Lawmaker reveals how Des Moines schools chief registered to vote despite illegal status
After illegal alien Ian Andre Roberts was discovered to be registered to vote in Maryland, Republican state Delegate Lauren Arikan, a member of the Maryland Freedom Caucus, outlined how she believes it happened. Arikan explained that Maryland allows illegal aliens to obtain drivers’ licenses, making the state a “hot spot” for people looking to “legitimize their presence” in the U.S. “We do give driver’s licenses to people who are here illegally. The Freedom Caucus always opposes it, but that is the policy of the state of Maryland. And, so, it’s very easy for somebody to apply and to register to vote, even though they shouldn’t,” she explained. Maryland grants illegal aliens living in the state what are called “non-compliant driver’s licenses and ID cards” that, despite being valid in the state, are not federally compliant. ILLEGAL ALIEN ARRESTED BY ICE FOUND REGISTERED AS ACTIVE DEMOCRAT VOTER IN BLUE STATE In obtaining these licenses through the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), Arikan said that any individual, even illegal aliens, can check a box to register to vote. Instead of having established processes to verify U.S. citizenship and voting eligibility, Arikan said the state relies on registrants to attest that they are eligible. The result, she said, is that someone like Roberts “could simply attest that he was eligible to vote in the United States, and the state of Maryland would allow him to register when he went to get a driver’s license.” “He would not have to really provide any other proof that he is lawful other than he would provide a local address,” she said. Roberts was arrested by ICE last week on a fugitive warrant. He was working as the superintendent of public schools in Des Moines, Iowa, despite having illegal weapons possession charges and a final order of removal filed against him. IOWA SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT ARRESTED BY ICE, FACING PRIOR WEAPONS CHARGES, ALLEGEDLY FOUND WITH LOADED HANDGUN After his arrest, the Maryland Freedom Caucus blew the whistle on Roberts having an active voter registration in Maryland and being registered as a Democrat. In a statement sent to Fox News Digital, Jared DeMarinis, Maryland State Board of Elections administrator, described a process similar to the one described by Arikan. He said that though an individual “may not commit perjury in order to become a registered voter,” when an individual registers to vote, election officials “rely on the information that is provided by the voter, or, in some cases, information provided by the voter to other state agencies, for the verification of eligibility.” Despite this, DeMarinis assured that Maryland’s voter registration list maintenance process “is a secure and verified method.” He also noted that, according to Maryland law, it is not a crime to unintentionally register to vote despite not being eligible. He added that “the right to vote is a sacred right that has been expanded through sacrifices of many before us” and “this office will not disenfranchise a voter based upon partial or unsubstantiated evidence.” DEMOCRATS SILENT ON ILLEGAL ALIEN REGISTERED TO VOTE IN BLUE STATE Concerning Roberts’ case, DeMarinis said that a review of information available through Maryland’s Public Information Act “did not show any voting history for any individual with the name Ian Andre Roberts in Maryland.” The statement further said that, due to Maryland law protecting personal identifying information from disclosure, SBE “cannot and will not publicly announce whether media reports about the individual in question is or is not or was or was not a registered voter in Maryland.” In response to these statements, Arikan told Fox News Digital she is “extremely concerned” about “the insinuation that a person could accidentally register to vote as a Democrat in the state of Maryland.” “That is not my experience with the system at the MVA, which asks you under penalty of perjury if you’re eligible and then asks you which party you would like to register with,” she said. DES MOINES PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD ACCEPTS SUPERINTENDENT’S RESIGNATION AFTER ICE ARREST “That’s not accidental. Someone willingly entered that information, whether it was Mr. Roberts himself or an employee of the MVA, we need to know,” she added. “If an employee is registering people to vote illegally, that is another problem. “They have been yelling for years that this is impossible, that they are on top of the voter rolls, that folks who are here illegally cannot register to vote. They’re not doing it. They’re not voting. It’s not possible. And now it comes out that it’s entirely possible. And, indeed, it is occurring,” said Arikan. “It’s absolutely the tip of the iceberg. I think it could be huge,” she added. “And we’re going to keep digging until we get to the bottom of how many folks we could be looking at on our voter rolls still who are not eligible to vote in the United States.” Fox News Digital reached out to Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore’s office for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Kamala Harris book reveals marital rift with Doug Emhoff during campaign
Former Vice President Kamala Harris’ new book, “107 Days,” pulls back the curtain on her relationship with the first second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, recounting a scandal that rocked the early days of her short-lived presidential campaign and the fight that united them ahead of Election Day. Soon after former President Joe Biden suspended his re-election campaign, The Daily Mail reported that Emhoff’s first marriage ended following an affair with his children’s nanny. Emhoff confirmed the affair soon after the news broke last year, and, in the book, Harris lamented that “hurtful and degrading comments are, sadly, part and parcel of running for office these days.” “Where it crosses the line is when opponents go after family members,” Harris wrote. “Of course, I knew about this. Doug had told me about it when we were dating. We disclosed it during my vetting for VP.” Harris applauded her husband, whom she introduced in her book as “My Dougie,” for handling it “like the mensch that he is, issuing a statement taking responsibility and expressing regret.” KAMALA HARRIS MENTIONS MICHELLE OBAMA ONLY THREE TIMES IN 300-PAGE BOOK. HERE’S WHAT SHE SAID “Sadly,” Harris said, families are not off limits when running for president. Later in the book, Harris described “one of those fights that every married couple had,” just weeks before Election Day, after Emhoff repurposed an anniversary present for her birthday and then didn’t hear her shouting for a towel from the bath. KAMALA HARRIS PLAYS UP COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH HILLARY CLINTON AS WEDGE WITH BIDEN WIDENS “I called Doug to ask him to bring me one. No answer. He was in the other room, watching the Dodgers eliminate the Mets in the playoffs. He couldn’t hear me over the television. I called his phone,” Harris wrote in the book. When Emhoff answered casually, asking, “What’s up?” she described it as a “bridge too far,” prompting a fight fueled by the stress that “had finally gotten to both of us.” The former vice president said she was “looking forward to a special evening with Doug” on her birthday and was hoping he had planned something. “Doug had been keeping his own grueling schedule and had flown in from a campaign event in Michigan. He was tired and pre-occupied,” Harris said, while complaining that he hadn’t put any thought into the hotel they were staying at that night or what they would have for dinner. “It turned out to be a bland establishment whose red-and-black decor looked like it hadn’t been redone since the ’70s. The only distinguished feature of the room was its larger size, but the curtains were broken,” Harris complained in her book. Harris said her husband “stopped the argument cold,” reminding the presidential candidate, “We can’t turn on each other.” “With the hits coming from every direction, we have to stay united,” Harris wrote. “Back-to-back, swords raised against all outside attacks. We had to protect each other, be each other’s pillars of strength, givers and receivers of patience and unconditional love.” Like many political couples, unconfirmed rumors have swirled since she lost the election that Harris and Emhoff could get divorced. But after their fight, Harris described how she started to find notes on her pillow “in Doug’s chicken scratch, telling me how much he loved me.” The day after Harris’ birthday, her social secretary, Storm Horncastle, told Emhoff, “Mr. Second Gentleman, you have to fix this,” Harris wrote. “She handed him a set of note cards. She’d numbered them one through five, for the nights we’d be apart through the end of the campaign. She instructed him to write a note on each one,” Harris wrote. Emhoff has two children from his first marriage, Cole and Ella, who famously refer to the former vice president as “Momala.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Harris said her best friend introduced them, admitting she “had kissed a lot of frogs before fate” brought her Emhoff. She described in the book how “politics isn’t built for male spouses.” “In D.C., there are long-standing social structures and well-understood roles for wives. Not for the very few husbands,” she said in the book. Harris’ office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the divorce rumors.
Virginia AG candidate Jay Jones convicted of reckless driving, calls it ‘mistake’
Democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones is facing mounting scrutiny after records revealed he was convicted of reckless driving in 2022. The incident, in which he was barreling 116 miles per hour down Interstate 64 in New Kent County, happened roughly one year after Jones’s first campaign for attorney general. Per the Richmond Times-Dispatch, court records show Jones was cited by Virginia State Police after being clocked at nearly double the posted speed limit. RETIRED UFC STAR JON JONES EXONERATED AFTER NEW MEXICO PROSECUTORS DROP CHARGES IN TRAFFIC CASE Under Virginia law, reckless driving is a Class 1 misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and license suspension. Jones was ultimately convicted of the charge, paid a fine, and fulfilled additional court requirements. There is no indication he served jail time. Following reports of the conviction, Jones told Fox News Digital the incident was a “serious mistake.” “Several years ago, I made the mistake of speeding, for which I am regretful,” Jones said in a statement. “I accepted responsibility for my actions, paid the fine, and fulfilled my responsibility to the court, which was accepted by the New Kent County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office and the judge,” Jones added. VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS CHOOSE NOMINEE TO CHALLENGE GOP ATTORNEY GENERAL JASON MIYARES In a statement issued to Fox News Digital, incumbent Attorney General Jason Miyares blasted Jones and said he was “alarmed by reports of Jay Jones recklessly endangering lives.” “Instead of taking accountability for his actions, it appears that my opponent submitted a letter to the Court stating that he performed 500 hours of ‘community service’ for his own Political Action Committee, which is not a charitable organization under the Virginia Code, to dodge potential jail time,” Miyares added. The speeding revelation arrives just weeks before Virginians head to the polls in a competitive statewide election, creating what some analysts are calling an “October surprise” in the 2025 Attorney General’s race. VIRGINIA REPUBLICANS PICK RADIO HOST TO RUN ALONGSIDE WINSOME SEARS IN RACE TO REPLACE YOUNGKIN Jones, 36, is a Norfolk native and graduate of William & Mary and the University of Virginia School of Law. He served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 2018 to 2022, representing the 89th District, and previously worked in the Office of the Attorney General. Voters will decide on November 4 whether Jones can overcome the controversy and unseat Miyares. “Our laws are not suggestions,” said Miyares. “This new information raises serious, troubling questions about Jay Jones’ judgment, his ability to uphold the law, and, ultimately, his qualifications for Attorney General.”
Supreme Court keeps Fed’s Lisa Cook in role for now, agrees to review case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to review President Donald Trump‘s effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, and will allow her to remain in her spot on the board until oral arguments can be heard in January, the court said — delivering a long-awaited update on a high-profile case, and one expected to have significant political and economic implications for the nation’s central bank. The update comes roughly two weeks after Trump officials appealed the case to the high court for emergency review. Oral arguments are expected to be closely watched, given the unprecedented nature of the case, and the seismic shift that any ruling could have on U.S. economic decisions. In appealing the case to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the Fed’s “uniquely important role” in the U.S. economy only heightens the government’s and public’s interest in reviewing the case. COOK’S POTENTIAL EXIT HANDS TRUMP GREATER SWAY OVER FED BOARD SHAPING US MONETARY POLICY “Put simply, the president may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said Thursday in the appeal. The review of Cook’s case is significant. Trump’s attempt to fire Cook marked the first time in the bank’s 111-year history that a president has ever attempted to remove a sitting governor from Fed — a stridently independent body whose members are shielded by law against political pressures. The court’s decision to take up the case comes weeks after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction last month blocking Trump from firing Cook from the Fed while the case continued to play out in court. She ruled that Trump had failed to satisfy the stringent requirements needed to remove a sitting Fed governor “for cause,” and that Cook could not be removed for conduct that occurred prior to her appointment to the Fed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 in September to to deny Trump’s request for intervention, prompting the administration to kick the case to the Supreme Court for emergency review. The Supreme Court update comes as Trump has for months pressured the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates, in a bid to help spur the nation’s economic growth. LAWYERS FOR COOK, DOJ TRADE BLOWS AT HIGH-STAKES CLASH OVER FED FIRING But his attempt to fire Cook for alleged mortgage fraud violations, which she has denied, has teed up a first-of-its-kind court clash that could have profound impacts on the Fed. Cook’s lawyers have argued that Trump’s attempt to fire her well before the end of her 14-year term is an attempt to install a nominee of his choosing and secure a majority on the Fed board. Cook sued Trump in late August for his attempt to fire her, arguing that his removal violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the Federal Reserve Act, or FRA — a law designed to shield members from the political whims of the commander in chief or members of Congress. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump on similar cases in the past. The Supreme Court in May allowed Trump to proceed with the provisional firings of two independent board members — National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris — two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. But even that decision sought to differentiate these boards from the Fed, which they stressed was a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
Trump birthright citizenship fight heads back to Supreme Court as new term begins
Lawyers for President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court last week to review the legality of his executive order ending birthright citizenship — a high-profile and controversial order that, if enacted, would have profound impacts on the lives of millions of Americans and lawful U.S. residents. It would also mark the second time in less than a year that the Supreme Court would review the order, at least technically. Trump administration officials view the order as a key component of his hard-line immigration agenda, which has become a defining feature of Trump’s second White House term. Opponents have argued that the effort is unconstitutional and “unprecedented,” and would impact some 150,000 children in the U.S. who are born annually to parents of non-citizens. As the court prepares to kick off its fall term, here’s what to know about the order — and possible next steps — in the high-profile case. FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court last week to review the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. His request focused largely on two court orders handed down in July by a federal judge in New Hampshire, and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In his petition to the high court, Sauer argued that the lower court’s decisions were overly broad, and “invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security.” The New Hampshire case, Barbara v. Trump, centers on a preliminary injunction handed down by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in July. Laplante ruled that Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship likely contradicts the 14th Amendment and the “century-old untouched precedent that interprets it.” He also certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. after Feb. 20, 2025, who would have been denied citizenship under Trump’s executive order. Sauer also honed in on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled 2-1 to invalidate Trump’s order. TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS The 2-1 majority for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the order is “invalid” because it “contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment” and its citizenship clause. Sauer argued last week that the Supreme Court has a “compelling interest in ensuring that American citizenship — the privilege that allows us to choose our political leaders—is granted only to those who are lawfully entitled to it.” Sauer also reiterated the administration’s argument that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was intended “to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children.” The rulings in question, he said, rely on the “mistaken view” that “birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.” Notably, he opted not to ask the justices to fast-track the case, meaning that oral arguments would not likely be scheduled before the end of the year. More details from the high court could come as early as this month, after challengers file their responses to the high court. In short, not much. Though the Supreme Court technically reviewed the case in May, both the Trump administration’s appeal to the court, and the justices themselves, steered clear of addressing the merits of the order in their first review. Instead, the appeal, and the May oral arguments, focused narrowly on the ability of lower courts to issue so-called “universal,” or nationwide injunctions that block a president’s executive order from taking force across the country. In June, justices ruled 6-3 that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must bring the cases as class action lawsuits, narrowing the instances in which lower district courts can issue universal injunctions. And while justices for the Supreme Court majority appeared to view the birthright citizenship case as a valid pretext for the administration to challenge lower court authorities, it did not impact the fate of the order itself, which was blocked by multiple federal courts in the weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision. LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP’S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS The executive order at issue was signed by Trump on Jan. 20, the first day of his second White House term. It directs all U.S. government agencies to refuse to issue citizenship documents to children born to illegal immigrants, or children who do not have at least one parent who is an American or a lawful permanent resident. The order seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Instead, the language proposed by Trump officials — and subsequently blocked in court — would be changed to note that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright. Trump’s order on birthright citizenship has provoked intense criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, who note that the U.S. is one of some 30 countries around the world where birthright citizenship has long been afforded. It was almost immediately challenged in court by more than 22 U.S. states and immigrant advocacy groups, which warned that possible fallout from the order could prove “catastrophic.” Its legal bona fides remain unclear, and to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration in enforcing the order. Still, critics have noted the deep uncertainty the order, and the lack of clear court consensus, has caused for many Americans, and residents living here without permanent citizenship. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “I think one thing we have documented in the record is the incredible stress, anxiety and fear that our plaintiffs are experiencing because they’re not lawyers,” CASA attorney William Powell told reporters of the uncertainty surrounding the
ICE vows ‘no change’ to immigration, border policy amid government shutdown
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is shutting down rumors about changes to the country’s immigration and border policies amid the government shutdown. The shutdown has left many Americans wondering what government services would be suspended. ICE worked to quash speculation that the funding dispute would prevent its agents from carrying out their duties. “Rumors that a U.S. government shutdown will allow illegal immigrants to enter the United States are FALSE,” ICE wrote in a post on X. “U.S. immigration laws and enforcement efforts remain unchanged. Border security and enforcement efforts remain strict, and crossing the border without authorization remains a crime.” The post also included a graphic that reads, “During a government shutdown, the U.S. will defend its borders.” GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN AFTER CONGRESS DEADLOCKS ON SPENDING DEAL Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also wrote on social media confirming that law enforcement officers in her department would continue to work during the shutdown. “Our [Department of Homeland Security] law enforcement officers will continue to work throughout the Democrats’ Shutdown to make sure our homeland is safe and secure. More than 200,000 of these patriots will go without pay,” Noem said on Tuesday. “The Democrats will be forcing over 150,000 officers and nearly 50,000 members of the military—our frontline of defense—to continue protecting our nation without pay,” she added. While law enforcement officials will go without pay during the shutdown, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 requires all essential and furloughed employees to receive retroactive pay once it ends. DEMS IN HOT SEAT AFTER DHS WARNS THEIR FRONTLINE WORKERS WILL GO WITHOUT PAY IF SHUTDOWN HITS After lawmakers failed to reach an agreement by the midnight funding deadline, the government entered a shutdown on Wednesday. Senate Republicans attempted to pass a short-term extension of fiscal year (FY) 2025 government funding levels, which was sunk by Democrats who were furious about being sidelined in shutdown negotiations. The bill would have given Congress until Nov. 21 to set FY 2026 funding priorities. The Senate is expected to vote again on Wednesday, with more votes to come until either a deal is struck or Democrats relent. The Capitol Visitor Center, the Botanic Garden and the Library of Congress will all be closed to visitors due to the shutdown, according to guidance sent to lawmakers and obtained by Fox News Digital. Congressional delegation trips to foreign countries are also canceled during a shutdown, among other measures. It remains unclear how long it will take for lawmakers to end the shutdown. Fox News has learned that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought will conduct a phone conference with congressional Republicans regarding the shutdown on Wednesday. Fox News’ Chad Pergram and Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind and Alex Miller contributed to this report.
Blame Game: GOP spotlights ‘Schumer shutdown’ while Dems lash out at Republicans ahead of 2026 midterms
The blame game over the first federal government shutdown in seven years is intensifying. With neither President Donald Trump and the Republican majority in Congress, nor congressional Democrats, willing to lower the temperature, the government shut down at midnight Tuesday. And both sides are blasting each other in a verbal fistfight with plenty of policy and political implications as next year’s battle for Congress heats up. “IT’S MIDNIGHT. That means the Republican shutdown has just begun because they wouldn’t protect Americans’ health care. We’re going to keep fighting for the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer posted on social media as the shutdown began. TRUMP’S WARNING AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BEGINS Republicans countered, blaming Schumer and Democrats for the shutdown. “This is basically Chuck Schumer,” Vice President JD Vance said Wednesday in an interview on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends.” “He’s worried he’s going to get a primary challenge from AOC [Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez].” Democrats insisted that any agreement to prevent a government shutdown, or now to end the shutdown, must extend tax credits for the popular Affordable Care Act (ACA) beyond the end of this year. Those credits, which millions of Americans rely on to reduce the costs of health care plans under the ACA, which was once known as Obamacare, are set to expire unless Congress acts. HOW A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN WOULD AFFECT YOU But most Republicans oppose the extension of the credits and argue that the Democrats’ demands would lead to a huge increase in taxpayer-funded healthcare for immigrants who entered the country illegally. “I think it’s important for the American people to realize that the far-left faction of Senate Democrats shut down the government because we wouldn’t give them hundreds of billions of dollars for health care benefits for illegal aliens,” Vance said in his “Fox and Friends” interview. Hours before the shutdown, a new national poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of American voters said that the Democrats in Congress shouldn’t force a federal government shutdown if their demands are not met. But the New York Times/Siena poll also indicated that voters would blame Republicans and Trump, as well as Democrats, for a government shutdown. But Schumer, speaking with FOX Business on Wednesday morning, argued that “the American people are on our side, completely and totally. They don’t want their healthcare decimated.” And he charged that the White House and congressional Republicans “have refused to talk to us. They should come and talk to without conditions because the American people are suffering. Their health care is in shambles.” HOW THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IMPACTS THE ECONOMY While all sides are in the hot seat, the one feeling the most heat may be the 74-year-old Schumer, who has led the Senate Democrats for nearly a decade. The shutdown appears to offer the Democrat from New York a second chance, or a do-over. This after he faced fierce backlash from the Democratic Party base, which hungers for more vocal opposition to Trump’s unprecedented second-term agenda after his move to vote with Republicans to avoid a government shutdown this past spring. Schumer’s move raised questions about whether he would face a leadership challenge in 15 months, and whether he’d face a primary challenge from progressive rock star Ocasio-Cortez when the senator is up for re-election in 2028. “There is one reason and one reason alone that Chuck Schumer is leading the Democrats off this cliff. He is trying to get political cover from the far-left corner of his base. He’s afraid of a challenge for his Senate seat by AOC or someone like that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed in a Wednesday interview on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria.” SHUTDOWN EXPLAINED: WHO WORKS, WHO DOESN’T AND HOW MUCH IT COSTS But Schumer, in a joint statement with House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries as the government shut down, pinned blame on Trump and the GOP “because they do not want to protect the healthcare of the American people.” “Over the last few days, President Trump’s behavior has become more erratic and unhinged. Instead of negotiating a bipartisan agreement in good faith, he is obsessively posting crazed deepfake videos,” the top two Democrats in Congress and fellow New Yorkers, argued. “The country is in desperate need of an intervention to get out of another Trump shutdown.” With the battles for the House and Senate majorities in next year’s midterm elections drawing closer, the blame-game over the shutdown quickly reached the campaign trail. The Democrat-aligned outside group Majority Forward launched paid ads targeting Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who will likely face a challenging re-election next year. And the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP re-election arm, fired up paid ads targeting Democratic Sen. Jon. Ossoff of Georgia, who is considered the most vulnerable Democrat running for re-election in the 2026 midterms. In the battle for the House, where Republicans aim to defend their fragile majority, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee quickly went up with digital ads taking aim at 35 Republican-controlled districts they consider in play. And as first reported by Fox News Digital, the rival National Republican Congressional Committee launched ads across 42 districts, hitting Democrats over the government shutdown.
Federal judge disqualifies acting Nevada US attorney from handling cases
A federal judge disqualified Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada Sigal Chattah from involvement in several cases. “Given the Court’s conclusion that Ms. Chattah is not validly serving as Acting U.S. Attorney, her involvement in these cases would be unlawful,” the order signed by senior U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell declares. “The Court will disqualify Ms. Chattah from participating in or supervising Defendants’ prosecutions.” FEDERAL JUDGE LAUNCHES SCATHING BROADSIDE OF TRUMP’S EFFORTS TO DEPORT PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTERS “Defendants’ motions are granted to the extent they seek disqualification of Ms. Chattah from supervising their criminal prosecutions. Ms. Chattah is disqualified from supervising these cases or any attorneys in the handling of these cases. The government attorneys handling these cases shall, within 7 days of this order, file statements in the docket that they are not being supervised by Ms. Chattah in their prosecution of these cases,” the order notes. “Defendants’ motions are denied to the extent they seek dismissal of their indictments,” the order also declares. FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FROM DEPORTING HUNDREDS OF GUATEMALAN MINORS Chattah unsuccessfully ran for Nevada attorney general as a Republican in 2022 — she lost the contest to incumbent Democratic State Attorney General Aaron Ford. Democratic U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada asserted in part of a post on X that Chattah “has no business being our U.S. Attorney and she needs to resign now.” FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS VOICE OF AMERICA MASS TERMINATIONS IN SCATHING RULING AGAINST LAKE CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Chattah currently has a post pinned to the top of her personal X profile that declares, “We are all Charlie,” in a reference to conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated last month — her post also includes the broken heart and American flag emojis.
Kamala Harris office silent when questioned if fact-checker reviewed new book before publication
Former Vice President Kamala Harris‘ memoir recapping her experiences on the 2024 campaign trail includes a handful of inaccuracies that opened the doors to questions about whether the former Democrat Party leader hired a fact-checker to review her personal retelling of the unprecedented election year. Harris is currently facing blowback from Biden allies for her portrayal of the 46th president, including taking shots at his “recklessness” for launching a re-election effort as an octogenarian who had been in public office for more than 50 years, and claiming the Biden White House turned its backs on providing her coverage when negative press plagued headlines. Outside of Biden staffers taking issue with the former VP’s personal anecdotes of the book, Harris also included a handful of inaccuracies in the memoir’s copy and has made questionable claims from the book tour, a Fox News Digital review found. Fox News Digital asked Harris’ office if a fact-checker was hired to review the memoir or Harris’ comments while on her international book tour and did not receive a response. HARRIS WAS STUNNED OVER BIDEN’S BOTCHED DEBATE RESPONSE ABOUT FALLEN SERVICE MEMBERS IN AFGHANISTAN Harris inaccurately claimed only U.S. Marines were killed during the Biden–Harris administration’s botched and chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, omitting mention that one soldier and one Navy corpsman were among the 13 U.S. service members killed in a suicide bombing at the Kabul Airport’s Abbey Gate. Harris’ inaccuracies were included in a section of her book focused on then-President Biden failing to accurately debate President Donald Trump on his military leadership during his failed 2024 debate against Trump. “He’s got so much material on this—Trump calling our fallen soldiers ‘suckers and losers,’” Harris wrote of what ran through her head when Biden was asked about his role as commander in chief. “He managed to get off that line but had stepped on it earlier by saying no one had died in wars overseas on his watch, seeming to forget the thirteen marines who died in the bomb blast at the airport during the evacuation of Afghanistan. I’d been on Air Force Two when it happened, and we had to change our flight plan to get back to DC in the face of that tragedy. How could he overlook that day?” she wrote, expressing her surprise over the response, but misidentifying those who were all killed as members of the Marines Corps. The Biden administration repeatedly came under fire for its handling of the Afghan withdrawal. The botched withdrawal, which included leaving military equipment worth millions of dollars in the hands of the Taliban, was viewed as preamble for adversaries such as Russia to invade Ukraine, as the U.S. looked weak on the international stage, critics raged at the time. The Taliban regained control of Afghanistan upon the U.S.’ withdrawal. HARRIS LITERALLY THREW ‘JOE BIDEN WON’ TALKING POINTS ON TABLE AFTER DISASTROUS DEBATE: ‘ARE YOU KIDDING ME?’ In Harris’ afterword of the book, she took issue with the individuals Trump granted clemency upon his return to the Oval Office, including those involved with the breach of the U.S. Capitol of Jan. 6, 2021, “numerous tax cheats” and Ross Ulbricht, who Harris identified simply as a “fentanyl dealer.” “The Justice Department is going after Trump’s enemies list, while Trump supporters have been pardoned and released: January 6 rioters who attacked police, the fentanyl dealer Ross Ulbricht, numerous tax cheats,” Harris wrote. Ulbricht, however, was never charged or convicted of fentanyl-specific crimes. Ulbricht was the founder of the now-defunct darknet drug market previously called Silk Road, which is viewed as the first modern version of the dark web. He was arrested in 2013 at the age of 29 and found guilty in 2015 of distributing narcotics (via conspiracy), distributing narcotics by means of the internet, conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit computer hacking and continuing criminal enterprise. Fentanyl is a wildly powerful synthetic opioid that has gripped the nation and caused an increase in overdose deaths. Fentanyl overdose deaths did not dramatically rise until 2013, when Ulbricht was arrested, and followed previous national addiction trends to prescription opioids and heroin between the late 1990s and 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports. Ulbricht, who identifies as a political libertarian, was sentenced to life without parole, with his friends and family advocating for his release during the more than 11 years he spent behind bars. Trump answered the call to pardon him Jan. 21. “I just called the mother of Ross William (Ulbricht) to let her know that in honor of her and the Libertarian Movement, which supported me so strongly, it was my pleasure to have just signed a full and unconditional pardon of her son, Ross,” Trump wrote in a social media post after his inauguration. “The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern day weaponization of government against me. He was given two life sentences, plus 40 years. Ridiculous!” Following Harris’ book release, the now-free Ulbricht took her claim of identifying him as a “fentanyl dealer” head-on in an X post slamming the characterization. “Hey@KamalaHarris, You called me ‘the fentanyl dealer’ in your new book and attacked President Trump for freeing me after more than *ELEVEN* years in prison. Yet, I wasn’t prosecuted for dealing drugs myself and fentanyl wasn’t part of my charges. The truth has never mattered to you. The goal is just to make me and President Trump look bad at all cost, isn’t it? Don’t be a sore loser, Kamala,” he wrote. KAMALA HARRIS PLAYS UP COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH HILLARY CLINTON AS WEDGE WITH BIDEN WIDENS Harris launched her book tour in September, when she began joining media interviews and stops in cities across the country to celebrate her 107-day campaign, and also repeatedly has claimed it was the “closest election” this century. “It was the closest election in the 21st century. It was one of the top three closest elections in
How James Comey’s indictment could go south for the DOJ
As former FBI Director James Comey stares down a two-count federal indictment alleging he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, the Department of Justice faces an uphill climb in securing a conviction. Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia is under pressure to move the prosecution forward against Comey’s formidable defense team, which has multiple ways to challenge the charges. Halligan, a Trump ally and former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, is up against the possibility that Comey’s lawyers will file requests to toss the case out. If Comey is unsuccessful and the case goes to trial, Halligan will then face a new hurdle: persuading a jury. Critics say President Donald Trump, Halligan and any others involved in the case could also see external repercussions for rushing to bring what they view as a flimsy, retributive indictment. In terms of pre-trial efforts, several lawyers have speculated that Comey will argue to the court that his two charges should be dismissed on numerous grounds. COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade of Michigan told Fox News Digital one possibility is that Comey could argue the prosecution was selective. “To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show not only that the prosecution was motivated by an improper purpose, but also that other similarly situated individuals were treated differently,” McQuade said. She said it would be “remarkably easy to demonstrate the first factor,” pointing to Trump’s extraordinary comments on social media openly saying he wanted Comey charged out of vengeance. Comey, one of Trump’s top political nemeses, led the FBI when it opened a controversial investigation into Trump over his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. McQuade said, however, that the second factor would be difficult to prove — that others have not been prosecuted for false statements to Congress — since that “essentially requires a defendant to prove a negative.” COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES ‘I AM NOT AFRAID’ Jim Trusty, a former DOJ prosecutor who once worked on Trump’s defense team, told Fox News the indictment is still in an early stage, the specific allegations remain unclear and that a “wait and see” approach was best. Trusty said, though, that critics who claim Trump is weaponizing the DOJ against his enemies are misguided. “Lawfare was certainly used as a weapon to go after Trump, but it also protected people, and so you can also look at this as four years of love from the Biden administration kept Comey out of the crosshairs,” Trusty said. Trusty said Comey’s indictment could be perceived as a “tit for tat,” or it could simply be “overdue.” McQuade said that at this early stage, she viewed Comey’s acquittal as the “more likely” way the DOJ would fail, pointing to what she said was “convoluted” language in the indictment. She said it seemed to rely on congressional testimony Comey gave in 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, referenced a question asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2017 about whether Comey authorized a leak to the media. Cruz also slightly misquoted Grassley, she said. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO INDICT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO CONGRESS “Because the prosecution must show that Comey knowingly and willfully made a false statement, that messy record may be a fatal flaw,” McQuade said. Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of the Western District of Virginia told Fox News Digital that if the court permits Comey to access any records related to the DOJ’s “internal deliberations” about the case, those details could undermine the prosecution and bolster a defense that the case was tainted by political motivations. “The biggest potential fallout for DOJ will be if the judge permits the Comey legal team to get under the hood of the internal deliberations of DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute Comey,” Fishwick told Fox News Digital. “The Comey team wants to argue this prosecution is just about politics and revenge, but they will need as much evidence as possible to buttress this claim as DOJ will counter the grand jury indicted Comey, not DOJ.” Trump’s appointment of Halligan as U.S. attorney was a last-minute move, as the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s testimony expired on Sept. 30. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the Virginia office, and brought in Halligan, a willing participant in Trump’s mission to take down his political rivals. While Trump has suggested other indictments are coming down the pike, critics have zeroed in on Comey’s case, calling it weak enough that Trump also risks impeachment over it and that Halligan and any other prosecutors who decide to join the case risk career penalties. No DOJ prosecutors have joined Halligan on the case at this stage. Former DOJ official Harry Litman, host of “Talking Feds” and vocal Trump critic, said “some accountability” would come if Democrats take the House next year, advocating they impeach Trump for what he says is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice. “If we can just get through the midterms and give the House of Representatives the power to subpoena all of these jokers on Capitol Hill, grill them and then impeach Trump again … all of the evidence of the crime that Donald Trump just committed will be laid out for public inspection,” Litman said. He also cited a report that career prosecutors advised Halligan against charging Comey, suggesting she faces the “possibility of serious professional sanctions” because of it.