Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is endorsing former President Donald Trump in 2024.
This is one of two recent, big announcements from McCarthy. The other big announcement is that he is retiring from Congress.
McCarthy announced his retirement in an op-ed that he recently wrote for the Wall Street Journal. And, McCarthy announced his endorsement of Trump during a recent interview with CBS News.
This all comes after McCarthy was recently ousted from the House speakership position.
During the interview, McCarthy said, unambiguously, "I will support the president. I will support President Trump."
This came as a surprise to some because McCarthy and Trump have not always seen eye-to-eye. In addition to this, Trump supporters played a large role in McCarthy's ouster. But, nonetheless, McCarthy is supporting Trump in 2024.
The former House speaker, during the interview, was also asked whether he would accept a cabinet position from Trump should Trump win in 2024 and offer him such a position. McCarthy answered in the affirmative.
"In the right position, look, if, if I’m the best person for the job, yes," McCarthy said.
He added, "Look, I worked with President Trump on a lot of policies. I, we, worked together to win the majority. But we also have a relationship where we’re very honest with one another."
McCarthy's Journal op-ed is titled, Kevin McCarthy: I'm Leaving the House but Not the Fight. It was published on Dec. 6, 2023.
"No matter the odds, or personal cost, we did the right thing. That may seem out of fashion in Washington these days, but delivering results for the American people is still celebrated across the country. It is in this spirit that I have decided to depart the House at the end of this year to serve America in new ways. I know my work is only getting started." McCarthy wrote.
McCarthy did not reveal what he has lined up, but he did say that he "will continue to recruit our country’s best and brightest to run for elected office" and that he is "committed to lending my experience to support the next generation of leaders."
McCarthy went on to provide more hints about the direction of his future, writing, "It often seems that the more Washington does, the worse America gets. I started my career as a small-business owner, and I look forward to helping entrepreneurs and risk-takers reach their full potential. The challenges we face are more likely to be solved by innovation than legislation."
Trump has yet to comment on McCarthy's retirement.
Hunter Biden is now trying to claim that Republicans are "trying to kill" him.
Biden said as much during an appearance Friday on the Moby Pod podcast, according to Fox News.
Biden's appearance came after he was criminally indicted in California on Thursday.
The president's son is facing nine charges: three felonies and six misdemeanors. The charges are all tax crimes. He is facing up to 17 years in prison.
Several parts of Hunter Biden's hour-long podcast appearance deserve attention, including one point at which he referred to his critics as "motherf******."
Biden, referring to the various indictments and investigations that he is facing, said:
One of the reasons why I'm going to survive this — and I'm going to survive it clean and sober — is because I am not going to let these motherf****** use me as just another example of why people in recovery are never going to be okay, never to be trusted, they're all degenerates. I'm just not going to let that happen.
At another point in the interview, Biden alleged that the Republicans who have been investigating him are "not healthy people" and that they are trying to "kill" him and hurt his father's presidency.
Biden said:
They are trying to destroy a presidency. And, so, it's not about me. In their most base way, what they're trying to do is they're trying to kill me, knowing that it will be a pain greater than my father could be able to handle. And, so, therefore, destroying a presidency in that way.
The president's son went on to place further blame on former President Donald Trump for the "underlying sickness" that America is facing.
Hunter Biden is facing criticism for the interview with many pointing out that it sounds as though he is placing blame on everyone and everything other than himself, on whom the blame really belongs.
In the meantime, there is a lot of skepticism about the whole situation, including about the most recent indictment.
House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-KY), one of the lead congressional investigators of the Biden family's business said on Friday:
We think there’s many more crimes. and my concern is that Weiss may have indicted Hunter Biden to protect him from having to be deposed in the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.
Hunter Biden is supposed to provide private testimony to Congress this upcoming week. Before the indictment, he and his lawyer had been trying to get out of this. Now, Comer and others believe that there is a good chance that Biden and his lawyer will try to use this latest indictment to avoid providing the testimony.
We'll have to see how this all plays out: whether the charges brought against Biden are legitimate or whether it is all just a ploy by the Democrats to get him off the hook. Time will tell.
Elon Musk is asking the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of the consent decree that he previously entered into with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Reuters reports.
The consent decree came after Musk, in August 2018, posted a message on X (then known as Twitter) in which he said two things: that he had secured the funding necessary to make his electric car company, Tesla, private for $420 per share and that he had "confirmed" the "investor support" needed for the deal.
NBC News reports, "Trading in Tesla was halted after his tweets, and shares remained volatile in the weeks that followed."
The SEC ended up charging Musk with civil securities fraud, alleging that Musk's social media posts improperly influenced the price of Tesla stock.
Musk would go on to reach a settlement agreement with the SEC, and this settlement included a consent decree.
As part of the agreement, Musk and Tesla were each required to pay $20 million in fines, Musk was required to step down as the chairman of Tesla, and Musk was required to have a Tesla lawyer preapprove some of his social media posts.
Musk has particularly taken issue with this last requirement, which he has referred to as a "muzzle." He has taken the matter to the courts, arguing that this amounts to a violation of his free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Musk, at the lower court level, was unsuccessful.
Reuters reports, "In its ruling, the three-judge panel said Musk could not revisit the screening of Twitter posts because he had 'changed his mind.' The 2nd Circuit in July denied Musk's request to rehear the case."
On Thursday, Musk and his lawyers asked the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved.
NBC quotes Musk's lawyers as writing that the settlement "restricts Mr. Musk’s speech even when truthful and accurate."
Musk's lawyers continue, writing, "It extends to speech not covered by the securities laws and with no relation to the conduct underlying the SEC’s civil action against Mr. Musk. And, it chills Mr. Musk’s speech through the never-ending threat of contempt, fines, or even imprisonment for otherwise protected speech if not pre-approved to the SEC’s or a court’s satisfaction."
Essentially, Musk and his legal team are arguing that this part of the consent decree is an impermissible prior restraint.
We'll have to see if the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court agree. But, first, they'll have to decide whether or not to hear the case.
The issue of press freedom, as it relates to the U.S. government stepping on it, was raised recently -- once again -- after an FBI raid on a popular conservative figure.
As Politico reported, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe found himself the recipient of a pre-dawn FBI raid earlier this month.
Similar raids have taken place on his former associates.
First Amendment advocates have raised alarms regarding the series of raids, calling into question how far the government will go, seemingly picking on conservatives.
The FBI raid which happened last weekend left O'Keefe standing in his hallway while agents, one carrying a battering ram, rifled through his belongings for cell phones and devices.
It was in connection to the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley Biden.
The diary had made its way, somehow, to Project Veritas while O'Keefe was still running it, though the organization never published any contents of the diary and ultimately handed it over to police.
Clearly, the Biden administration looks to be working overtime to ensure that nothing from the diary makes it to the public, raising more questions as to what, exactly, the diary contains.
First Amendment advocates, like University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, were stunned that the DOJ would use the FBI to conduct a raid on a journalist.
"This is just beyond belief," Kirtley said. "I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong."
Not surprisingly, lawyers representing O'Keefe had quite a bit to say about the pre-dawn FBI raid.
"The Department of Justice’s use of a search warrant to seize a reporter’s notes and work product violates decades of established Supreme Court precedent," one of his lawyers said, echoing similar feelings from a number of First Amendment advocates.
Politico added:
O’Keefe’s lawyers are demanding that the court appoint a special master to supervise the review of the information on his phones, which they contend contains sensitive details about confidential sources, as well as privileged communication with Project Veritas’ attorneys.
Hopefully, O'Keefe and his lawyers prevail. At this point, it's clear that Biden's DOJ will stop at nothing to ensure secrets are kept.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is looking for permission to offer the jury evidence about former President Donald Trump's attempts to foster doubt about the election process.
This comes as Smith is attempting to prosecute Trump for his actions on January 6, which is around the time that Smith asserts the former president was sewing doubt about the election process, as POLITICO reported.
The prosecutor asserts that such information would help jurors in deciding whether Trump was actually trying to overthrow the government, as Smith asserts he was.
Smith is petitioning U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for authorization to present evidence that, while not explicitly charged in the criminal indictment, might have a bearing on the jury's deliberation of the alleged offenses is nonetheless pertinent.
In criminal proceedings, these particulars, referred to as 404(b) evidence, are frequently introduced to assist the jury in discerning the intent or motive of the defendant by examining uncharged "bad acts."
Smith asserts that the evidence in this instance will assist jurors in determining Trump's objective in the chaotic weeks preceding the January 6 riot at the Capitol, when he attempted to undermine the election.
Prosecutors intend to present an array of 404(b) evidence, not limited to the false election fraud allegations from previous years.
Gaston indicated that they plan to inform the jury of Trump's recurrent denials of a peaceful transfer of power in 2016 and 2020.
They wish to introduce his exhortation to the Proud Boys in September 2020 to "stand back and stand by," which served as a catalyst for the group's leaders to take action and set the Proud Boys in motion toward their involvement in the January 6 violation of the Capitol.
Prosecutors also allege that Trump waged a retaliatory campaign against Republican Party allies, including the former legal counsel of the RNC, who refused to acknowledge his allegations of election fraud.
In the years following the riot on January 6, prosecutors assert that Trump endeavored to associate himself with the demonstrators, something they would also like to talk about with the jury.
Trump, who has pledged to consider pardoning many of them, has referred to them as "hostages," lamented the severity of the sentences meted out to even the most egregious offenders, and collaborated with some of the most violent riot defendants incarcerated in the D.C. jail to compose a song.
“This evidence shows that the rioters’ disruption of the certification proceeding is exactly what the defendant intended on January 6,” Gaston wrote.
In the days and weeks preceding the 2012 election, during which President Barack Obama was attempting to oust Republican nominee Mitt Romney for re-election, Trump also complained that voting machines were being manipulated and the election was tainted with fraud.
Democratic primary challenger George Latimer of Westchester County, New York, will face off against "Squad" member Rep. Jamaal Bowman after Latimer formally submitted federal papers to launch his campaign for Congress.
Fox News Digital examined papers from the Federal Election Commission that were made available online, as the outlet reported.
The statement of candidacy for Congress was filed by Latimer on Monday.
In the months that have passed since the left-wing congressman made repeated remarks that some people in the mostly Jewish district saw as being anti-Israel, there has been a growing amount of talk that the Democratic legislator might step up and oppose Bowman.
In the year 2020, Bowman was elected to represent the 16th Congressional District of New York. His success has largely been attributed to his support for progressive causes.
Included in the district are sections of the Bronx as well as Westchester's suburban areas. Subsequently, she became a member of "The Squad," an unofficial congressional group that has a left-wing ideology.
At this point in time, Latimer has chosen not to make an official announcement on his campaign, but his filings have assured many that his campaign is gearing up.
This news comes after the potential challenger returned from a trip to Israel that lasted for four days and was hosted by the Westchester Jewish Council.
This past September and October, the New York congressman was embroiled in controversy once again when, just before members voted to prevent a government shutdown, he pulled the fire alarm in the House of Representatives.
"A lot of observers right now think that this is close to if not the nadir for Bowman," New York-based political consultant Jake Dilemani told Fox News Digital last month as speculation grew around a potential Latimer run.
"This is the bottom for Bowman with certain people in the district and certain other political observers. And rewind to last year, people were disappointed with him."
The politician from Westchester, who was elected as Westchester County executive in 2018, is regarded as a Democrat powerhouse in the region. He has held positions in the state Senate and the New York Assembly.
"George has had a very long and successful career in politics in Westchester County as a Democrat. He's never lost an election," Dilemani, who previously worked with Latimer on campaigns, added in his previous comment to Fox.
A request for comment from journalists regarding Latimer's probable primary challenge was not promptly addressed by Bowman's office.
A mass stabbing occurred in New York City on Sunday morning.
The incident, according to the New York Post, left four dead, including two children.
It also left one other person and two police officers injured.
The incident took place on Sunday at a home in Far Rockaway, which is located in Queens, New York.
ABC News reports that, at around 5 a.m., a 911 call was made indicating that an assault was taking place at a home on Beach 22nd Street.
Per the outlet:
"A young female caller stated that her cousin is killing her family members," NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey said at a news conference describing the horrifying events. Officers responded to the location and approached a man they say was leaving the driveway of the residence with luggage.
The man has been identified as 38-year-old Courtney Gordan.
When the police arrived, they attempted to speak to Gordan. But, it was to no avail. Within the first 10 seconds, Gordan struck two of them with a kitchen steak knife, stabbing one in the neck and the other in the head, before an officer opened fire and fatally shot him.
By this point, though, the damage had already been done.
Police officers initially found an 11-year-old girl lying on the ground outside of the residence with stab wounds. She was taken to a nearby hospital where she was pronounced dead. The police then proceeded to search the house.
This was complicated by the fact that Gordan set a couch on fire before leaving the residence. So, the police had to wait for the fire to be extinguished before they could search the residence. But, after the fire was put out, officers discovered three more deceased victims: a 12-year-old boy, a 44-year-old woman, and a 30-year-old man. All had fatal stab wounds.
The police also found a 61-year-old woman with multiple stab wounds. She was taken to the hospital in critical condition. It is unclear whether she is going to survive her injuries.
The two officers who were injured during the incident are reported to have critical but stable injuries. Both, at the time of this writing, have been released from the hospital.
Now, the police are investigating the incident to determine what may have driven Gordon to do this. The Post reports that Gordan "was arrested less than a year ago in the Bronx for domestic violence" and that he "was visiting with the relatives when he carried out the gruesome killings."
Three of the Republican congress members who were fined for violating then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) coronavirus facemask mandate are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike the fines down as unconstitutional.
The lawmakers, according to the New York Post, petitioned the justices of the high court to hear their case towards the end of last month.
They are alleging that the mask mandate and the corresponding fines are a violation of the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Read on to see their argument.
This situation, according to The Hill, dates back to the summer of 2020, when, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, then-House Speaker Pelosi and her fellow Democrats imposed a facemask mandate on their fellow House members.
The mandate required the lower chamber's members to cover their faces with masks while on the House floor - unless they were speaking in a floor debate, in which case the masks could be removed.
Pelosi subsequently imposed a $500 fine on first-time violators of the mandate and a $2,500 fine on repeat offenders.
U.S. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and Ralph Norman (R-SC) were all part of a group of House Republicans who refused to comply with Pelosi's mandate.
Accordingly, in 2021, they were each hit with a $500 fine.
In response, Massie, Greene, and Norman took the situation to the courts. Thus far, they have lost at the district and appellate court levels.
"The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals," according to the Daily Caller, "held in June that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause makes Pelosi and other named defendants, former House Sergeant at Arms William Walker and House Chief Administrative Officer Catherine Szpindor, immune from the lawsuit."
Now, Massie, Greene, and Norman are asking the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved. They are arguing that Pelosi's mandate and the corresponding fines violate the 27th Amendment.
The three lawmakers argue:
To let the D.C. Circuit’s opinion stand would be to render the Twenty-Seventh Amendment non-justiciable in violation of this Court and the D.C. Circuit’s own precedents and to open the floodgates to unfathomable discipline. The House Rules, under this Doctrine, could impose physical punishment, flogging, or even more medieval forms of punishment, upon members and, under the D.C. Circuit’s precedent, no judicial remedy would be available, the Eighth Amendment notwithstanding
It remains unclear, at the time of this writing, whether the Supreme Court justices will hear the case.
A judge has just rejected Kari Lake's request to examine ballot envelopes from Arizona's 2022 gubernatorial election, The Hill reports.
Lake was the Republican candidate in that election, which she ended up losing to Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) by a tally of roughly 17,000 votes.
Lake, however, has maintained that she did not lose the election. Rather, she has alleged that the election was stolen from her, and she has been attempting to use the judiciary to prove it.
Lake's lawsuits, thus far, have proved unsuccessful. The Washington Examiner reports:
In May, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Lake accusing Maricopa County of not verifying signatures on mail ballots as required by law. In February, a court rejected Lake’s lawsuit claiming problems with ballot printers at some polling places.
This latest ruling comes from Lake's third lawsuit, which began in September 2023. As part of this lawsuit, Lake has asked for access to ballot envelopes from the roughly 1.3 million early voters in the 2022 gubernatorial election.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah, this past week, rejected this request.
"Ms. Lake regards the electoral process much like the villagers in the famous fable regarded the goose that laid the golden egg, except that her goose failed to lay the egg she expected," Hannah wrote.
He continued, "She insists that something must have gone wrong. If only she could cut open the electoral process and examine each of its 1.3 million pieces, she says, she would be able to figure out what happened and show that the prize has been there waiting for her all along."
Hannah went on like this for 12 pages.
Lake responded to Hannah's ruling in a message that she posted to her "Kari Lake War Room" X account. In the message, Lake attempted to spin Hannah's ruling.
Lake wrote:
The judge ruled that while these records are public. The public has no right to see them. We can no longer trust or verify. Corrupt election officials are allowed to handle the peoples’s business in back rooms knowing the judiciary will not hold them accountable.
The judge ruled that while these records are public. The public has no right to see them.
We can no longer trust or verify.
Corrupt election officials are allowed to handle the peoples’s business in back rooms knowing the judiciary will not hold them accountable. https://t.co/hZV5I7ySBi
— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) November 30, 2023
Lake followed this up with several other messages to the same effect.
The Examiner reports, "[T]he judge’s ruling confirmed that the records are not public and use nonpublic information in the voter registration records, such as the end digits of a Social Security number."
Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund manager, is calling for President Joe Biden to "step aside" in order to allow another Democrat to represent the party in the 2024 presidential election.
Ackman said as much during a recent appearance on Bloomberg Television's The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations.
Ackman, during the interview, questioned Biden's current "intellectual" capacity.
Ackman even went so far as to say that he would be "more open" to voting for a Republican candidate in 2024 than to voting for Biden, should Biden continue to pursue reelection.
To help put Ackman's remarks into perspective, it has to be noted that he has been a supporter of Biden.
During the Bloomberg interview, for example, Ackman said, "Biden’s done a lot of good things."
So, Ackman's argument is not that Biden ought to forego reelection because he has been a bad president. Rather, Ackman's argument seems to be that Biden does not have the capacity to effectively lead the country for another term.
Referring to Biden, Ackman told Bloomberg, "I think his legacy will not be a good one if he is the nominee. The right thing for Biden to do is to step aside, and to say he’s not going to run, and create the opportunity for some competition."
Later in the interview, Ackman added, "You need to be at your intellectual best, and I don’t think Biden is there. I don’t say that, you know, with any derision of the president, but I think he’s clearly past his physical and cognitive peak."
If you have been following 2024 polls and 2024 reporting, then it is likely that you know that Ackman is not alone in his opinion. There are many Democrats who believe that the party, in 2024, ought to head in a direction other than Biden.
ABC News recently reported:
Three-quarters of Americans (74%) said Biden was too old to run for another term in a survey conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post in September.
But, age - and the decreased capacity that comes along with age - is not the only problem that Americans have with Biden. The truth is that, at the moment, it is hard to find a poll that is favorable for Biden.
This has led to serious concerns, within the Democratic Party, about Biden's chances of winning in 2024, regardless of who the Republican nominee will be. But, the question is: "if not Biden, then who?"
This is the Democrats' 2024 problem. Ackman pointed to U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN). But, polling, thus far, does not suggest that Phillips - or, for that matter, anyone else - can really challenge Biden, which is why some, like Ackman, are calling for Biden to "step aside."