Vulnerable House Dem bucks party orthodoxy, blasting his state’s proposed EV mandate
Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden, who is running for reelection in a swing district, is taking a strong stance against a proposed electric vehicle (EV) mandate in his state. Golden’s office confirmed to Fox News Digital that he remains opposed to Maine’s EV mandate, which was proposed by the state’s Board of Environmental Protection earlier this year and is slated for formal adoption on Wednesday. Maine’s so-called Advanced Clear Car Program would mimic regulations approved in California mandating that at least 51% of new car purchases in the state be electric by 2028 and 82% be electric by 2032. “Congressman Golden submitted testimony in February in opposition to the Maine BEP’s proposal to adopt California clean car standards in Maine. Additionally, he submitted testimony to Maine BEP opposing California truck standards,” a spokesperson for Golden told Fox News Digital in an email. “Congressman Golden has consistently opposed mandates for electric vehicles at the state and national level, and will continue to advocate on behalf of his constituents,” the spokesperson added. BIDEN ADMIN SET TO FINALIZE MAJOR GAS CAR CRACKDOWN OVER WARNINGS FROM AUTOMAKERS, ENERGY INDUSTRY While the Maine Board of Environmental Protection was originally slated to vote on adopting the Advanced Clear Car Program in late December, a major windstorm caused widespread power outages statewide, forcing state offices to be closed and the agency’s vote to be indefinitely delayed. After the vote was delayed, Golden remarked that under the EV mandate, such a storm knocking out power would ironically have rendered most new cars “useless.” He also noted that the state’s power grid is unable to sustain such a massive demand increase caused by a rapid uptick in EV ownership and that charging stations are “few and far between.” 17 RETIRED MILITARY OFFICIALS RAISE ALARM ON BIDEN’S ELECTRIC VEHICLE PUSH The Board of Environmental Protection ultimately proposed a slightly-modified version of the Advanced Clear Car Program, pushing the start date from 2027 to 2028, and accepted a new round of comments from the public and stakeholders. Golden then filed testimony on Feb. 1, again opposing the EV mandate rules. “Mainers proudly work to protect the environment of our state,” he wrote to the agency. “I, too, support steps to address the threats of climate change and the goal of keeping our pristine vistas along our coast, mountains, and farmlands intact. Zero Emission Vehicles will eventually — and undoubtedly — play a role in those efforts. Forcing manufacturers — via dealerships in Maine — to offer ZEV automobiles is, in my opinion, contrary to those goals.” “For those of us who make our homes here, safe, dependable, and — most importantly — affordable transportation is not a luxury but a cold hard necessity,” the Democrat continued. “Any efforts to broaden the use of new energy technologies, particularly in the case of transportation for the average citizen, must take these considerations into account ahead of any government actions.” The state received dozens of other letters of opposition, including one from the Maine Automobile Dealers Association, which said the proposal is “unreasonable, unachievable and would severely restrict the ability of Maine citizens to purchase a vehicle which meets their needs and wants.” The group noted the Advanced Clear Car Program would ultimately mandate an 800% increase in EV purchases in less than three years. Meanwhile, Golden has also taken a stance against broader EV efforts, voting in favor of a bill to prohibit the federal government from allowing state mandates limiting gas car sales in September and, in December, in favor of a bill striking down the Biden administration’s aggressive tailpipe emissions standards aimed at pushing EV sales. The Maine Board of Environmental Protection did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Indiana Gov. Holcomb vetoes bill defining antisemitism: ‘toothless’
Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb vetoed a bill Monday that would have defined antisemitism in state education code while simultaneously signing a proclamation condemning all forms of antisemitism. The Republican governor cited changes made to the bill in the final days of the legislative session in a news release. Aimed at addressing antisemitism on college campuses, the bill’s opponents argued that early versions of it would penalize people for criticizing Israel. Disagreements between lawmakers in the Republican-controlled state House and Senate threatened to kill the bill before reaching a compromise in the final hours of the legislative session on March 8. GEORGIA GOV. KEMP SIGNS BILL OFFICIALLY DEFINING ANTISEMITISM IN STATE LAW This is the second time the state House has tried to pass the legislation; an identical bill died last year after failing to reach a committee hearing in the state Senate. Around the country, similar legislation rose to prominence this session amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The proposal would broadly define antisemitism as religious discrimination, claiming it would “provide educational opportunities free of religious discrimination.” Defined in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The original House bill used the organization’s definition, which its author has since warned against using in law. It also included “contemporary examples of antisemitism” provided by the group, which make explicit references to Israel. These have been adopted by the U.S. Department of State and under former President Donald Trump, through executive order. Over 30 states have adopted the definition in some way either through proclamation, executive order or legislation. State senators, however, passed an amended version of the bill earlier this month that still included the IHRA’s broad definition of antisemitism but deleted the group’s name and examples that include explicit references to Israel. Opponents including the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network and Jewish Voice for Peace Indiana had argued that such direct references would stifle criticism of Israel in academic settings and activism on campuses in support of Palestinians facing a worsening humanitarian crisis and widespread starvation. The disagreement between the chambers prompted the bill to go to conference committee, a body consisting of lawmakers from both chambers. The committee reached an agreement on the last day of the legislative session to add the IHRA attribution back to the bill but remove the clause with examples. The final version was approved in both chambers with bipartisan support. “The language that emerged in the final days of the legislative session fails to incorporate the entire International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and its important contemporary examples,” Holcomb said about vetoing the bill. “Additionally, the confusing language included in the bill could be read to exclude those examples.” The Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) said the group supported the final version of the bill after it passed, as did the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network, which was opposed to the original version over concerns about academic freedom and advocacy. Holcomb’s support wasn’t clear after its passage. Last week, he expressed concern that Indiana would be an “outlier” among other states thanks to the changes and said he wanted to ensure there is no “ambiguity” in Indiana law. Republican Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita called on Holcomb to veto the bill, saying it is “toothless” without the mention of the examples. Holcomb’s proclamation condemning antisemitism cites the IHRA definition and its examples. In a statement, Holcomb said the proclamation “ensures we join numerous states and countries by supporting the entire IHRA definition with its inextricable examples.” The JCRC thanked Holcomb in a statement for his “thoughtful” consideration of “the concerns raised in recent days by national experts and the Attorney General.” The group said it will work closely with lawmakers and the state to “ensure that the guidance of Governor Holcomb’s proclamation is correctly applied to identify and confront antisemitism and meet the needs of Jewish students in K-12 and higher educational settings.” Holcomb has not vetoed a bill since 2022. Lawmakers can easily overturn a veto in Indiana and only need a simple majority to do so. It’s unclear though if or when lawmakers might reconvene. The push to define antisemitism in numerous states predates the Oct. 7 attacks in which Hamas killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, sparking a war that has killed more than 31,000 Palestinians. But the war gave supporters of the push another motivation. This year, governors in Arkansas, Georgia and South Dakota signed measures and a proposal is still awaiting gubernatorial review in Florida.
NYC Mayor Eric Adams responds to sexual misconduct allegations: ‘This did not happen’
New York City Mayor Eric Adams spoke Tuesday about a new lawsuit alleging that, during his time on the police force in the ’90s, he demanded sexual favors from a colleague in exchange for help with a job issue, saying the events described “did not happen.” In the lawsuit, Adams’ accuser, Lorna Beach-Mathura, said she had been repeatedly passed over for promotions and experienced “resistance all-too-frequently faced by Black and female NYPD … employees in that era.” Adams at the time served as a leader in the Transit NYPD Guardians division, so she sought him out for his help. “Instead of helping Plaintiff get fair treatment at the Defendant Transit Bureau, Defendant Adams preyed on her perceived vulnerability, demanding a quid pro quo sexual favor and sexually assaulting Plaintiff, revealing himself not to be the ‘Guardian’ he purported to be, but a predator,” the lawsuit states. Adams on Tuesday told reporters “this did not happen,” and “I don’t recall ever meeting this person during my time in the police department back in ’93. NEW LAWSUIT ALLEGES NYC MAYOR ERIC ADAMS DEMANDED SEX ACTS FROM POLICE OFFICER IN EXCHANGE FOR CAREER HELP “Many of you know, those who have followed me, I was one of the most outspoken voices for fighting not only police abuse, but also for the rights of people,” he said. “My life has been dedicated and committed to that. “My life has been a clear, open book for almost 40 years now. I have been one of the most public faces in this city, and I have always carried myself with the level of dignity that New Yorkers expect from me,” the Democratic mayor continued. “And I want to say to New Yorkers I’m going to continue to do my job of navigating the city out of the crises that we have been in, just as we navigated you out of COVID, the asylum seeker crisis, public safety, housing crises. I’m focused on doing that.” NYC SECURES $106M IN FEDERAL FUNDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MIGRANT COSTS AFTER MONTHS OF DELAYS The lawsuit states Beach-Mathura learned in the fall of 2023 that New York had passed a law allowing survivors of sexual assault to come forward years after an attack and felt compelled to bring Adams’ “behavior to light.” She alleged Adams said he would help her with an employment problem but instead drove her alone to a vacant lot and requested oral sex from her, which she rejected. He continued to sexually assault her, according to the suit. Beach-Mathura also alleged Adams never helped her with the employment issue and that she eventually left city government in 1994. She now lives in Florida, where she has worked as a public school teacher.
Gold Star father Steve Nikoui says charges for shouting during Biden SOTU haven’t been dropped
The Gold Star father who was arrested after shouting at President Biden while he was delivering the State of the Union address earlier this month told Fox News on Tuesday that the charges against him have not been dropped. Steve Nikoui said he was “not very much” surprised that the Biden administration hadn’t intervened on his behalf following the incident on March 7. “No charges have been dropped,” Nikoui told Fox News outside a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the president’s chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. U.S. Capitol Police told Fox News on Tuesday that the charges leveled against Nikoui are being handled by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — which is under the direct supervision of Attorney General Merrick Garland. MARK MILLEY AND FORMER CENTCOM COMMANDER TO FACE GRILLING IN CONGRESS OVER BIDEN’S AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL Nikoui, 51, is the father of a U.S. Marine who was killed during that botched withdrawal in 2021. Nikoui was escorted out of the House Galleries during Biden’s State of the Union speech after he stood up and began yelling “Abbey Gate” repeatedly. The heckling was a reference to an attack at the Abbey Gate of Hamid Karzai International Airport in Afghanistan that occurred during the military’s withdrawal from the country. GOLD STAR FATHER STEVE NIKOUI ARRESTED AFTER HECKLING BIDEN AT SOTU ADDRESS The surprise attack killed 13 U.S. service members and injured at least 170 civilians — including Nikoui’s son, Marine Lance Cpl. Kareem Nikoui. Nikoui was confronted by security during his outburst, who demanded he stop. He refused and continued shouting. He was removed from the House Galleries and arrested by Capitol Police on the misdemeanor charge of crowding, obstructing or incommoding. Fox News’ Aishah Hasnie, Chad Pergram and Timothy H.J. Nerozzi contributed to this report.
Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment
A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights. “The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.” Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW In this case, U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores, the court considered whether people who enter the country illegally can be banned from owning firearms. Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuit that considered whether people convicted of non-violent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms. CONGRESS POISED TO ROLL BACK ‘VETERAN GUN BAN,’ WITH RELUCTANT BIDEN BACKING Upon review, Coleman concluded that Carbajal-Flores’ illegally present status was not sufficient to deny him Second Amendment rights. The judge said the “plain text” of the Constitution “presumptively protects firearms possession by undocumented persons.” “Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” the judge wrote. “Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.” The court determined that because there is insufficient evidence to suggest Carbajal-Flores is a danger to society, there is no historical analogue that would permit the federal government to deny him his gun rights. NRA SLAMS BIDEN’S SOTU SPEECH AS ATTACK ON ‘THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICAN FREEDOM’ “The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.” The ruling has divided gun rights activists, with some arguing that noncitizens should not have rights protected by the Constitution. Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Fox News Digital his group “has historically recognized the dangers unchecked illegal immigration presents, chiefly of which is a serious potential to swing the balance of power into the hands of anti-gun politicians.” Pratt reiterated GOA does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. “In this underlying ruling, the Second Amendment community undoubtedly has mixed feelings, because while illegal aliens are most certainly not part of ‘the People,’ everyone has a God-given right to defend themselves against violent acts like rape and murder,” he said. “Of course, the courts wouldn’t have to decide this question if Joe Biden and the Democratic Party would simply secure our borders.”
Biden launches ‘Latinos con Biden-Harris’ to court Hispanic voters wooed by Trump
President Biden’s re-election campaign is targeting Latino voters with a new initiative. The president is slated to launch the Latinos con Biden-Harris campaign program on Tuesday during a campaign stop in Arizona. “The Latino vote was critical to the President’s victory in 2020, and 2024 will be no different,” said campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez. LATINO EVANGELICALS REJECTING DEMOCRATIC PARTY, PASTOR SAYS: ‘GOING TO VOTE LIKE NO OTHER IN NOVEMBER’ She continued, “Latinos con Biden-Harris will be essential to activating and mobilizing Latinos across the country, and importantly, is another way we are making clear with action that we are investing aggressively into earning the Latino vote.” The Hispanic voter base is considered one of the most valuable demographics for candidates in the 2024 presidential election – the Latino population continues to rise while its historic affiliation with the Democrats has wavered. “Our community has deep roots in organizing, and we are excited to harness that skill set to fight for our families, our communities, and against Donald Trump’s anti-Latino agenda. There’s too much at stake in this election,” Chávez Rodríguez added. YOUNG LATINO VOTERS IN PENNSYLVANIA ARE ‘TRUMP FANS’ ON ECONOMY, MAY VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2024: REPORT “Hispanic voters are rejecting what Joe Biden is selling,” Make America Great Again Inc. spokesman Alex Pfeiffer said in a statement Tuesday. “The last three years of Bidenomics have left Hispanic Americans poorer.” A poll from earlier this month found former President Trump holds a six-point lead over Biden among Hispanic voters. The New York Times/Siena College poll, which was conducted from Feb. 25 to 28 and included responses from 980 registered voters nationwide, asked respondents whom they would support in the 2024 presidential election if it were held today. Between candidates Biden and Trump, 46% of Hispanics who responded to the poll said they would vote for Trump, while 40% said they would support Biden. That’s a big difference from Biden’s 2020 general election support from Hispanics. Biden won 59% of the Hispanic vote to Trump’s 38% in 2020, according to Pew Research. Fox News Digital has reached out to the Trump campaign and Biden campaign for comment. Fox News Digital’s Kyle Morris contributed to this report.
House Republicans demand DHS provide docs on deportations of brothers of Laken Riley’s accused killer
House Judiciary Committee Republicans are demanding that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas provide documents about the previous deportations and other information on the two brothers of Laken Riley’s accused killer – two men from Venezuela who were also in the United States illegally at the time of the Georgia nursing student’s brutal slaying. Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., who chairs the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security and Enforcement, jointly penned a letter to Mayorkas on Monday requesting information on 29-year-old Diego Ibarra and 24-year-old Argenis Ibarra. Their brother, Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, allegedly murdered Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, while she was running on the University of Georgia campus on Feb. 22. The three men reportedly lived together in an apartment in Athens, Georgia, at the time of Riley’s death. Like his brother Jose, Diego Ibarra is allegedly affiliated with the dangerous, Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang. In their letter, Jordan and McClintock cited how they already wrote to Mayorkas on Feb. 27 requesting DHS information on Riley’s accused killer and now want the same on the two brothers. LAKEN RILEY MURDER SUSPECT’S SECOND BROTHER WAS TWICE DEPORTED BEFORE SETTLING IN GEORGIA “According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Biden Administration released [Jose] Ibarra into the United States in 2022 after he ‘entered the U.S. illegally from Venezuela,’ paroling him into the country despite his reported affiliation with the dangerous Tren de Aragua gang,” Monday’s letter says. “We now write to request the same information and documents regarding Ibarra’s brothers, Diego and Argenis Ibarra. According to ICE, both brothers entered the United States illegally near Eagle Pass, Texas, on April 3, 2023.” Diego and Argenis were expelled by Border Patrol agents pursuant to Title 42 authorities but allegedly re-entered the country illegally on April 30, 2023. The letter states that despite attempting to bite a Border Patrol agent, Diego Ibarra was subsequently released on Alternatives to Detention (ATD) by ICE. Argenis Ibarra was released by ICE with a notice to appear in immigration court. “Since his release, Diego Ibarra’s interactions with U.S. law enforcement officials reportedly include arrests for ‘failure to appear for a fingerprintable offense,’ driving under the influence, ‘speeding, failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, possession of an open container of alcohol, driving without a license,” shoplifting, as well as a visit from police during which Diego Ibarra was accused of slapping his girlfriend in the face,” the letter says. As the letter notes, Diego was most recently arrested as police in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, were searching for Riley’s killer, after he produced a fake green card when asked for identification. Argenis was encountered by ICE on Feb. 23, 2024, in Athens, Georgia, while ICE was assisting the University of Georgia Police Department with their probe into Riley’s murder. LAKEN RILEY’S FATHER SAYS SUSPECT ‘MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN HERE’ IF BORDER WAS SECURE “Criminal aliens exploit vulnerabilities in our nation’s immigration system to the detriment of those in the United States,” Jordan and McClintock wrote. “The Biden Administration’s border and immigration policies only increase the likelihood that criminal aliens will successfully enter and remain in the U.S. Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to conduct oversight of federal immigration policy and procedures.” To assist the committee with its continued oversight of federal immigration policy and procedures, the letter requests “case history information, including, but not limited to, the aliens’ immigration history, immigration benefits applications, the alien files (A-files) or consular files (including all consular notes), and immigration detention status and history.” Mayorkas was also asked to provide “information regarding the time, date, and place of any and all of the aliens’ entries into the United States, “information regarding the aliens’ processing by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials, including whether CBP officials were alerted to derogatory information about the aliens and what questions were asked of the aliens during the screening process,” “whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lodged an immigration detainer against the aliens,” and “whether the aliens were on Alternatives to Detention (ATD) and, if so, the type of ATD, the dates for which the aliens were on ATD, and the date on which ICE removed the aliens from ATD.” The letter asks that Mayorkas provide such information no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 1. Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, were also cc’ed on the letter.
Disarming defendants awaiting trial is constitutional, federal appeals court rules
A federal court has ruled that it is constitutional to block defendants awaiting trial from possessing firearms. The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that restriction on defendants’ rights to bear firearms is constitutional because it is in line with the country’s historic legal procedures. The decision was unanimous by the panel of three judges. The opinion was written by Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez. “Here, the historical evidence, when considered as a whole, shows a long and broad history of legislatures exercising authority to disarm people whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger, beyond the ordinary citizen, to themselves or others,” Sanchez wrote. DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW John Thomas Fencl and Jesus Perez-Garcia, two defendants in California, brought the legal challenge before the court. Sanchez continued, “The temporary disarmament of Fencl and Perez-Garcia as a means reasonably necessary to protect public safety falls within that historical tradition.” LOS ANGELES POLICE FORMS TASK FORCE TO COUNTER FOREIGN GANGS EXPLOITING US VISA SYSTEM TO TARGET LUXURY HOMES READ THE APPEALS COURT DECISION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE: The court found that restrictions on defendants’ ability to own firearms are “consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.” The California case is only the latest in a string of legal battles based on the “history and tradition” test for laws restricting access to firearms. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen established that laws restricting firearms must be founded on historical precedent. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen overturned the long-standing Sullivan Act in New York, which demanded individuals seeking to carry a gun offer “proper cause” justifying their need to do so. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 2022. He added, “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.”
Why members of Congress decide they ‘gotta get out of this place’
It is unclear if Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., and several dozen other lawmakers are channeling The Animals’ frontman Eric Burdon. However, they certainly share the same sentiments. Congress is not a very fun place to be anymore, and that is why lawmakers are skipping out early, retiring even before their term completes next January. A reporter asked Buck about what “frustrated” him on Capitol Hill and what made working there so “difficult.” HOUSE SPEAKER JOHNSON SAYS WHITE HOUSE DOESN’T ‘CALL THE SHOTS’ ON WHEN IMPEACHMENT IS OVER “Do you really need me to explain what’s so difficult about this?” replied Buck. The 118th Congress has been one of the rockiest and whackiest in recent memory and certainly one of the least productive. The valleys include the five days the House consumed to elect a speaker to multiple flirtations with the debt ceiling and government shutdown. Then there was the ouster of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. The House burned through three more speaker candidates before tapping House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. Despite toiling in the minority, Democrats now provide the majority of votes on many major issues which pass the House, especially on government funding. However, a broad, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers recently voted to curb access to TikTok in the U.S. The TikTok vote scored major headlines, but so did the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. And, as is custom, the House GOP’s first attempt at impeachment failed before they took a mulligan. Three Republicans helped tank the initial Mayorkas impeachment vote: Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc. — who is retiring — and Buck — who is leaving before his term ends. The Colorado Republican cited impeachment as among his decisions to skip out of the 118th Congress early. “We’ve taken impeachment, and we made it a social media issue as opposed to a Constitutional one,” said Buck. “This place just keeps going down. I don’t really want to spend my time here.” Former Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, resigned early a few weeks ago to become the president of Youngstown State University. Former Rep. Brian Higgins, D-N.Y., left early to run an arts organization in Buffalo, New York. Fox is told there could be other lawmakers who ditch Capitol Hill before their term is up. It is about the math. Buck told Fox he will formally resign at the end of the day on March 22. This squeezes the meager GOP majority in the House. There will be 431 members. 218 Republicans to 213 Democrats. At this moment, the breakdown is 219 Republicans to 213 Democrats. That is a margin of six. However, Republicans can only lose two votes. That is because a tie vote fails automatically in the House. When Buck hits the exit ramp, the margin shrivels to five. However, the GOP can still only drop two votes on any given roll call without help from the other side. Here is where things get really interesting. There is a special election for the seat formerly occupied by Higgins on April 30. Strange things sometimes unfold in special elections because it’s impossible to determine the turnout. However, the Higgins seat is a Democratic district. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) garnered 57% of the vote in that district. Republican Gary Dickson runs against Democrat Tim Kennedy. If Kennedy prevails, Democrats hold the seat, and the numbers change again in the House. There will be 432 members. 218 Republicans to 214 Democrats. The margin is four seats, but the GOP cannot lose two votes and still pass a bill without help from across the aisle. Again, tie votes come into play. Republicans will be down to only a solitary vote to spare. This is where things get very dangerous for the GOP. They cannot lose anyone who is out sick or missed a flight. They cannot have someone disappear for a week or two for a family matter. And unfortunately, there are untimely deaths among members from time to time. That said, things may improve for Republicans. There is a likely runoff on May 21 to fill McCarthy’s seat, who resigned in December. The GOP could build its ranks slowly if they win that special election. In fact, Republicans could even have reinforcements if one of the candidates scores more than 50.1% tonight — averting the runoff. However, there is a broader problem. Could other members just quit like Buck? What if they’re as fed up as he is? What if they’re retiring and have big paycheck offers outside Congress and want to leave now? Multiple members confided to Fox they anticipate more exits over the summer, and certainly after the election. The Senate has flipped control in the middle of a Congress before — most recently in 2001. That was when late Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., dropped his affiliation with Republicans and decided to caucus with the Democrats in a 50-50 Senate. You should not rule out anything, considering how strange and unpredictable this Congress has been. $12B IN EARMARKS: CONGRESS’ ROLLER-COASTER HISTORY WITH EARMARK SPENDING TAKES ANOTHER TWIST Buck expressed his disgust just moments after he announced his departure. The House Judiciary Committee invited special counsel Robert Hur to testify last week about his investigation into how President Biden handled classified documents after he left the vice presidency. Hur caught flak from both sides. Democrats took umbrage that Hur appeared to go out of his way to write about the president’s age and perceived cognitive issues. Republicans questioned Hur about why he did not prosecute Mr. Biden, despite having what they believed saw as good reason to do so. Buck spoke directly to Hur when it was his turn to speak from the dais. “From what I’ve observed in this hearing, is that one side thinks you’re trying to get President Trump elected and the other side thinks you’re trying to get President Biden elected. I served as a prosecutor for 25 years. I know that you’re going to take
Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro reports to prison in Miami
Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro reported to prison in Miami following a Monday order from the U.S. Supreme Court. Navarro is attempting to appeal his contempt of Congress conviction, but the court refused to postpone his imprisonment until after the appeal is concluded. Navarro will serve his full four-month sentence if his appeal is not successful before the end of that term. “I will walk proudly in there to do my time,” Navarro said during a press conference before turning himself in. “I will gather strength from this: Donald John Trump is the nominee.” DOJ RECOMMENDS 6 MONTH SENTENCE FOR FORMER TRUMP ADVISER PETER NAVARRO Navarro was charged and convicted with contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with a congressional subpoena demanding his testimony and documents relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Chief Justice John Roberts said he had “no basis to disagree” with the appeals court ruling that Navarro begin his sentence. Navarro, who served as former President Trump’s trade adviser, was the second Trump aide convicted of a misdemeanor contempt of Congress charge. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon previously received a four-month sentence but was allowed to stay free pending appeal by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by Trump. Navarro said he could not cooperate with the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack because Trump had invoked executive privilege, an argument that lower courts have rejected. FORMER TRUMP ADVISER NAVARRO CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT AFTER DEFYING JAN. 6 SUBPOENA “When I received that congressional subpoena, the second, I had an honest belief that the privilege had been invoked, and I was torn. Nobody in my position should be put in conflict between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Is that the lesson of this entire proceeding? Get a letter and a lawyer? I think in a way it is,” Navarro said in January. “I am disappointed with a process where a jury convicted me, and I was unable to provide a defense, one of the most important elements of our justice system,” he added. The lower courts found that Navarro could not actually prove Trump had invoked executive privilege. Fox News’ Louis Casiano contributed to this report