a national issue because if California continues to dangle carrots at taxpayer expense through their state government to incentivize illegal immigration, we will never secure our border,” DeMaio said. He praised Texas Governor Greg Abbott for “doing his job” and sending the resources needed to shore up Texas’ border with Mexico.DeMaio said because Abbott has done so well addressing the border crisis in Texas, the San Diego Sector in California is becoming the number one illegal immigrant crossing point. DeMaio said this is the first time California has been number one in illegal immigrant crossings since 1999. He said the reason is that Texas has put more security at their border, pushing the flow of illegal immigration to California. “So even if we do get President Trump back in the Oval Office, even if we do change federal policy at the border, if California politicians continue to roll out a red carpet and give taxpayer funded benefits and taxpayer funded jobs to illegal immigrants, we are going to still have a border crisis, and that will be an impact that will be felt nationally,” DeMaio said.
Fox News Politics: Crackdowns and crack pipes
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 – Hunter Biden faces second day of criminal trial – AG Garland grilled on Biden investigation, accusations of ‘weaponized’ DOJ – Several states and the District of Columbia hold primaries Tuesday The White House on Tuesday announced long-awaited executive actions to stop illegal immigrants at the southern border claiming asylum if crossings reach a certain level — a move coming just months before the November election and that could soon see a legal challenge from activists. “Today I’m moving past Republican obstruction and using executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border,” President Biden said in a speech on Tuesday afternoon, accusing Republicans of refusing to secure the border. Biden is issuing a presidential proclamation that will temporarily suspend the entry of non-citizens across the southern border once the number of average border encounters exceeds 2,500 a day over seven days, officials said. That will stay in effect until 14 days after there has been a seven-day average of less than 1,500 encounters along the border. Officials said it would make it easier for immigration officers to quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S. Republican critics, who have blasted Biden over the border crisis for years, were quick to question the timing of Biden’s crackdown (weeks before his first debate against Trump) after he said he needed legislative action to secure the border. AG RESPONDS: Garland to push back on Trump’s ‘locked & loaded’ FBI claim …Read more ‘UNCHARTED TERRITORY’: Biden reverses strategy of restraint at Greenwich fundraiser, calling Trump ‘crazy’ …Read more GARLAND GRILLED: Republicans hammer defiant AG to hand over Biden-Hur audio …Read more ‘OUR WORST FEARS’: Lawmakers sound alarm on surge of Chinese nationals into US …Read more BACK IN TOWN: McCarthy weighs in on Johnson’s speakership during surprise Capitol appearance …Read more PLAN OF ATTACK: Johnson unveils DOJ crackdown strategy in closed-door House GOP meeting …Read more DEBATE PREP: Trump asks Judge Merchan to lift gag order before June 27 showdown against Biden …Read more CRIME MATTERS: Crime a top issue for Washington, DC, Democratic primary following last year’s surge in homicide, car jackings …Read more FOX NEWS POWER RANKINGS: New tracker shows which candidate is leading on the issues …Read more PRIMARY CONCERN: DC law has allowed more than 500 noncitizens to vote in Tuesday’s Council primary elections despite House backlash …Read more ‘IT’S THE AREA’: Potential jurors in Hunter Biden trial repeatedly mentioned this vice in social circles …Read more FANI’S DAY IN COURT: October hearing date tentatively set for Trump’s appeal to disqualify Fani Willis from GA case …Read more WITNESS LIST: The 9 people prosecutors hope will convince a jury Hunter Biden is guilty …Read more CHAOTIC MEETING: Illinois meeting probing ‘supermayor’ Tiffany Henyard’s lavish spending devolves into scuffle …Read more FIRST ON FOX: Pence rallies conservatives to ‘stay vigilant’ on specific key issues he says are being watered down …Read more ‘UNLEASH’ AMERICAN ENERGY: Republican governors blast Biden over soaring energy prices …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.
Gary Brecka on obesity, Sweet Truth Act signed by Eric Adams: ‘We are addicted to how sugar makes us feel’
Late last year, Mayor Eric Adams signed the Sweet Truth Act, which will require chain restaurants to conspicuously express warnings next to menu items with high volumes of added sugar and, beginning later this month, restaurants with prepackaged food will face fines per violation if they do not comply. After years of a push for sugar legislation in New York City, Adams passed the bill into local law that requires chain restaurants with 15 or more locations in the city to indicate food and drink items with over 50 grams of added sugar with a black and white spoon, in addition to the warning. “I’m actually a fan of the legislation because what it’s not doing is restricting its distribution,” Gary Brecka, human biologist and co-founder of 10x Health Systems, told Fox News Digital during a video interview. FEELING HUNGRIER THAN USUAL? YOUR SLEEP SCHEDULE COULD BE THE CULPRIT, AN EXPERT SAYS “At some point I don’t like to see the government coming in and saying you can only eat this, and you can’t eat that. But what I do like is adopting one of the foundational principles of modern medicine, which is informed consent.” Informed consent is the “process of communication between you and your health care provider that often leads to agreement or permission for care, treatment, or services,” according to the American Cancer Society. Brecka said an explicit warning on food items with excessive sugar allows the consumer to make an informed decision to indulge or not. The message next to individual items is to state, “Warning: indicates that the added sugar content of this item is higher than the total daily recommended limit of added sugar for a 2,000 calorie diet (50g). Eating too many added sugars can contribute to type 2 diabetes and weight gain.” WEIGHT-LOSS MEDICATIONS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE WITHOUT ‘NUTRITION THERAPY,’ EXPERT SAYS “I like the fact that this legislation is designed to improve the choices that the consumer has,” Brecka said. “It’s like a warning on a cigarette cart.” If restaurants fail to add warnings to their menus and menu boards, they are liable for a civil penalty of up to $200 per violation. The rules for prepackaged food and drink items are to become operative on June 19, 2024. Other food items will require warnings beginning Dec. 1, 2024. “I think the general populace is also unaware of the dangers of these types of foods,” said Brecka. The rule will impact major companies, including Starbucks, McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, among others. Fox News Digital reached out to each company for comment on how the Sweet Truth Act may impact business, but did not hear back. HERE’S THE POLICY THAT DOOMS NEW YORK CITY TO BE MIGRANT CENTRAL Though calorie needs vary per person, the recommended added sugar intake per day for a 2,000 calorie diet is 50 grams. Many Americans consume more than this during their commute to work. “So, I’m tired. I go to Starbucks. I get a coffee and some kind of highly refined sugar item,” Brecka said. “It makes me feel great for a short period of time, and I’m after that short-term gratification. It has consequences. By the time you’re out of Starbucks and on your way to the office, you’re already hungry again.” Processed foods reportedly trigger the release of dopamine, and make consumers crave more, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Brecka is not advocating for individuals to abandon indulgence altogether. However, he recommends enjoying a dessert after dinner, to ensure proteins and healthy fats are absorbed, too. “Let’s save dessert for the end of the day,” he said. “Let’s reward ourselves at the end of the day. I mean, you just woke up, you don’t deserve a reward.” Americans might be surprised to learn how much total sugar is in their preferred food and drink items. OBESITY IS ‘EXPLODING,’ WITH MORE THAN 12% OF PEOPLE CLASSIFIED AS OBESE WORLDWIDE, STUDY FINDS: ‘BIG TROUBLE’ These are just a few popular menu items on Starbucks, McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts menus and the breakdowns of sugar per unit. The move to pass the Sweet Truth Act was brought to lawmakers in NYC as the city is in the thick of a nutrition and obesity crisis statewide, including the five boroughs. “Processed foods, and highly refined carbohydrates and sugars, lead to overeating,” Brecka said. “That’s why we have a pandemic of ultra processed food intake, and we have a pandemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes.” In 2023, approximately 1 in 3 adults in New York were reportedly obese, and the health crisis is most prevalent in the Bronx and lowest in Manhattan, according to the NY State Department of Health. NUTRITIONIST SOUNDS THE ALARM ON VIRAL TREND GLORIFYING EXTREME HIGH-CALORIE DIET: ‘DIABETES TIME BOMB’ In 2023, 34.5% of adults in the Bronx were reportedly obese. This number was up 2.1% from 2020. During the same year, 17.2% of residents in Manhattan were reportedly obese, according to NY.gov. This data was up slightly from 17.1% in 2020. From 2016-2020, at least 34.40% of Black and non-Hispanic people in NY state were reportedly obese. When comparing NYC Marcoscope and Community Health Survey data, obesity was highest in men aged 20 to 39 years old and women between 40 and 58 years old. “We are the highest consumers of refined sugars in the world,” Brecka said of the U.S. “The proof is crystal clear. The evidence is irrefutable.” Per capita, sugar consumption in the U.S. is 126.4 grams daily, and Germany is hard on the heels of America, consuming 102.9 grams of sugar daily, according to the World Population Review. With the rule in place, Americans in NYC may learn to better balance their daily consumption of food and added sugars. “We can shift our choices,” said Brecka. “We don’t need to eliminate these foods by any means.”
Trump attorneys request Merchan lift gag order ahead of presidential debate, following end of trial
EXCLUSIVE: Trump defense attorneys are requesting Judge Juan Merchan terminate the gag order restricting former President Trump from speaking about witnesses and the case now that the trial has concluded, citing the 2024 presidential election and the first debate against President Biden later this month, as well as the First Amendment rights of the former president and his supporters, Fox News Digital has learned. Fox News Digital obtained a letter Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche sent to Merchan Tuesday. TRUMP GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL The former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree last week. The six-week-long trial stemmed from charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Merchan imposed a gag order on Trump before the trial began, barring Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses with regard to their potential participation or about counsel in the case — other than Bragg — or about court staff, DA staff or family members of staff. Trump’s team repeatedly appealed the order and have been denied. “We respectfully submit this pre-motion letter requesting that Your Honor terminate the gag order restricting President Trump’s extrajudicial statements,” Blanche wrote. “For the reasons set forth below, because the trial has concluded, the stated bases for the gag order no longer exist.” Blanche said Trump’s legal team disagreed with the “proffered justifications for the gag order” to begin with, but said now that the trial is complete, the order should be lifted. “Now that the trial is concluded, the concerns articulated by the government and the Court do not justify continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump—who remains the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election—and the American people,” Blanche wrote. Blanche added that the “constitutional mandate for unrestrained campaign advocacy by President Trump is even stronger in light of” comments made by President Biden and his campaign, as well as “continued public attacks” by the government’s witnesses like Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. Blanche also cited the first presidential debate on June 27 as a reason the order should be lifted. TRUMP SAYS GUILTY VERDICT IS A ‘SCAR’ ON NEW YORK JUSTICE SYSTEM, VOWS TO ‘KEEP FIGHTING’ A footnote in the letter states: “The defense does not concede that there was ever a valid basis for the gag order and reserves the right to challenge the irreparable First Amendment harms caused by the order.” Trump campaign communications director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital on Tuesday that the gag order is “unconstitutional and un-American.” “As made clear by President Trump and his legal team, the wrongful gag order was a big part of how the Manhattan sham trial was rigged and should be lifted immediately,” Cheung told Fox News Digital. Trump was fined $10,000 for violating the gag order during the trial. Merchan also threatened Trump with jail time for further alleged violations. “The last thing I want to consider is jail,” Merchan said. “You are [the] former president and possibly the next president.” “The magnitude of that decision is not lost on me,” Merchan said. “Your continued willful violation of the court’s order…constitutes a direct attack…and will not be allowed to continue…It is not allowed to continue.” Trump and his defense attorneys have maintained that the former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee should not be bound by the gag order, saying it violates his First Amendment rights as well as the First Amendment rights of his supporters. Trump’s sentencing date is set for July 11 — just four days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where he is expected to be formally nominated as the 2024 Republican presidential nominee.
‘It is insulting’: Biden border order takes heat from Democrats and Republicans
President Biden’s announcement of a new asylum bar for migrants coming across the southern border when encounters hit a certain level was met with immediate criticism from both Democrats and Republicans — with Republicans calling it a “stunt” and some Democrats accusing him of betraying migrants. Biden signed a proclamation that will temporarily suspend the entry of non-citizens across the southern border once the number of average border encounters exceeds 2,500 a day over seven days, officials said. That will stay in effect until 14 days after there has been a seven-day average of less than 1,500 encounters along the border. Officials said it would make it easier for immigration officers to quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S. BIDEN ORDER TO BLOCK MOST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHEN CROSSINGS SURGE, AS ELECTION NEARS The order includes a number of exceptions for those coming across the border. It will not apply to visa holders, unaccompanied children, victims of a “severe form” of trafficking, as well as those who face an acute medical emergency or an imminent threat to life or safety. It also does not apply to those seeking entry to the U.S. via ports of entry using the CBP One app — of which around 1,500 migrants are allowed in each day. “Today I’m moving past Republican obstruction and using executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border,” President Biden said in a speech on Tuesday afternoon, accusing Republicans of refusing to secure the border. But it drew a sharp backlash both from Republicans and from some Democrats, but for different reasons. House Speaker Mike Johnson, with Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Majority Whip Tom Emmer and House Republican Chair Elise Stefanik, said that the order was a “desperate political stunt to try and stabilize his plummeting poll numbers” ahead of the November election. FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS SAY THE US-MEXICO BORDER IS A BIG PROBLEM “From his first day in office, Biden has worked to implement a failed open border agenda which created this historic humanitarian and national security catastrophe. He has turned every American community into a border community and opened our country to violent criminals, terrorists, cartels, and poisonous drugs. “This Executive action does nothing to end parole abuses or catch-and-release. It continues the administration’s abuse of the CBP One app. It does not reimplement President Trump’s successful Remain in Mexico policy. It provides no new resources for border patrol. It does nothing to deport the millions who have poured over our open border every year since Biden took office. And it will still allow scores of additional illegal immigrants to flood into our country before any so-called shutdown authority kicks in,” they said. “President Biden has effectively legitimized crisis levels of illegal immigration well beyond those laid out by the DHS secretary he once served with,” House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green said. “And this number doesn’t count any of the roughly 70,000 monthly encounters through Biden and Mayorkas’ unlawful CBP One, CHNV and other mass-parole programs.” MAYORKAS SAYS SOME MIGRANTS ‘TRY TO GAME’ ASYLUM SYSTEM, AS BORDER REMAINS TOP POLITICAL ISSUE Stephen Miller, who served as a senior White House official during the Trump administration, was scathing in his assessment of the order, calling it a “pro-invasion, pr- illegal migration executive order.” He highlighted that the Biden administration is currently allowing thousands of migrants a week via ports of entry using the CBP One app, and said that just because a migrant is unable to claim asylum at the border, does not mean they won’t be released into the interior of the country. “They’ll still release you on a [Notice to Appear]. They’ll still give you a court date in the future. They will still release you on the basis of capacity concerns. Mexico won’t take them, other countries won’t take them They have no detention space, no detention plans. Border Patrol is going to keep on releasing everybody, and everyone they don’t release is going to go to a port of entry, and they’re going to get released into the country with parole to live in our communities,” he told reporters. The order also picked up criticism from Democrats in both chambers. Rep. Pramila Jayapal who is ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, said the move was a “dangerous step in the wrong direction” and noted that the underlying authority — 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) had been deployed by the Trump administration. CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS “This attempt to shut down the border to asylum seekers uses the same section of U.S. immigration laws that convicted felon Donald Trump used to implement the Muslim Ban and in attempts to cut off all access to asylum,” she said in a statement. “While there are some differences from Trump’s actions, the reality is that this utilizes the same failed enforcement-only approach, penalizes asylum seekers, and furthers a false narrative that these actions will ‘fix’ the border.” Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee were also not impressed by the order. “President Biden has acted in the face of Congressional Republicans cynically deciding to block bipartisan border security legislation,” Ranking Member Bennie Thompson said. “That being said, I am concerned about the impact of the Executive Order on vulnerable people coming to the United States for safety and protection. We must ensure continued access to asylum under U.S. law.” In the Senate, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., accused Biden of having “undermined American values and abandoned our nation’s obligations to provide people fleeing persecution, violence and authoritarianism with an opportunity to seek refuge in the U.S.” “This asylum ban will fail to address the challenge at our border, just as it did under the Trump administration. It will lead to people with legitimate asylum claims being prevented from seeking safety and returned to harm.” Republicans there too
Hunter Biden’s wife lashes out at former Trump aide during court appearance: ‘Piece of s—‘
Melissa Cohen Biden – the wife of Hunter Biden – lashed out at a former Trump White House aide during a Tuesday appearance in court to support her husband, who has been charged with three felonies stemming from a 2018 firearm purchase. Her remarks were directed at Garrett Ziegler, who was sued by Hunter Biden last year for publishing the contents of his infamous laptop. Approaching Ziegler at the trial, Biden’s wife pointed her finger at him and said, “You have no right to be here, you Nazi piece of s—.” Ziegler, who leads the nonprofit group Marco Polo, did not respond to Melissa Cohen Biden’s remarks at the time. Ziegler confirmed the encounter, which was first reported by NBC News, and told the outlet, “It’s sad I’ve been sitting here the whole time and haven’t approached anyone.” EX-TRUMP AIDE SUED BY HUNTER BIDEN WANTS BIDEN-APPOINTED JUDGE OFF LAPTOP CASE, FEARS ‘2020 ALL OVER AGAIN’ “For the record, I’m not a Nazi, I’m a believer in the U.S. Constitution. I haven’t said one thing to them,” Ziegler added. Regarding Ziegler’s encounter with Melissa Cohen Biden, Marco Polo wrote in a tweet, “The wife has the same level of impulse control as Hunter. To the family bringing decency back, anyone who is perceived as opposition is a Nazi.” “Truly contemptible liars & scoundrels,” the group added. “We don’t respond in kind in the back of a courtroom, because we’re gentlemen who do not berate women.” Hunter Biden’s lawsuit against Ziegler, which was filed last September, alleged that he had violated federal computer laws by hacking into the now-infamous laptop that was left in a Delaware repair shop in 2019. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, accuses Ziegler and Marco Polo, as well as 10 unidentified associates, of spreading “tens of thousands of emails, thousands of photos, and dozens of videos and recordings” that were considered “pornographic” on the laptop. Marco Polo is a self-described nonprofit research group “exposing corruption & blackmail.” The website has several sections pertaining to Biden’s laptop, including his emails, text messages, phone calls and financial data that culminates into a massive “online searchable database.” In the 14-page civil complaint, Biden’s attorneys allege that Ziegler is a “zealot” who has unleashed a “sustained, unhinged and obsessed campaign” against the entire Biden family for over two years and “spent countless hours accessing, tampering with, manipulating, altering, copying and damaging computer data” with his associates. “While Defendant Ziegler is entitled to his extremist and counterfactual opinions, he has no right to engage in illegal activities to advance his right-wing agenda,” attorneys Abbe Lowell, Bryan Sullivan, Zachary Hansen and Paul Salvaty wrote. HUNTER BIDEN’S DRUG USE: WHAT THE PROSECUTION NEEDS TO PROVE AND WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW In March, Ziegler sought to have a judge who was appointed by President Biden removed from the case. He argued that the outcome of the lawsuit not only has implications for the congressional impeachment inquiry, but also the 2024 election. In a recent motion in U.S. District Court for Central California, Ziegler’s attorney, Robert Tyler, requested that Judge Hernán D. Vera recuse himself from the case because his “impartiality will be reasonably questioned.” Vera made donations to Joe Biden’s campaign for president in 2020. He also was appointed to his position by President Biden just three months before Hunter Biden filed the lawsuit against Ziegler and one day after then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., announced a presidential impeachment inquiry had commenced in Congress. Tyler emphasized that he is not arguing against Vera’s integrity and assumes the court system assigned the judge to Hunter Biden’s lawsuit at random. “But there’s something called forum shopping that lawyers do,” he told Fox News Digital at the time. “And here’s a case where our client resides in Illinois, he has no contact with California such that California should have any jurisdiction over this case, yet Hunter Biden’s lawyers filed this lawsuit to the Central District of California just shortly after Judge Vera’s appointed.” Hunter Biden’s lawsuit seeks a jury trial based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. Ziegler’s attorney counters that the former Trump aide and associates “prepared a credible investigative report,” known as the “Report on the Biden Laptop,” not to wage a campaign against Hunter Biden, but to “expose instances of foreign compromise” by Hunter Biden and his father, President Biden, which are “matters of great public interest and concern.” In preparing the report, Ziegler relied on copies of files from the laptop that “had already been widely circulated since at least October 2020 to numerous media outlets,” Tyler wrote. The repair shop owner turned the laptop over to the FBI on or around October 2019 after discovering its “disturbing materials,” Tyler’s motion noted. The motion stated that Ziegler’s website with the Biden laptop report has been accessed by over 5 million Americans since its inception in June 2023 and more than 8 million Americans have accessed the free digital version of the report made available in November 2022. Fox News’ Jamie Joseph and Danielle Wallace contributed to this report.
42 House Dems defy Biden, vote for ICC sanctions in response to Netanyahu threats
Forty-two House Democrats voted with Republicans on a bill to sanction the International Criminal Court in response to its top prosecutor seeking arrest warrants against top Israeli officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The bill, led by Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Brian Mast, R-Fla., passed along bipartisan lines in a 247-155 vote on Tuesday. Two Republicans voted “present” on the bill, while the remaining 205 voting GOP lawmakers voted in favor of it. The 155 votes in opposition to the bill all came from Democrats. The modest left-wing support comes despite the White House releasing a statement in opposition to the bill – though the Biden administration stopped short of threatening to veto the measure. “There are more effective ways to defend Israel, preserve U.S. positions on the ICC, and promote international justice and accountability, and the Administration stands ready to work with the Congress on those options,” the White House said in a statement on Monday. FAMILIES OF HOSTAGES TAKEN IN ISRAEL ON OCT. 7 PLEAD FOR PEACE AT INTERFAITH CONFERENCE IN NYC House lawmakers were engaged in bipartisan talks last month to respond to the ICC after chief prosecutor Karim Khan said he would seek arrest warrants against both Israeli and Hamas officials over the war in Gaza. Those talks apparently broke down, however, with the White House’s statement being the final nail in the coffin. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, lamented the lack of bipartisanship in crafting the measure. He told Fox News Digital that he had been working with his Democratic counterpart, ranking member Rep. Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., on a bipartisan compromise, but that their effort had been shut down by the White House. “Meeks and I worked out a compromise bill that everybody was happy with and he talked to [House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.]. And I mean, our deal is like, if it’s not bipartisan…when we talked to Netanyahu, that’s what he wanted – it’s kind of worthless,” McCaul said. “They raised it to the White House’s attention and they did a complete about-face. And while they were for sanctions previously, now they’re against.” IDF CONFIRMS DEATHS OF 4 ISRAELI HOSTAGES IN HAMAS CAPTIVITY During debate on the House floor on the measure, Meeks acknowledged the bipartisan effort but criticized the bill being vote on on Tuesday, arguing it had a “chilling effect on the ICC as an institution and hamper the court’s effort to prosecute serious atrocities that have been perpetrated around the world.” Too often in our foreign policy, we turn to sanctions as a first choice rather than a tool of last resort. Sanctions should not be our only go-to punishment to express our displeasure, because they have real consequences,” Meeks said. When asked about the breakdown in bipartisan talks earlier, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., also blamed the White House in comments to Fox News Digital. MORE THAN A THIRD OF REMAINING GAZA HOSTAGES ARE BELIEVED TO BE DEAD, ISRAEL SAYS “I worked on it all weekend. I worked on it up until Sunday, late Sunday, in an effort to make it bipartisan, and I think that members of the House and Senate were interested in doing so. But the White House gave the red light and said that they would not support sanctions, which was unconscionable to us,” Johnson said. “And I think that’s that’s why it sort of broke down. But we had to move. We couldn’t wait any longer. We need to send this message.” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told Fox News Digital that the bill is still not a partisan effort and called on the Democrat-controlled Senate to take up the bill. “By passing our nonpartisan bill to sanction the ICC for absurdly equivocating Israel to Hamas as a war criminal, the House just sent a resounding message to the world that we unapologetically stand with our ally over barbaric terrorists. The question remains: Which side will Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer choose?” Emmer said. Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer for comment.
The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that voting is not a fundamental right. What’s next for voters?
A split Kansas Supreme Court ruling last week issued in a lawsuit over a 2021 election law found that voting is not a fundamental right listed in the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The finding drew sharp criticism from three dissenting justices on the high court. The Associated Press looks at what the ruling might mean for Kansas residents and future elections. KANSAS CONSTITUTION DOESN’T INCLUDE RIGHT TO VOTE: STATE HIGH COURT MAJORITY WHAT IS THE ISSUE? The ruling itself is wide-reaching, combining different lawsuits at various stages of litigation that challenge three different segments of a 2021 election law passed by the Kansas Legislature. It was a lawsuit challenging a ballot signature verification measure in which a majority of the high court found there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The measure requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The high court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of that lawsuit and instructed the lower court to consider whether the measure violates the equal protection rights of voters. But four of the court’s seven justices rejected arguments that the measure violates voting rights under the state’s Bill of Rights. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? The decision was written by Justice Caleb Stegall, who is seen as the most conservative of the court’s seven justices, five of whom were appointed by Democratic governors. Stegall dismissed the strongly-worded objections of the dissenting justices, saying there is not a “fundamental right to vote” in Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, as the groups had argued. The dissenting justices said that ignores long-held precedent by the Kansas Supreme Court. Justice Eric Rosen said “it staggers my imagination” to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote and called the majority opinion a “betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the foundational rights of Kansans.” Justice Melissa Taylor Standridge called the decision troubling, with far-reaching implications, and that the ruling “defies history, law, and logic and is just plain wrong.” “For over 60 years, this interpretation of section 2 has been our precedent,” she wrote. “Without even a hint that it’s doing so, the majority overturns this precedent today.” WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RULING? A determination that voting is not a fundamental right could embolden state lawmakers to push for further restrictions on advance voting and mail-in ballots, said Jamie Shew, election officer for Douglas County — Kansas’ fifth most populous county. The constant changes in election law are also confusing not only to election officials, but to voters, Shew said. “I’ve had two voters who came in this morning, and they’re like, ‘Well, I read the paper about signature verification. Is my signature going to get tossed out?’” he recalled. “They were really nervous about it.” Election laws had been fairly constant since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by Congress, Shew said. But that changed in 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out a key provision of that act, he said. “Since then the rules just keep changing,” Shew said. “And I think our job is making sure that voters not only don’t get confused, but also don’t get frustrated and just stop participating.” HOW DID WE GET HERE? The Republican-led Legislature passed a raft of election law changes in 2021 over Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto amid false claims by some in the GOP that the 2020 presidential election wasn’t valid. Since that election, there have been lawsuits over voting across the country, and partisan election law battles have continued in high-profile states like Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin. Fights for election advantage are also being waged in smaller states like South Dakota and Nebraska. WHAT’S NEXT? Shew said he and other election officials will focus on meting out the state’s voting laws fairly and helping make sure the public understands them. Justice Dan Biles said in his dissent that courts must insist that the signature verification requirement — if it survives the lawsuit against it — is handled reliably and uniformly across the state. That includes analyzing the procedures for how a mismatched signature is flagged, how a voter is notified of the mismatch and whether the voter is given a reasonable opportunity to cure the problem. “The Kansas Constitution explicitly sets forth—and absolutely protects—a citizen’s right to vote as the foundation of our democratic republic,” Biles wrote, “so it is serious business when a government official in one of our 105 counties rejects an otherwise lawful ballot just by eyeballing the signature on the outside envelope.”