The full Senate is expected to vote on President Joe Biden’s nominee for the number-two spot at the Department of Veterans Affairs, shortly after the completion of a scathing review that shows a VA recordkeeping system that she oversees risks exposing sensitive personal information on veterans and agency employees. 

Last month, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee advanced the nomination of Tanya Bradsher, current chief of staff to VA Secretary Denis McDonough, to be deputy secretary by a vote of 13-6. The Senate came back into session this week. 

In her current role, Bradsher has had authority over the VA Integrated Enterprise Workflow Solution Case and Correspondence Management, also known as the VIEWS CCM system, which a recent review conducted by the department’s Office of Information Technology determined had serious flaws — but was improving.

Peter C. Rizzo, a certified fraud examiner and former VA program manager, was one three VA whistleblowers who raised concerns about the system.

‘The president nominated this individual who was responsible for maintaining this system,’ Rizzo told Fox News Digital. ‘I certainly wouldn’t want someone of her caliber in the number-two spot at the VA. The VA and our nation’s veterans deserve better.’

Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., scheduled a cloture vote on Bradsher for 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, issued a statement late Thursday explaining his opposition to the nomination that he has previously blocked.

‘If confirmed, Ms. Bradsher would be in charge of the VA’s effort to modernize veterans’ electronic health record,’ Grassley said. ‘This involves the healthcare records of millions of veterans, which obviously contain huge amounts of sensitive information. Ms. Bradsher’s failures on privacy issues as chief of staff and her lack of transparency to the Veterans Affairs Committee show that we can’t trust her to secure this sensitive information or to take the lead and address agency failures, of which VA has many.’ 

In August 2022, the Office of Special Counsel — an independent agency that investigates whistleblower disclosures — requested the VA investigate privacy concerns about the VIEWS system. The VA’s Office of Information Technology conducted the investigation and submitted its report in July of this year to the Office of Special Counsel. The report has not yet been made public, but the OSC is expected to issue the report at a later date. A VA spokesperson did not comment on the record for this story.

The more than 2,000 VA employees who have access to the VIEWS have the option of marking documents ‘sensitive’ or ‘not sensitive’ for veterans and employees. According to congressional sources, the VA internal review estimates that the number of ‘not sensitive’ records with personal information that should have been marked ‘sensitive’ were in the ‘multi-thousands.’ 

The department’s internal review says that VA employees with access to the VIEWS systems ‘can view, download, copy, screenshot, or otherwise share sensitive information – e.g., whistleblower and veteran social security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and phone numbers and medical and financial information.’ 

The internal review determined that remediation measures in July 2023 ‘significantly reduced the accessibility of whistleblower identities and sensitive personal information.’

However, it also noted that ‘there is no program of auditing or detection in place to measure the effectiveness of applied changes, or to flag when a user views whistleblower identities and sensitive personal information without authority or fails to protect such information by not setting the appropriate case sensitivity marker.’ 

Bradsher wrote to Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, in a May saying: ‘the VIEWS system has controls in place to protect personal and sensitive information . . . system access is logged. Audits also are done to make sure information on the VIEWS system is accessed appropriately.’ 

This answer clearly conflicts with the report’s assertion that no audit system is in place, Grassley said in a statement. 

‘The VA’s report further calls Ms. Bradsher’s candor into question. It seems to directly contradict Ms. Bradsher’s answers to questions for the record in her committee proceedings,’ Grassley said. ‘It looks like Ms. Bradsher has some explaining to do.’ 

The review stated: ‘Privacy issues with VIEWS CCM have been reported to VA officials responsible for VIEWS CCM by multiple persons and offices since 2019.’ However, in her written response to questions from Moran, Bradsher said she ‘first became aware there were concerns about the VIEWS systems shortly after certain VA employees approached the deputy chief of staff in July 2022.’

The internal VA report says that ‘there has been no effort to hold violators accountable.’  

The review further says department whistleblowers believe that ‘sharing of this information has resulted in the mistreatment by managers and co-workers.’ However, the review also says that ‘there is no evidence that VIEWS vulnerabilities discussed in this report resulted in a privacy breach or have caused harm to veterans, whistleblowers, or their families.’ 

But Rizzo contends that the privacy breach from VIEWS facilitated the attempt to silence department whistleblowers. Last year, he notified colleague Kristen Ruell, a 15-year veteran of the VA, that her information could be found in the VIEWS system. Ruell has been a whistleblower in cases of duplicate payments, exposing improper shredding of mail and reported improper treatment of employees. 

VIEWS showed her whistleblower communications to members of Congress, the VA Office of Inspector General and other VA officials. She also noted that her Social Security number, date of birth and other sensitive and personal information had been published in VIEWS and marked not sensitive, so that other VA employees could access the information.

‘When I whistleblew in the past, I always thought it was strange that the people I reported found out that I reported them within hours,’ Ruell said. ‘One person actually contacted me and asked why I reported them. Now it all makes sense. The emails that I sent are still in VIEWS and as of the date of the report still viewable to any VIEWS user.’ 

Bradsher was a 20-year Army veteran and has been a public affairs official for the White House National Security Council, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. 

–>

Justice Samuel Alito on Friday flatly rejected demands from Senate Democrats that he recuse himself from an upcoming Supreme Court case, calling their argument invalid. 

In an August 3 letter, Democrats led by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., urged Chief Justice John Roberts to ‘take appropriate steps’ to ensure that Alito recuse himself from Moore v. United States. The demand was made because Alito had sat down for a Wall Street Journal interview with opinion journalist David B. Rivkin, a practicing attorney who is a lawyer in the case. 

‘This argument is unsound,’ Alito wrote in an unusual statement added to a list of Supreme Court orders. ‘There is no valid reason for my recusal in this case.’ 

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been highly critical of Alito and the rest of the court for failing to adopt an ethics code, following reports of undisclosed paid trips taken by Justice Clarence Thomas and, on one occasion, by Alito. The committee approved an ethics code for the court on a party-line vote, though it is unlikely to become law.

In the August letter, Judiciary Committee Democrats called for Alito to be recused from a tax case that will be heard this fall. 

Lawmakers complained that Alito himself had cast doubt on his ability to judge the case fairly because he had sat for four hours of Wall Street Journal opinion page interviews with an editor at the newspaper and David Rivkin, one of the lawyers for the couple suing over a tax bill. Rivkin also represents Leonard Leo, the onetime leader of the conservative legal group The Federalist Society, in his dealings with the Senate Democrats, who want details of Leo’s involvement with the justices. Leo helped to arrange a private trip that Alito took to Alaska in 2008.

In one of the two articles produced from the interview, Alito said that Congress has no ‘authority’ to regulate the Supreme Court. 

‘I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period,’ Alito said. 

In a statement, Durbin accused Alito of eroding public trust in the Supreme Court. 

‘Justice Alito, of the originalist school of thinking that empty seats on an airplane don’t count as gifts, surprises no one by sitting on a case involving a lawyer who honored him with a puff piece in the Wall Street Journal. Why do these Justices continue to take a wrecking ball to the reputation of the highest court in the land?’ Durbin said. 

‘The Court is in a crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the Court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust, not the opposite. This episode is further proof that Chief Justice Robert’s failure to act remains untenable, and Congress needs to pass the SCERT Act to create an enforceable code of conduct. Supreme Court Justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest,’ he added. 

Alito, in his written response to Durbin’s request, had said that the Democrats’ theory ‘fundamentally misunderstands the circumstances under which Supreme Court Justices must work.’ 

‘We have no control over the attorneys whom parties select to represent them, and as a result, we are often presented with cases in which one of the attorneys has spoken favorably or unfavorably about our work or character. Similarly, we regularly receive briefs filed by or on behalf of Members of Congress who have either supported or opposed our confirmations, or who have made either favorable or unfavorable comments about us or our work,’ Alito wrote.

He continued: ‘We participate in cases in which one or more of the attorneys is a former law clerk, a former colleague, or an individual with whom we have long been acquainted. If we recused in such cases, we would regularly have less than a full bench, and the Court’s work would be substantially disrupted and distorted.’ 

‘In all the instance mentioned above, we are required to put favorable or unfavorable comments and any personal connections with an attorney out of our minds and judge the case based solely on the law and facts. And that is what we do,’ he concluded. 

‘For these reasons, there is no sound reason for my recusal in this case, and in accordance with the duty to sit, I decline to recuse.’  

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Democrat candidate in one of the most closely watched state legislature races in Virginia said earlier this year that ‘unqualified’ White people are able to secure high-paying jobs while Black people need ‘a Ph.D.’ to be considered for the same type of job.

Nadarius Clark, a political activist and former member of the Virginia House of Delegates who hopes to win another term made the claim during an April 17, 2021, episode of his former podcast, ‘Polititalk,’ when he and a guest co-host were discussing what they said was the unfair treatment of Black people by the police.

‘I refuse to have to teach my kids how to be a perfect person when that doesn’t exist. It is ridiculous that we have to dot our i’s and cross our t’s just to have a regular job,’ Clark said during the podcast.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

‘Our counterparts, a Caucasian, can be mediocre and still get a $100,000 job. We have to be — we’ve got to have a doctorate degree, a Ph.D., to get let in those doors. We have to be overqualified … to get half of what an unqualified Caucasian would get,’ he added.

He went on to call for society to have a ‘change in social norms.’ His guest co-host, Stephannie Malone, agreed but offered an inaudible response.

Fox News Digital reached out to Clark for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Clark was first elected in 2021 but resigned from his seat this year after moving to run for reelection in a new district, in accordance with Virginia law, following the House of Delegates district map being redrawn.

He now faces Republican and retired Navy Capt. Mike Dillender in the race for the 84th District, one in which both parties have poured considerable money and could ultimately decide which party controls the House of Delegates in the battleground state.

Dillender was one of 10 candidates endorsed by Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin who won their primaries in June as the GOP hopes to hang onto, and grow, its narrow majority in the House of Delegates and win a majority in the state Senate.

The head of the Border Patrol union told Fox News Digital on Saturday that a reported Biden administration plan to force migrants to remain in Texas as they are processed for their asylum hearings won’t do anything to secure the border or help agents.

‘It’s not going to help border security in any way, shape or form because it means catch-and-releases are going to continue to go on,’ Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told Fox News Digital. He suggested that the Biden administration is only considering the move in response to complaints from liberal mayors.

The Los Angeles Times reported this week that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering a policy to force some illegal migrant families to remain in Texas by tracking them with GPS monitoring devices, including ankle bracelets.

The Times reported that the families would be put through an asylum process to determine if they could stay, and if not, they could be more easily deported due to their proximity to the border. The program would be an expansion of the Family Expedited Removal Program, which imposes curfews and monitors families that have traveled to large cities.

In response to the report, a DHS spokesperson said in a statement that the administration ‘is committed to expanding safe and orderly pathways for migrants to lawfully enter the United States, while imposing consequences for those who fail to use those pathways.’

‘Since May 2023, DHS has removed or returned over 200,000 individuals, including over 17,000 individual family unit members,’ the spokesperson continued. ‘DHS continuously holds policy and operational discussions on how to leverage our authorities to ensure a fair, humane, and effective immigration process that efficiently removes those without a lawful basis to stay in the country.’

But the reported plan comes as the administration faces criticism from Democrat mayors and state officials in places like New York and California. New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been one of the most vocal critics, saying that the influx of some 110,000 migrants so far threatens to ‘destroy’ the city.

This plan would, in theory, limit migrants’ movements and also stop Texas from bussing migrants to those cities – the latter of which leaders say has exacerbated their issues. Judd, however, said that such a move ‘is not going to alleviate the problem in any way, shape or form’ and was dismissive of the enforcement that would be used in that situation.

‘Ankle bracelets have never been effective. They will not be effective because we just don’t have the personnel to go after somebody the moment they cut the ankle bracelet. It’s dumb, it’s just another waste of taxpayer dollars,’ Judd said.

He also said that it would not help agents because it would not reduce the number of migrants who are being released into the United States.

‘Absolutely not because, again, they’re still going to be subject to release,’ he said. ‘They’ll be released into Texas, and they’ll be told to stay in Texas. Well, we know that people that violate our laws, they’re not going to follow our laws once they’ve violated them in the first place. So, what makes anybody think that they’re going to stay in Texas? And they’re not going to.’

Judd said the reason for the reported policy move is for political purposes, not border security.

‘All they’re doing this for is to appease Eric Adams and appease the mayor of Los Angeles. That’s the only reason that they’re doing this. This is just more rhetoric,’ he said.

Judd’s is the latest criticism against the reported plan, which has also met criticism from immigration activists who say it is cruel and inhumane to migrants. Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said his administration would potentially sue and send ‘even more buses’ of migrants if the plan was put into action.

EXCLUSIVE: Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott gave a one-word response to a California bill that would punish parents in custody battles who don’t ‘affirm’ transgender kids. 

The South Carolina senator called the proposal ‘evil’ in a statement to Fox News. 

The California State Assembly passed legislation Friday that would require judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed a child’s belief that they are transgender. 

AB 957 originally proposed that courts deciding custody cases must consider whether each parent were gender-affirming of the child in question. An amendment in June added to the state’s standard of what constitutes parental responsibility for child welfare, requiring that parents must be affirming of a child’s gender identity if they are to be judged fit for providing for ‘the health, safety, and welfare of the child’ in a court of law. 

‘The radical Left is on a mission to make parents less important. They think your kids belong to them,’ Scott added. ‘I will fight back, put parents back in charge, and protect the next generation of children from this absurdity.’

Last month, Scott announced a plan that he said will empower parents and protect school children from the ‘classroom to the locker room to the smartphone.’ 

The plan — first shared with Fox News Digital — is the latest example of Republicans pushing to elevate the role of parental control of public schools.

The first component of Scott’s ‘Empower Parents Plan’ is defending children with a ‘family first culture.’

Scott, a rising star in the GOP and the only Black Republican in the Senate, calls for restoring ‘American childhood and let girls and boys be girls and boys, not guinea pigs’ and ‘Save Title IX and women’s sports — if God made you a man, you play sports against other men.’

Scott also vows to empower parents by defending their ability to know what their children are hearing and reading in school.

He also wants to ’empower every family the right to opt out of propaganda that attacks their values and religious liberty,’ and pledges to ‘break the back of the teachers’ unions and enact nationwide school choice,’ which are staples of the conservative movement.

The senator also wants to give parents a greater ability to decide whether to send their children to public, private, charter or STEM schools, or to homeschool.

Scott argued that he will ‘replace indoctrination with education. ABC, not CRT.’

Fox News’ Alexander Hall, Gabriel Hays, Paul Steinhauser and Andrew Murray contributed to this report. 

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, issued an emergency order on Friday suspending the right to carry guns in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days following recent instances of gun violence.

The governor said she expects the order to face legal challenges but that she believed she needed to act in response to recent gun-related deaths, such as an 11-year-old boy who was shot and killed outside a minor league baseball stadium earlier this week.

‘When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong,’ Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

The suspension was classified as an emergency public health order, and applies to open and concealed carry in most public places, excluding police and licensed security guards. The restriction is connected to a threshold for violent crime rates met only by the Albuquerque area.

Violators could face civil penalties and a fine of up to $5,000, the governor’s spokeswoman Caroline Sweeney said. The governor said state police are responsible for enforcing the order, but she acknowledged not all law enforcement officials – including the district attorney for the Albuquerque area – agree with it.

‘I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,’ Lujan Grisham said at a news conference.

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said in a statement Friday night that he has concerns about the order but is prepared to cooperate to address gun violence.

‘While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold,’ Allen said. ‘I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.’

Lujan Grisham cited several recent shootings in Albuquerque when issuing the order, including the Wednesday shooting outside the Albuquerque Isotopes’ field that left 11-year-old Froyland Villegas dead and a woman critically wounded. The two were inside a vehicle that was sprayed with bullets as people were leaving the game.

On Aug. 13, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was shot and killed as she slept when four teens entered a mobile home community in two stolen vehicles and opened fire on the home. The girl was shot in the head and died from her injuries at a hospital.

Another deadly shooting took place in August in Taos County when a 14-year-old boy used his father’s gun to shoot and kill his friend, 13-year-old Amber Archuleta, while they were at the boy’s home.

State Sen. Greg Baca, the Senate’s top-ranked Republican, denounced the governor’s firearm suspension.

‘A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order,’ Baca said.

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, praised the governor’s order as necessary in order to reduce gun violence.

‘If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,’ Viscoli said.

Since 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed several bills restricting gun access, including a 2020 ‘red flag’ law allowing law enforcement to ask a court to temporarily remove guns from people who they believe might hurt themselves or others. The governor also signed a ban on gun possession for people under permanent protective orders for domestic violence.

The governor’s order on Friday also directs state regulators to conduct monthly inspections of firearms dealers statewide to ensure compliance with gun laws.

The state Department of Health will conduct a report on gunshot victims at New Mexico hospitals that includes age, race, gender and ethnicity, as well as the brand and caliber of firearm involved and other general circumstances.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

–>

Former President Donald Trump has picked up another big-name endorsement in his bid to win back the White House from President Biden next year.

Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem threw the weight of her growing national recognition behind Trump, saying he has her ‘full and complete endorsement for President of the United States of America.’

‘I will do everything I can to help him win and save this country,’ Noem said Friday evening as she introduced Trump at a political event in Rapid City, South Dakota. ‘Ladies and gentlemen, the 45th and the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.’

The two politicians joining forces is sparking speculation that Trump – the current commanding front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination – is eyeing Noem as a potential running mate, especially since the endorsement appears to bring to a final close her own presidential ambitions in 2024. 

Noem said Thursday during an appearance on ‘Fox & Friends’ she and Trump have ‘not discussed it at all’ when asked about being his potential vice presidential pick.

Asked in a Fox News Digital interview later Thursday if teaming up with Trump should be seen as a possible test or audition for a running mate, Noem answered, ‘I don’t think so.’

But she’s not ruling anything out.

‘Yeah. I’d have to consider it,’ the governor said when asked what she would do if offered the job. ‘I think everybody would have to consider it if they were asked that question. It’s such an important time in our history where we see constitutional freedoms being undermined by leaders across this country almost every day.’

After taking the stage, Trump praised Noem, calling her ‘one of the most successful governors in the entire nation.’

And he emphasized,’Kristi, I’m truly honored to receive your endorsement.’

Last year Noem mulled a 2024 White House run of her own. But she’s been very clear in recent months that Trump is unbeatable for the GOP nomination, stressing that ‘he’s the one that can win.’

‘I do feel pretty confident that President Trump will be the Republican nominee for president,’ she told Fox News Digital. ‘He obviously has a record that he’s running on and people know with him what they’re getting. I think these other candidates that are in may be good people, but their record isn’t just as impressive.’  

Noem joins a number of other Republican governors who have already thrown their support behind Trump months before any votes will be cast in the primaries and caucuses, including South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice and Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

She is also the latest high-profile endorsement Trump has gotten since his fourth and most recent indictment on criminal charges. He surrendered to the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta last month on charges related to his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state.

Fox News’ Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

The Biden administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court opinion that made the abortion pill available but placed restrictions on the drug’s distribution.

In a cert petition, the Justice Department argued the loss of access to mifepristone, the abortion drug, would be ‘damaging for women and healthcare providers around the Nation.’ The government called mifepristone the ‘best method’ to terminate early pregnancies and pointed to the Food and Drug Administration’s previous determination that the drug is safe and effective.

‘The effect of the lower court’s decisions would be to compel FDA to return to a pre-2016 regulatory regime that imposes restrictions on distribution that FDA has found to be unnecessary and unjustified,’ lawyers for the Justice Department wrote. 

The filing came hours after abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories filed its own petition seeking Supreme Court review of the lower court ruling.

Last month, a three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rolled back FDA deregulation of the abortion pill. The ruling ended the availability of Mifepristone by mail, required that it is administered in a physician’s presence, and also stated that the drug can only be used through the seventh week of pregnancy, versus the previous 10 weeks. 

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the ruling that ‘In loosening mifepristone’s safety restrictions, the FDA failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it.’

The Justice Department called it an ‘unprecedented’ decision that contradicted the FDA’s expert judgment. 

However, the Supreme Court previously issued an injunction temporarily keeping the Biden administration’s deregulated rules in place while the case proceeds through court. Mifepristone currently remains available in states where abortion is legal under the FDA-approved conditions. 

Mifepristone, known by the brand name Mifeprex, is a pill taken with misoprostol in a two-drug regimen that first deprives an unborn baby of hormones it needs to stay alive and then causes cramps and contractions to expel the dead fetus from the mother’s womb.

According to Danco, more than 5 million women have used Mifeprex in the United States since the FDA approved its use in 2000. The drug is 97% effective in terminating early pregnancy, although the company says 3% of women who take it will require surgical intervention for ongoing pregnancy, heavy bleeding, incomplete expulsion or other reasons such as patient request. 

‘The FDA actions at issue were well supported by extensive safety and effectiveness data from clinical trials and decades worth of real-world experience in millions of patients,’ Danco said in a news release. ‘The changes in 2016 and 2021—approved by FDA after careful analysis — have expanded the availability and use of Mifeprex®, providing crucial individual and public health benefits.’ 

Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed the Texas lawsuit against the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone, previously said the 5th Circuit decision was a ‘victory for women’s health.’ 

‘The 5th Circuit rightly required the FDA to do its job and restore crucial safeguards for women and girls, including ending illegal mail-order abortions,’ said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice. ‘The FDA will finally be made to account for the damage it has caused to the health of countless women and girls and the rule of law by unlawfully removing every meaningful safeguard from the chemical abortion drug regimen.’

A cross-party delegation of Australian lawmakers will travel to Washington, D.C., later this month to urge officials to drop the prosecution against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is accused of publishing classified U.S. military documents leaked by a whistleblower.

The group will include former Deputy Prime Minister and National Party Leader Barnaby Joyce, Labor Party member of parliament Tony Zapia, Independent member of parliament Monique Ryan, Liberal Party member of parliament Alex Antic and Greens Party members of parliament Peter Whish-Wilson and David Shoebridge.

The Australian delegation will meet with House and Senate members, the State Department and the Justice Department to advocate against extraditing Assange to the U.S. to face charges for receiving, possessing and communicating classified information to the public under the Espionage Act. He also faces one charge alleging a conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, told Fox News Digital that the ‘All Party Australian delegation brings a powerful message from one of the U.S.’s closest allies, that the continued vengeful pursuit of Australian Publisher and Journalist Julian Assange is beginning to take its toll on the close friendship the two nations have enjoyed through history.’

Greg Barns, human rights lawyer and Assange campaign adviser, said in a news release announcing the delegation that polling shows nearly 90% of Australians believe the charges should be dropped. Shipton said in the release that even Australians who do not support Assange’s actions believe he has suffered enough and should be released.

The prosecution against Assange is in connection with WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of cables detailing war crimes committed by the U.S. government in the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp, Iraq and Afghanistan. The materials also expose instances of the CIA engaging in torture and rendition. WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of these classified U.S. military documents leaked by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

WikiLeaks also published its ‘Collateral Murder’ video 13 years ago showing the U.S. military gunning down civilians in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists.

‘The most ceaseless hounding, the most unscrupulous lies and the most malicious persecution over 13 years reveal to us a malignant disregard of magnificent civic treasures of human accomplishment,’ Assange’s father John Shipton told Fox News Digital. ‘Fighting for Julian’s freedom embodies for all people iron hard determination to assert and continue asserting our indelible, inalienable rights.’

The Australian journalist has been held at London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison since he was removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on April 11, 2019, for breaching bail conditions. He sought asylum at the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations he raped two women after Sweden failed to ensure he would be protected from a U.S. extradition. The investigations into the sexual assault allegations were eventually dropped.

In addition to meeting with U.S. officials and lawmakers, the Australian delegation will also sit down this month with civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.

‘We have grave concerns that if Assange is extradited and convicted for publishing truthful information, it will be a serious threat to investigative journalism in the United States and worldwide,’ Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told Fox News Digital.

The Obama administration decided not to indict Assange after WikiLeaks published the cables in 2010 because it also would have had to indict journalists from major news outlets who also published the materials. The DOJ under the Trump administration later indicted Assange under the Espionage Act and the Biden administration has continued to pursue his prosecution.

Former President Obama commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence, for violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, to seven years.

‘The Justice Department and the State Department need to hear from allies that the continued efforts to imprison Assange are making things difficult and uncomfortable for friends and allies,’ Wizner said. ‘So I think [the delegation] is very important, and also I think that it points the way to what could be a reasonable solution here that should satisfy all sides.’

The Justice Department and the State Department declined to comment on inquiries from Fox News Digital.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly said in recent months that the U.S. should end Assange’s incarceration.

‘The Australian Government has made clear its view that Mr. Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and that it should be brought to a close,’ a spokesperson for the Australian government told Fox News Digital. ‘The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have expressed this view to the governments of the United Kingdom and United States, and we will continue to do so. The Australian Government cannot intervene in another country’s legal or court processes just as they are unable to intervene in Australia’s.’ 

The spokesperson added, ‘We continue to convey our expectations that Mr. Assange is entitled to due process, humane and fair treatment, access to proper medical care, and access to his legal team.’

Assange would face trial in Alexandria, Virginia, if he is extradited to the U.S., where he could be sentenced to as many as 175 years in an American maximum security prison.

‘I think the structure of the Espionage Act means that there cannot be what I would consider to be a fair trial,’ Wizner said. ‘And I say that because the fact that the disclosures in 2010 informed the public, led to journalism awards, changed policy for the better. All of that would be irrelevant and inadmissible in a trial under the Espionage Act. The only thing the government needs to show under its theory is that WikiLeaks published the materials that the government insists are national defense information … If this case is allowed to go forward, he’ll really be arriving here not for trial, but for sentencing.’

Some presidential candidates – Democrats Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, and Republican Vivek Ramaswamy – have expressed support for Assange, stating that they will drop the charges against him if elected to the White House in next year’s presidential election.

‘Mr. Kennedy has pledged to drop all charges against Julian Assange, and, if he has been convicted by the time Mr. Kennedy takes office, to pardon him,’ a spokesperson for Kennedy’s campaign told Fox News Digital. ‘He believes it unlikely that Mr. Assange will receive a fair trial, given that the entire case against him was a political vendetta from the outset. The prosecution of Mr. Assange is an assault on journalism as well as free speech.’

Last year, editors and publishers of U.S. and European news outlets that worked with Assange to publish excerpts from the more than 250,000 documents he obtained in the Cablegate leak – The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País – wrote an open letter calling for the U.S. to end its prosecution of Assange.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., led a letter to the DOJ earlier this year demanding that it drop the charges against Assange. Fox News Digital reached out to Tlaib’s office for comment about the Australian delegation, but a spokesperson only pointed to a statement from April announcing the letter to the Justice Department.

Under the Trump administration, the CIA allegedly had plans to kill Assange over the publication of sensitive agency hacking tools known as ‘Vault 7,’ which the agency said represented ‘the largest data loss in CIA history,’ Yahoo reported in 2021. The CIA had discussions ‘at the highest levels’ of the administration about plans to assassinate Assange in London and allegedly followed orders from then director Mike Pompeo to draw up kill ‘sketches’ and ‘options,’ according to the report.

The agency also had advanced plans to kidnap and rendition Assange and had made a political decision to charge him, Yahoo reported.

WikiLeaks also published internal communications in 2016 between the Democratic National Committee and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign that revealed the DNC’s attempts to boost Clinton in that year’s Democratic primary.

‘The job of the media is to challenge the government’s monopoly on secrets,’ Wizner said. ‘And if Assange is convicted, it will open the door to threatening news organizations and their reporters with imprisonment if they disregard the government’s commands not to publish information even in the public interest … You don’t need to think that Julian Assange should win journalism awards to be very, very worried about the impact of this case on the freedom of the press.’

–>

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz says that his re-election bid next year for a third term representing Texas is ‘going to be a firefight.’

There’s already a large field of Democrats gunning to win their party’s nomination and face off with the conservative firebrand in 2024.

Cruz, who narrowly defeated then-Rep. Beto O’Rourke in a hard-fought 2018 Senate battle, likes to tout that after former President Donald Trump, ‘there is no Republican in the country that Democrats hate more than me.’

The senator told Fox News earlier this year that it’s ‘something I wear as a badge of honor. There is no Republican that they would like to beat more than me.’

Cruz was dramatically outraised in that 2018 showdown by O’Rourke, and history appears to be repeating itself. Rep. Colin Allred, the most prominent of the Democrats running to take on Cruz, topped the senator by nearly $2 million during the April-June second quarter of 2023 fundraising.

But Democrats worry that electoral history may also repeat itself next year in Texas, a longtime red state that’s become more competitive in recent years but where Republicans keep prevailing at the ballot box.

‘It’s probably not ruby red, but it’s still a red state,’ Cal Jillson, a well-known professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, told Fox News.

Democrats dominated elections in Texas from the post-Civil War period through the 1970s, but the Lone Star State started shifting to the right in 1980. Having a Bush — the late President George H.W. Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush — on the statewide ballot in every election but one from 1980 through 2004 helped turn Texas red.

The Democrats last carried the state in a presidential election in 1976; haven’t won a Senate contest in the state since 1988; and 1990 was the last time they enjoyed victory in a gubernatorial showdown.

But some high-profile elections have become more competitive in recent years. Besides Cruz’s close call in 2018, then-President Trump carried Texas by just 5.5 points in 2020, the smallest margin of victory for a GOP presidential candidate in the state in nearly a quarter-century.

It wasn’t as close last November, as conservative GOP Gov. Greg Abbott easily won re-election to a third term, topping O’Rourke by nearly 11 points. And Republicans also won the other six statewide contests by comfortable margins.

Jillson says the most interesting political shift in Texas isn’t the color of the state but the shading of the GOP electorate.

‘The Republican primary electorate is no longer dominated as it was during the George W. Bush years by business-friendly conservatives who will sort of restrain themselves in order not to offend corporate America,’ he highlighted. ‘Now the Republican primary electorate is dominated by social conservatives and populists. It feels much rawer in terms of campaigning, policy and governance. The Republicans controlling the state today are less constrained and more energetically social conservatives than in the past.’

Another storyline in the Lone Star State is the political battle for Hispanic voters. In South Texas, Democrats last November held on to two of three heavily Latino districts aggressively targeted by Latina Republican candidates. 

Jillson noted that Republicans ‘captured some male Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley’ along the southern border with Mexico in recent years, but added ‘that does not carry over to the urban areas of the state where most Hispanics live.’

But while Republicans came up short of their goal of flipping Latino voters along the southern part of the state, the overall results in Texas once again dashed Democrats’ dreams of turning the state blue. 

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.