State employees get reprieve from Nebraska Gov. Pillen’s return-to-office order
State government workers are getting a reprieve from Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s order to end remote work and return to their offices after a state agency temporarily blocked the order. State workers had been set to return to the office on Tuesday after Pillen unilaterally issued the order in November. But on Friday, the Nebraska Industrial Relations Committee — which serves as an arbitrator that resolves public sector wage and working condition disputes — granted a temporary halt on the order, finding that remote work is currently the status quo for public employees and that any change from the status quo must be resolved through bargaining. In his order, Pillen noted that state employees were only working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic to lessen the spread of the potentially deadly virus. NE GOV. PILLEN APPOINTS FORMER EDUCATION BOARD MEMBER TO SERVE REMAINING TERM IN LEGISLATIVE SEAT “Nebraskans are back to work, and they expect that our agencies are fully staffed and open for business Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,” Pillen said in a statement when he issued the order. “As public servants, we have a duty to meet that expectation, and deliver maximum value to the taxpayers.” But the state employees union, the Nebraska Association of Public Employees, pushed back on the order, filing a complaint with the Industrial Relations Committee. The governor’s order, it said, would worsen staffing shortages and limit state agencies’ ability to retain and attract high-quality public servants. The union conducted a survey of its members following Pillen’s order, in which of the 1,700 who responded, more than 1,000 said they were actively looking or considering looking for new jobs in response to the order. “It is clear from the data that a critical mass of state employees may leave state employment if we are unable to bargain mutually beneficial terms and conditions of employment regarding remote work,” Justin Hubly, executive director of the employees union, said in a letter to the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office, which argued in favor or the governor’s order. “This will hurt us all, especially the most vulnerable Nebraskans who rely on critical state services.” Pillen’s office did not immediately respond to messages Tuesday seeking comment.
Colorado gun group sues state over ‘ghost gun’ ban
A Colorado group known for leading the charge to protect and preserve the Second Amendment announced on Monday it is suing the state over a law banning “ghost guns,” saying it is unconstitutional. The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners said in a press release that they filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the newly enacted homemade firearm ban with hopes of overturning the ban because it infringes on Second Amendment rights. “This law is an outright assault on the constitutional rights of peaceable Coloradans,” Taylor D. Rhodes, the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners said. “It’s not just an overreach; it’s a direct defiance to our Second Amendment freedoms.” Senate Bill 23-279, which was signed into law by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and went into effect on Monday, bans the possession, transport, purchase and ownership of gun frames and receivers that are not stamped with serial numbers. COLORADO GOVERNOR SIGNS BILL TO OUTLAW UNTRACEABLE GHOST GUNS MANUFACTURED AT HOME, 3D-PRINTED Anyone in possession of ghost guns had until Jan. 1, 2024 to get them stamped with serial numbers at a licensed dealership, though a background check was required before the dealer could give the gun back. “We believe that this law, like others that attempt to restrict gun rights, will not stand up under scrutiny, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bruen,” Rhodes said, referring to a recent Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Associate v. Bruen. In the decision, a New York gun safety law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public was overturned because it was unconstitutional. GUNMAN ARRESTED AFTER BREACHING COLORADO SUPREME COURT, HOLDING GUARD AT GUNPOINT: COPS “In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that any law infringing on the right to bear arms must align with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment,” Rhodes said. “Senate Bill 23-270 clearly does not meet this standard. If homemade – unserialized – guns weren’t legal at the time of our nation’s founding, we would all have a British accent.” The group says the legislation lacks clarity and unfairly targets peaceable citizens. The nonprofit also urges supporters and gun rights advocates to stand with them as they challenge the law, adding the outcome could have implications for gun legislation not just in Colorado, but across the U.S. RFK JR. ISSUES STARK WARNING AFTER COLORADO COURT BLOCKS TRUMP FROM BALLOT: ‘COUNTRY WILL BECOME UNGOVERNABLE’ “The fight for our constitutional rights is never easy, but it’s always worth it,” Rhodes said. “We’re committed to ensuring Coloradans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without undue governmental intrusion. This lawsuit is yet another testament to that commitment.” In Colorado, the person accused of killing five people at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs and another who wounded two administrators at a Denver high school had possessed ghost guns before the killings, according to authorities. Under a federal gun bill signed by President Biden last year, manufacturers are already required to put serial numbers on those parts.
Appeals court delivers fatal blow to California city pushing natural gas ban
A federal appeals court rejected a petition Tuesday to rehear a case related to a natural gas ban proposed by the City of Berkeley, California, which the panel ruled was illegal last year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately denied Berkeley’s petition for rehearing en banc — a motion that received support from the Biden administration, Democratic-led states and environmentalists — after it failed to receive majority support from the court’s non-recused active judges. Berkeley filed the motion last year after the court in April that a Berkeley law banning natural gas pipes in new construction violated federal statute. Following the panel’s filing Tuesday, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), which had argued Berkeley’s law was illegal, applauded the court for ensuring consumer choice. “Naturally, AHRI and particularly our member companies that manufacture products and equipment that use natural gas, are very pleased that the full court denied Berkeley’s appeal, thereby allowing the residents of Berkeley, and likely elsewhere, to continue to have choices with respect to energy sources for home and water heating,” AHRI President and CEO Stephen Yurek said in a statement. BIDEN ADMIN UNVEILS STRING OF ECO REGULATIONS IN LATEST APPLIANCE CRACKDOWN TARGETING FRIDGES, FREEZERS “We look forward to continuing to work with states and localities to formulate solutions that help them meet their energy conservation and emission reduction goals without unduly impacting consumer health, safety, comfort, and productivity,” Yurek added. In July 2019, Berkeley’s city council passed the ban which was set to go into effect in January 2020, making the city the first in the nation to approve such a measure. Berkeley Councilwoman Kate Harrison, who authored the legislation, said at the time that it was part of the city’s effort to take “more drastic action” on climate change and curb greenhouse gas emissions. BIDEN ADMIN LAUNCHED AN AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN TARGETING HOME APPLIANCES WITH ECO REGULATIONS IN 2023 However, months after it was approved, the California Restaurant Association (CRA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city’s ability to pass a law banning new natural gas hookups. After a lower court ruled in favor of Berkeley in July 2021, the CRA filed an appeal, leading to the Ninth Circuit ruling in April. The Ninth Circuit concluded that Berkeley’s law violated the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, which prevents local regulations from impacting the energy use of natural gas appliances. “Instead of directly banning those appliances in new buildings, Berkeley took a more circuitous route to the same result,” Judge Patrick Bumatay wrote in the opinion of the court. “It enacted a building code that prohibits natural gas piping into those buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless.” “In sum, Berkeley can’t bypass preemption by banning natural gas piping within buildings rather than banning natural gas products themselves,” he continued in the ruling. “EPCA thus preempts the Ordinance’s effect on covered products.” BIDEN ADMIN AIMS TO PUSH TOWNS, CITIES TO ADOPT GREEN ENERGY BUILDING CODES: ‘VERY SUSPICIOUS’ CRA President and CEO Jot Condie said at the time that Berkeley’s attempt to ban natural gas hookups was “an overreaching measure beyond the scope of any city.” After Berkeley then filed its petition for rehearing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) in June filed an amicus brief in support of the city’s gas hookup ban. “The panel opinion in this case upended those settled expectations. It held that a particular municipal ordinance addressing a health and safety concern identified by local elected leaders is preempted by the Act — even though the ordinance does not regulate the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of a covered product,” the DOJ stated in the brief. “The ordinance prohibits the installation of certain energy infrastructure in new construction,” it continued. “It thereby affects, indirectly, the circumstances in which some products may be used in some locations. The panel did not explain why this ordinance’s indirect effects warranted preemption or why other health and safety ordinances would not.” The case has drawn the attention of industry groups that supported CRA — including the American Gas Association and AHRI — and environmental groups and other jurisdictions across the country that supported Berkeley’s ordinance, including the National League of Cities, California, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and New York City.
Judge dismisses three civil counts against Trump, others over death of Jan. 6 Officer Brian Sicknick
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed most of the civil counts against former President Donald Trump and two others in connection with the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick during the U.S. Capitol riots on Jan. 6. In a 12-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed three of the five civil counts in a lawsuit filed last January by Sandra Garza, Sicknick’s girlfriend. Garza’s lawsuit against Trump and Jan. 6 rioters Julian Khater and George Tanios sought damages from all three men for claims of wrongful death, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and negligence per se based on D.C.’s anti-riot law. In his ruling Tuesday, Mehta dismissed the wrongful death act count and both negligence per se allegations. HEADING TO IOWA, NOEM SAYS SHE’LL DO ‘WHATEVER I CAN’ TO HELP TRUMP GET ‘ACROSS FINISHING LINE’ While Mehta dismissed the wrongful death and negligence civil counts against Trump, Garza’s claims against the defendants under D.C.’s Survival Act and the conspiracy to violate a civil rights claim will proceed. The Survival Act allows an individual’s legal representative to pursue legal action on their behalf after their death. Mark Zaid, an attorney representing Garza, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. The 42-year-old officer, who joined the Capitol Police in July 2008, responded to the chaotic scene and was pepper-sprayed by Khater and Tanios. BIDEN SAYS ‘NO QUESTION’ TRUMP SUPPORTED INSURRECTION He was rushed to the hospital but died the next evening from two thromboembolic strokes. According to the ruling, the D.C. medical examiner’s office found that Sicknick died of “natural causes” from a series of strokes and that “all that transpired on [January 6] played a role in his condition.” Trump is facing a series of legal challenges related to his alleged role in the Capitol riot. A federal appeals court last month rejected the former president’s efforts to dismiss civil claims seeking to hold him to account for the riot on the basis of presidential immunity.
New ordinance makes stopping, standing on Las Vegas Strip pedestrian bridges a potential misdemeanor
Stopping or standing on crowded Las Vegas Strip pedestrian bridges could now result in a misdemeanor. LAS VEGAS ANTICIPATES RECORD-BREAKING SURGE OF NEW YEAR’S EVE WEDDINGS DUE TO ‘SPECIALTY DATE’ Clark County commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to approve an ordinance prohibiting individuals from stopping, standing or engaging in an activity that causes another person to stop on Strip pedestrian bridges or near escalators, elevators or stairways connected to the bridges. The measure is meant to increase public safety by ensuring a continuous flow of pedestrian traffic across the bridges. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that any person who stops in what are now called “pedestrian flow zones” could be charged with a misdemeanor. That includes the bridges and up to 20 feet surrounding the connected stairs or escalators. According to the Journal, a last-minute amendment to the ordinance exempts standing or stopping if a person is waiting to use an elevator, stairway or elevator.
Trump appeals decision to ban him from Maine ballot
Former President Donald Trump, on Tuesday, appealed the decision to remove him from Maine’s Republican primary ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump appealed Maine’s decision, made by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, according to the Associated Press. The provision Bellows used prohibits anyone who ‘engaged in insurrection’ from holding office. TRUMP DISQUALIFIED FROM MAINE 2024 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT The appeal will now head to Maine’s Supreme Court. Trump is expected to file an appeal on a similar ruling made by the Colorado Supreme Court directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court has never issued a decision on Section 3 and the Colorado court’s 4-3 ruling that it applied to Trump was the first time in history the provision was used to block a presidential candidate from appearing on the ballot. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Federal appeals court denies Michael Cohen’s attempt to revive lawsuit against Trump
A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied Michael Cohen’s attempt to revive his lawsuit against former President Trump in which he claimed he was jailed in retaliation for writing a tell-all book. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said in an order that it would not revive the lawsuit. A lower-court judge had tossed out the lawsuit, ruling that the law did not seem to provide a damages remedy for most claims that someone was jailed in retaliation for their criticisms of a president. FLASHBACK: COHEN SUES BARR, CLAIMS HE WAS SENT TO PRISON TO PREVENT TRUMP TELL-ALL The court of appeals on Tuesday ruled that Cohen already obtained relief by getting a judge to order his release from imprisonment to home confinement weeks after he was imprisoned, when the government claimed he violated severe restrictions on his public communications. The court said the law did not provide an outlet for more relief than that. Cohen served more than a year of his three-year sentence in federal prison after pleading guilty in 2018 to tax evasion, campaign finance charges and making a false statement to Congress. Cohen, however, told Fox News Digital he will bring the challenge to the Supreme Court. “The outcome is wrong if democracy is to prevail,” Cohen told Fox News Digital. “A writ of habeas corpus cannot be the only consequence to stop a rogue president from weaponizing the Department of Justice from locking up his/her critics in prison because they refuse to waive their first amendment right.” TRUMP FACES OFF IN COURT WITH COHEN AS EX-LAWYER TESTIFIES AGAINST HIM IN TRUMP ORGANIZATION CIVIL TRIAL He added: “We will be filing a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.” In a statement Tuesday, Cohen’s attorney Jon-Michael Doherty of Gilbert LLP said they plan to take the fight to “the highest court in the land.” “While we are of course disappointed in the Second Circuit’s ruling, our consistent expectation has been that this novel issue involving the appropriate remedy against a rogue President who seeks to use the prisons to silence his personal critics would need to be addressed by the United States Supreme Court,” he said. “In America, an adequate remedy against this sort of abuse of power must deter future misconduct by federal officials.” He added: “We look forward to taking the fight for Americans’ right to speak freely about their government without fear of imprisonment to the highest court in the land.” Cohen filed the initial lawsuit in 2020. Meanwhile, Trump attorney Alina Habba told Fox News Digital that they are “very pleased with today’s ruling.” “Mr. Cohen’s lawsuit was doomed from its inception,” Habba told Fox News Digital. “We will continue to fight against any frivolous suits aimed at our client.” TRUMP DROPS LAWSUIT AGAINST MICHAEL COHEN, VOWS TO REFILE AFTER HE HAS ‘PREVAILED’ IN OTHER CASES Cohen had been released on furlough on May 21, 2020, to serve out the remainder of his three-year sentence — but allegedly failed to take necessary steps to finalize that transfer. In a statement, the Bureau of Prisons charged that instead of complying with the terms of the U.S. Probation Office’s Federal Location Monitoring (FLM) program, Cohen was obstinate. At the time, the Bureau of Prisons said: “Any assertion that the decision to remand Michael Cohen to prison was a retaliatory action is patently false.” The Bureau of Prisons also said that during the process of transitioning to home confinement, Cohen “refused to agree to the terms of the program, specifically electronic monitoring.” The agency said he was “argumentative” and “was attempting to dictate the conditions of his monitoring, including conditions relating to self-employment, access to media, use of social media and other accountability measures.” Cohen also allegedly “refused to acknowledge and sign the conditions of his transfer of home confinement and was remanded into custody.” “While it is not uncommon for BOP to place certain restrictions on inmates’ contact with the media, Mr. Cohen’s refusal to agree to those conditions here played no role whatsoever in the decision to remand him to secure custody nor did his intent to publish a book,” the bureau said at the time. FLASHBACK: BUREAU OF PRISONS DENIES JUDGE’S ‘FALSE’ CLAIM MICHAEL COHEN’S IMPRISONMENT WAS ‘RETALIATORY’ OVER PLANNED BOOK In July 2020, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Alvin Hellerstein said the move to put Cohen back in prison was “retaliatory” and claimed it was related to his forthcoming tell-all book. Hellerstein noted that probation officers had demanded Cohen agree to avoid engagement with the media, then cuffed him when he didn’t agree. “I’ve never seen such a clause in 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people. How can I take any other inference but that it was retaliatory?” Hellerstein said at the time. The Justice Department, at the time, led by then-Attorney General Bill Barr, denied the move was retaliatory, as did the Bureau of Prisons. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
North Carolina presidential primary candidates have been finalized; a Trump challenge is on appeal
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina’s election board finalized on Tuesday the candidates for the state’s March 5 presidential primaries, leaving President Joe Biden as the lone Democrat for the job on ballots and former President Donald Trump among the Republican competitors. The five-member State Board of Elections voted unanimously to stick with the candidate lists provided by the state’s Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties last month. The board had given initial approval to those names at its Dec. 19 meeting, when members also agreed to reconvene Tuesday to consider additional names before ballots are printed. MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE DENIES POLITICS PLAYED ROLE IN DECISION TO KICK TRUMP OFF BALLOT Board officials said that five additional people had unsuccessfully asked to join the presidential primaries. They included U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips, author Marianne Williamson and media personality Cenk Uygur for the Democrats and Jill Stein for the Green Party. A board attorney said Tuesday it was unclear which primary another person, Luis Lavin, had asked to run in. State law directs parties to provide lists of candidates whose bids for the nation’s highest office are “generally advocated and recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in North Carolina.” The law gives the board discretion to add more candidates whom a majority believes meets the same standard. But none of the board’s members proposed doing so. Board members who spoke Tuesday said it was appropriate to defer to the wishes of political parties holding primaries that are ultimately designed to choose delegates to their respective national conventions. “I’m mindful that these are private political parties and that they have associational rights,” said Stacy “Four” Eggers, one of two Republicans on the board. The other three members are registered Democrats. State Democratic Party spokesperson Tommy Mattocks defended the party’s decision last month to offer only Biden as a candidate, saying in a text that “to get on the ballot, you need to have donors in the state and be actively campaigning in the state.” Phillips and Williamson “haven’t been here this cycle,” Mattocks added. As for Stein, the Green Party of North Carolina wrote the board last month saying that it would not participate in the March primary, but instead offer a general election candidate after the party’s nominating convention. In addition to Trump, the state GOP presented Ryan Binkley, Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Asa Hutchinson and Vivek Ramaswamy as candidates on its presidential ballot. By a 4-1 vote two weeks ago, the board rejected a challenge to Trump‘s candidacy by a Stokes County voter who argued the U.S. Constitution disqualifies Trump because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Brian Martin’s challenge said Trump violated a section of the 14th Amendment that bars from office anyone who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. The amendment has been cited in rulings in Colorado and Maine that have banned Trump from those states’ ballots. In North Carolina, the board’s majority had determined that it lacked the authority in state law to consider such a primary challenge. Martin, a retired lawyer who served in Republican U.S. presidential administrations, last week appealed the board decision to Wake County Superior Court, where he asked that swift action be taken. Absentee ballots can start being mailed to requesters in less than three weeks. The Libertarian Party will have 10 names for its North Carolina presidential primary ballots. Voters in the presidential primaries can also cast a “No Preference” vote instead of one for a candidate. The No Labels Party, which like the Green Party is an official political party in North Carolina, can also offer a presidential ticket to place on general election ballots.
Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez accused of accepting bribes to benefit Qatar in superseding federal indictment
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., is facing additional bribery accusations, according to a superseding indictment unsealed Tuesday. Menendez is now accused of accepting bribes in exchange for helping to benefit Qatar, the Justice Department said. He is already facing federal charges for allegedly acting as a foreign agent and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes to benefit the Egyptian government through his “power and influence as a Senator,” This story is developing. Please check back for updates.
Heading to Iowa, Noem says she’ll do ‘whatever I can’ to help Trump get ‘across finish line’
EXCLUSIVE – South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, on the eve of heading to neighboring Iowa to campaign on behalf of her friend and ally Donald Trump, says that former president is “the only person who can right the ship.” And Noem, when asked about potentially serving as Trump’s 2024 running mate if the commanding GOP primary front-runner wins the nomination, noted that she and the former president “work really well together” and that they’ll “talk about that when it’s time to make a decision on that.” The two-term conservative governor of South Dakota made her comments Tuesday in an exclusive national interview with Fox News Digital ahead of her trip to Sioux City. That’s where Noem will headline a campaign event Wednesday night on behalf of Trump with less than two weeks to go until Iowa’s Jan. 15 caucuses kick off the GOP presidential nominating calendar. Noem’s team says that over 2,100 people have RSVP’d for the event. GOP NOMINATION RACE: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES FOR DONALD TRUMP Noem, who endorsed Trump as the two teamed up at a large rally in Rapid City, South Dakota, in early September, said, “I’ve always kind of felt like the people in Iowa were my people too, because we all have the same values and background and Midwest culture.” She said that “the Trump campaign asked if I’d be interested in going there and doing a couple of events right before the caucuses and we said absolutely. We’d love to go there and share our story about why we need President Trump back in the White House.” “The best gift I was given as governor was that he let me do my job when he was in the White House. He helped me solve problems during COVID. He let me make the best decisions for my people,” Noem emphasized. FOX NEWS TO HOST TOWNHALL WITH TRUMP IN IOWA NEXT WEEK And taking aim at President Biden, who defeated Trump in the 2020 election, Noem stressed, “I feel like I get up every day now, and I’m on defense.” Sources in Noem’s political orbit tell Fox News that part of her schedule on Wednesday is for the governor to meet with commitment to caucus people, but it also includes talking to officials who’ve endorsed Trump rivals with the possibility that a meeting with Noem may change their allegiance to Trump. Asked if she’ll return to Iowa again ahead of the caucuses to stump for Trump, Noem pointed out that her day job may get in the way. The governor delivers South Dakota’s state of the state address next week, as the state’s 2024 legislative session gets underway. But she added Iowa’s “not too far away, so it’s not so hard for me to run down there and do something if I’m helpful.” Noem, who speaks regularly with Trump according to those in her political orbit, said that she most recently talked with the former president on the phone on Monday evening. She said she told him, “I’ll do whatever I can that helps to get him across the finish line. I do believe it’s that important.” When she endorsed Trump in September, speculation soared about Noem serving as Trump’s running mate. But she said that’s not a topic she brought up with Trump in their most recent conversation. RAISING THE STAKES: ARE TRUMP’S EXPECTATIONS IN IOWA TOO HIGH? “He knows he has my support. I know I have his. We work really well together. We’re friends. We’ll talk about that when it’s time to make a decision on that,” she said. And Noem reiterated that if offered to serve as running mate, “I would consider it and I think anybody who gets asked should be willing to consider it.” Noem was interviewed as she starred in a new ad in South Dakota’s “Freedom Works Here” nationwide workforce recruitment campaign. The spot features Noem as a nurse to recruit more healthcare workers to the state. “We’ve got close to 20,000 open jobs in South Dakota,” the governor says in the commercial. “South Dakota is the freest state in the nation. We work hard, but we don’t pay any state income tax, so you get to keep more of your own money.” The ad campaign launched last June, and the spots are running nationwide and in specifically targeted states on TV and online. “We did a lot of microtargeting across the country,” Noem told Fox News. “These ads are specifically targeted for job openings that we have in our state to people that would be interested in moving to South Dakota.” And she highlighted that “it’s the most successful recruitment campaign the state of South Dakota has run in its history. We’ve had thousands and thousands of people go through the application process. Over 2,000 are moving their families here and are committed and coming.” Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.