Pennsylvania state senators began advancing legislation Wednesday that would liberalize the state’s 5-year-old medical marijuana program by expanding the scope of who can buy it and allowing it to be sold in edible form.

The three-bill package passed the Senate Law and Justice Committee almost unanimously.

The bills won the votes of every Democrat on the committee, as well as the votes of the committee’s Republican chair and the chamber’s top Republican, Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward, of Westmoreland County.

The bills still must pass the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. The votes come as a growing number of states are legalizing marijuana for adult nonmedical use, including neighboring Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and New York.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, supports the legalization of adult-use marijuana, but the idea has run into opposition from most GOP lawmakers.

One bill would eliminate the state’s qualifying list of ailments under which a doctor could prescribe medical marijuana and, instead, simply grant a patient’s doctor the power to prescribe it for any condition. Under current regulations, a state regulatory board has approved a list of 24 categories of ailments that qualify for a doctor’s prescription.

Other aspects would eliminate the need to renew a medical marijuana card annually and allow medical marijuana to be sold in edible form. It currently can be sold in pills, oils, liquids, creams and dried plant that can be smoked.

Another bill would allow licensed marijuana growers to open dispensaries where they can sell the product directly to patients.

<!–>

–>

Pennsylvania’s Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that, if signed into law, would incrementally raise the state’s minimum wage, reaching $15 per hour by 2026.The bill must still clear the state Senate, whose Republican majority leaves the bill’s future uncertain.Pennsylvania’s minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, the lowest allowed by federal law.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic-controlled House of Representatives approved a measure by a close vote Tuesday that would raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2026, fulfilling a long-held party campaign plank that has run up against Republican legislative majorities for years.

The bill passed 103-100 with all but one Democrat voting for it and two Republicans joining them. But it has an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled Senate as lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro increasingly focus on budget legislation ahead of the July 1 start of the new fiscal year.

Pennsylvania’s minimum wage is set at the federal minimum of $7.25, and last increased in 2009.

The measure would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by changing from $7.25 to $11 in its first year, then to $13 in 2025 and finally to $15 in 2026. The bill ties future increases to inflation, which sponsors say mirrors action taken by 15 other states.

The legislation would also increase the tipped wage to 60% of the minimum wage from the current $2.83 an hour. The movement comes after Democrats won a House majority for the first time in a dozen years, albeit by one seat.

It’s been a yearslong effort for Democrats, who have campaigned on increasing the minimum wage nationally.

Rep. Justin Fleming, a Dauphin County Democrat, said it was one of his priorities as a candidate. He recalled working for a former Democratic governor when the Legislature last increased the minimum wage.

‘If you had told me that it would be 14 years before this body would take another stab to raise the minimum wage, I simply wouldn’t have believed it,’ he said. ‘Passing this bill will keep workers who live close to our borders here in the state and patronizing Pennsylvania businesses.’

Republicans emphasized concerns for small businesses and rising costs associated with raising the wage.

‘I cannot support a bill that would put a local family restaurant out of business and, along with it, the many employees who make a living at their three locations,’ said Rep. Kate Klunk, a York County Republican.

For some Democrats, the effort didn’t extend far enough.

‘An African proverb says, ‘When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers,’’ said Dauphin County Democratic Rep. Patty Kim. ‘Even if we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, the grass still suffers. I support this bill because this is a piece to a larger puzzle that will help working families.’

Shapiro campaigned last year for a $15 minimum wage and, in his first budget address, he asked for the increase. Republican opposition stymied efforts by former Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf through his eight years in office to raise the minimum wage.

Wolf imposed higher wage requirements on companies getting loans, grants or tax breaks from the state government through an executive order in 2021. He did the same to state contractors in 2016.

All told, 30 other states and Washington, D.C., have raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum, including some Republican-controlled states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Every neighbor of Pennsylvania also has raised the minimum wage, although Ohio’s law exempts lower-earning businesses and employees under 16.

June is budget month in Pennsylvania’s Legislature and often a time for deal-making on pet policy priorities between governors and top lawmakers.

Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana, said last week that his caucus would wait for the House to pass a minimum wage bill to consider it. However, he said, ‘$15 an hour is not a practical number’ for Republicans in that chamber to consider.

In a deal with Wolf in 2019, the Senate agreed to raise Pennsylvania’s minimum wage in four steps to $9.50 in 2022, but the House’s Republican majority blocked it.

<!–>

–>

NEW YORK CITY – With the first GOP presidential debate only two months away, voters in the Big Apple provided Fox News a snapshot of who they will be backing in 2024.

‘Hopefully, someone steps in for Biden,’ one voter from North Carolina said. ‘But we’ll figure it out.’

‘Verdena’ told Fox News, ‘I have no idea.’ But, she added, ‘It won’t be Trump.’

UP IN THE AIR: AMERICANS IN NEW YORK SHARE WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THEY ARE BACKING IN 2024

Voters now have 14 different options to choose from as Democrat and Republican candidates pile into the 2024 presidential race. In a head-to-head matchup between front-runners President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Trump is up by two points, according to the most recent Real Clear Politics average. The same site found that Biden leads Democrat candidates by 46 points and Trump leads Republican contenders by 31 points.

Currently, there are 11 Republican presidential candidates and three Democrat candidates.

‘I am looking for a moderate,’ said ‘Susan,’ a New York resident, ‘a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican.’

Susan said she is an independent and does not vote along party lines, but if it came down to a race between Trump and Biden, she would ‘probably vote Biden.’

Biden, for his part, has recently seen his approval rating dip to 41%, according to the Real Clear Politics average. His approval rating hit an all-time low of 37% at the end of April, according to a Gallup survey.

‘Truman’ from South Carolina said he would back ‘whoever the Republican candidate is.’

Other voters were still undecided.

‘I’m not sure yet,’ ‘Matt,’ a New York resident, told Fox News. ‘But I agree that someone probably should step in for Biden at this point.’

Another voter, ‘Richard’ from Nebraska, told Fox News he was undecided.

To watch the full interviews, click here.

–>

The growing use of artificial intelligence will likely lead to biased and discriminatory outcomes for minorities and disabled people, several groups warned the federal government this week.

The National Artificial intelligence Advisory Committee, an interagency group led by the Commerce Department, held a public hearing online Tuesday aimed at informing policymakers about how the government can best manage the use of AI. Panelists were told by most of the witnesses that bias and discrimination are the biggest fears for the people they represent.

Patrice Willoughby, vice president of policy and legislative affairs at the NAACP, told panelists that technology has already been used as a means to disenfranchise and mislead voters, and said her group worries about AI for the same reason.

‘In that context, we have great concerns about the rise and use of AI in its different platforms,’ she said. ‘The rise of AI and its ease of use really causes us great concern.’

Frank Torres, who works on civil rights issues at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told the panel that the government must take charge and create mechanisms to ensure AI systems are developed and used in ways that promote ‘equity and civil rights.

‘To realize the full potential of this technology, we have to address and make sure that it’s truly free from bias, that it doesn’t result in discriminatory outcomes,’ he said. ‘It has to be centered on equity and civil rights.’

Several observers have warned that AI has the potential to create discriminatory outcomes because it uses data sets that are biased. Using ‘bad data’ could lead AI systems to reject loans or make other decisions that perpetuate that bias.

In the advisory committee discussion, National Fair Housing Alliance President and CEO Lisa Rice said past technology has shown that bias is something the government needs to be wary of as it regulates AI.

‘Every algorithmic system we’ve analyzed — credit scoring systems, risk-based pricing, automated underwriting, insurance scoring, digital marketing, tenant screening selection, facial recognition, automated valuation and other models — generate bias and inflict untold harm on consumers,’ she said. ‘Machines have simply mimicked and replaced human bias.’

JudeAnne Health, national programs director for the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership, said her group is worried about AI based on biased data that may ‘exacerbate existing inequalities.’ She suggested rigorous oversight by the federal government that should be aimed squarely at fighting bias.

‘Does that oversight include a diverse group of stakeholders, backgrounds, languages, educations?’ she asked. ‘Not just scientists, but sociologists, community members.’

Emily Chi, a senior director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice, said her group is also worried about discrimination that’s ‘already embedded in the data.’ When asked for an example of bias in AI, Chi said some content moderation systems are failing to remove content that’s discriminatory or ‘harmful’ to Asian Americans, and said systems need to be in place to ensure these sorts of oversights are corrected.

‘Going directly to the people who are most vulnerable, who are most oppressed in our society, and understanding how these technologies affect their day to day lived experiences,’ Chi said.

Another witness said the government needs to pay attention to how AI might discriminate against disabled people.

‘We are only going to see the full potential of tech for disabled people realized in all aspects of life if that technology, including AI, is built from the start to be accessible and free from ableism,’ said Maria Town, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities.

‘While many assume that automated employment decision tools are free from bias because the human element is removed, at AAPD we have seen repeatedly that AI-based tools reflect the preferences of the people who make them and of the larger society that these tools exist within,’ she said.

The advisory committee has held a handful of hearings and will hold a few more over the next week aimed at collecting input that will feed into the Biden administration’s process for determining when and how to regulate AI. Just this week, the White House said several efforts to set federal rules for AI would be coming in the next few weeks, and Congress is also examining how to regulate AI.

First Lady Jill Biden said Tuesday that ongoing legal fights over the legality of abortion in several states ‘go far beyond the right to choose’ as pregnant women face ‘devastating consequences to their health, their fertility and their lives.’

Biden’s comments came during a discussion with four women ahead of a formal event at the White House Saturday marking the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the legality of abortion to the states. The case was decided on June 24, 2022.

‘The consequences of these bans go far beyond the right to choose,’ the first lady told the women. She then claimed doctors were denying some women medical treatment due to new laws imposed by state governments barring abortion procedures ‘because they don’t know which procedures are legal.’

‘And like those who are with us today, far, far too many women are experiencing devastating consequences to their health, their fertility and their lives,’ the FLOTUS added.

Jill Biden said President Biden ‘is doing everything he can to fight back,’ but is urging Congress to send him legislation that will ‘make the protections of Roe v. Wade the law of the land once again.’

‘I know that it isn’t easy to relive what you’ve already gone through, but stories like yours are how we shed light on the cruel and devastating consequences of those bans,’ she told the women.

Biden’s guests included women from Texas, Florida and Louisiana, who shared emotional stories of being denied medical care during their pregnancies.

One of the women, Anya Cook of Florida, said she was denied medical care when she was 16 weeks pregnant as her state passed a 15-week abortion ban. The incident ‘very, nearly killed’ her, she said.

After her water broke at 16 weeks, doctors said her baby wouldn’t survive without amniotic fluid but ‘because she was beyond 15 weeks and there was still a heartbeat, they couldn’t touch me or treat me or admit me,’ Cook said. ‘They sent us home to deal with it ourselves.’

Within days, she lost her daughter to a miscarriage. Cook is attempting to hold those who changed the law accountable.

‘We don’t know if I can get pregnant now or carry to birth, but the target of our wrath is very well-known: It’s the people who have taken our human rights to health and liberty and personal autonomy,’ Cook said. ‘Someone needs to fight back against these insidious laws in states across the country.’

Another woman in the discussion was Dr. Austin Dennard, from Dallas, who said she decided to have an abortion but ‘this time I would have to flee my own state,’ she said.

She joined a lawsuit filed by other Texas women who were denied abortions.

‘The state of Texas should not be making these decisions for me, let alone anybody else,’ Dennard said at the White House.

The Biden administration is planning several events this week to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision.

President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, the first lady and Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff, are scheduled to appear at an event on Friday in Washington.

Harris is also scheduled to deliver a speech on Saturday in North Carolina on the Biden administration’s efforts to safeguard reproductive freedom.

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision, 18 states enacted partial or full abortion bans.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

–>

More than two dozen Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are calling on President Joe Biden to withdraw Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su’s nomination to lead the department.

GOP senators accused Su of stonewalling their requests for information on her support for more regulations on gig work in California and a memo sent during her tenure as the state’s top labor official that instructed state employees not to cooperate with ICE officials looking for undocumented migrants.

‘She has avoided answering questions whenever possible and she has refrained from providing distinct specificity to her answers when she has responded to inquiries,’ reads the letter, which is led by Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind. ‘Given this present state of affairs, we respectfully urge you to withdraw the nomination.’

GOP opposition alone won’t be enough to derail Su, but there are signs she may not have enough votes from Democrats in the 51-49 Senate.

Su was narrowly approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in April, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not yet brought up her nomination for a vote on the floor, which could reflect uncertainty over whether she has the votes.

If Su isn’t supported by a majority, she would be the highest-profile nominee yet in a series of progressive Biden nominees who have been pushed out of contention without a vote on the Senate floor.

The GOP senators said a lack of cooperation is another reason why Su should be withdrawn. The letter said that Su ‘refused to be interviewed by HELP Committee minority staff or the staff members representing the Republican senators on the committee, as nominees have traditionally done.’

It also highlighted the uncertainty that surrounds the nomination, given that Democrats have not yet called her up for a vote on the floor.

‘Despite the nomination of Ms. Su being reported favorably by the committee on a party-line vote on April 26, 2023, and despite the Senate being in session for several weeks since this date, there has yet to be a vote in the full Senate on this nomination. Her track record and unwillingness to provide clarity to her past positions and the actions she would take as Secretary of Labor continue to raise concerns about her nomination,’ the letter stated.

In addition to Braun and McConnell, the letter was signed by Senate GOP Whip John Thune, R-S.D., Senate GOP Conference Chair John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., among others.

While she’s scored the support of workers’ groups, unions and the White House’s progressive allies, Republicans and pro-business organizations have hammered Su, formerly a civil rights lawyer, for her track record as head of California’s labor board. Under her tenure, the state saw billions of dollars lost to COVID-19 pandemic fraud.

It takes a simple majority vote to confirm a presidential nominee, and Vice President Kamala Harris can act as a tie-breaking vote, if needed. But there are three Democrat-aligned senators who are keeping Su’s nomination in limbo – West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Montana Sen. Jon Tester and independent Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

None have said how they’ll vote, but all three are facing uphill reelection battles as the GOP eyes their seats in 2024.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., revealed on Twitter she will bring articles of impeachment against President Biden using a privileged motion.

‘BREAKING: I am bringing my articles of impeachment against Joe Biden to the House Floor in a privileged motion, meaning that every Member of Congress must vote on holding Joe Biden accountable,’ Boebert tweeted Tuesday evening.

The Republican lawmaker has contended Biden remains negligent on the U.S. border, failing to keep Americans safe from an influx of deadly fentanyl and criminal activity as well as failing to relieve the strain on the country’s immigration system.

‘Biden intentionally ceded command & control of our border to cartels. His dereliction of duty caused the deaths of over 900 Coloradans from fentanyl, enabled sex-trafficking, & allowed an invasion,’ she wrote in a subsequent tweet. ‘I brought my articles of impeachment up via a privileged motion to force a vote.’

The motion will require all House members to go on the record regarding the impeachment articles, according to the congresswoman.

Last week, during an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Boebert accused Biden of mishandling his ‘constitutional duty to secure our southern border’ and said she would introduce the impeachment articles if her party leaders failed to do so.

‘Given the severity of the violation of Joe Biden’s constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the president, United States to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, this is something that we must do with our majorities in the House of Representatives,’ Boebert told Fox News Digital Tuesday. ‘This is our duty because Joe Biden has neglected the constitutional duty of the office of President of the United States.’

‘I introduced the articles of impeachment in the last Congress and had fully intended to introduce them this Congress, but I was also giving some other committees and leadership the opportunity to lead on this,’ Boebert continued.

She added: ‘It’s about Joe Biden’s failure to secure the southern border.’

‘And I did this so at any time, if the committees and or leadership does not step up and actually do something about the president’s failure to secure our southern border and keep the country safe, then I will call my legislation my articles of impeachment for a privileged motion,’ Boebert explained.

Her motion may not result in an immediate vote, however, as leadership has two days in accordance with House rules to decide how to proceed.

‘Under Rule IX in the House, we can bring up certain pieces of legislation under a privileged motion. So I would go to the House floor and call up my articles of impeachment and read it in its entirety. And at that point, leadership has a maximum of two days to respond and see if it’s going to be sent to committee or a vote on the articles themselves,’ Boebert told Fox.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., has also introduced articles of impeachment against President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris during this session of Congress. They were introduced on June 12, and Boebert is a cosponsor.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also introduced articles of impeachment against Biden and other Biden officials including Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. attorney Matthew Graves. She may also use a privileged motion to force a vote. Boebert is not a cosponsor. 

Boebert, who has remained a vocal critic of the Biden administration since she was first elected in 2020, won her first re-election contest by a mere 546 votes. The closeness prompted a recount, which confirmed the result.

Immigration levels over the southern border with Mexico have witnessed historic highs under Biden.

Fox News’ Houston Keene and Aubrie Spady contributed to this report.

–>

Former Special Counsel John Durham is expected to testify in an open House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, just weeks after releasing a report that found the Justice Department and FBI never should have launched the Trump-Russia investigation.

Durham’s first public testimony comes after he testified behind closed doors before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday afternoon.

Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will have a chance to publicly question Durham, whose report lent weight to Republican complaints that the government abused the public trust by rushing to investigate then-President Donald Trump. Durham’s report found that the Justice Department and the FBI ‘failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law’ by launching the probe.

Durham was picked in 2019 by then-Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI’s original Trump-Russia investigation, known as ‘Crossfire Hurricane.’ That investigation looked into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

But Durham found that senior FBI personnel ‘displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor’ toward the information that they received from politically affiliated people, which he said ‘triggered’ then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Durham found there was ‘significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump’s political opponents.’

‘The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence,’ the report said.

For example, Durham found the FBI ‘failed to act’ on a ‘clear warning sign’ that the FBI was the target of a Hillary Clinton-led effort to ‘manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes’ ahead of the 2016 election.

Durham was referring to intelligence on a plan stirred up by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in July 2016 to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia in an effort to distract from the investigation into her use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information.

Durham found that then-CIA Director John Brennan ‘realized the significance’ of the intelligence that Clinton was stirring up a plan to tie Trump to Russia – so much so that he ‘expeditiously’ briefed then-President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden and other top national security officials.

But nothing came of that briefing or of his subsequent referral of the information to the FBI, which Durham’s final report said was ‘startling.’

‘Had the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as an assessment and, in turn, gathered and analyzed data in concert with the information from the Clinton Plan intelligence, it is likely that the information received would have been examined, at a minimum, with a more critical eye,’ the report said.

The anti-Trump Steele dossier, which has been largely discredited, was also linked to the Clinton campaign. The dossier contained allegations of purported coordination between Trump and the Russian government. It was authored by Christopher Steele, an ex-British intelligence officer.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the dossier through the law firm Perkins Coie, where both Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann were employed at the time.

The Justice Department inspector general revealed that the unverified anti-Trump dossier helped serve as the basis for controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

The FBI’s investigation was handed off to Mueller after Trump was elected. But Mueller’s team, like the FBI, did not investigate the allegations linked to Clinton-affiliated people.

While Democrats are expected to downplay Durham’s report, his investigation led to three people: former Clinton attorney Sussmann in September 2021, Igor Danchenko in November 2021 and Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020.

Sussmann and Danchenko were found to be not guilty. Clinesmith pleaded guilty and served community service time.

But Durham’s team could not charge anyone related to omission or failure to act on the ‘Clinton Plan intelligence.’

‘Although the evidence we collected revealed a troubling disregard for the Clinton Plan intelligence and potential confirmation bias in favor of continued investigative scrutiny of Trump and his associates, it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia,’ the report said.

After the release of the Durham report, Trump told Fox News Digital that former FBI Director James Comey and Democrats need to be held accountable for spending years investigating alleged collusion.

‘I, and much more importantly, the American public have been victims of this long-running and treasonous charade started by the Democrats – started by Comey,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘There must be a heavy price to pay for putting our country through this.’

In a statement after the release of Durham’s report, the FBI said ‘the conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time.’

‘Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented,’ the FBI said. ‘This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.’

When Jason Miller was on my Sunday show, I asked the Trump senior adviser why his boss was trashing the likes of Bill Barr, John Kelly, John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. Why did he hire them in the first place?

‘Well, look, I think as President Trump learned with real estate, you learn something new in every single deal. Of course, there’ll be some people that don’t get invited back,’ he said.

In a combative and probing interview with Donald Trump on Monday, Fox’s Bret Baier asked a similar question, ticking off what the former president had said about these and other appointees (Barr a ‘gutless pig,’ Kelly born with ‘a very small brain’) – though in fairness they have been denouncing him as unfit for office.

‘Because I hired 10 to 1 that were fantastic,’ Trump said. ‘We had a great economy. We had phenomenal people in charge of the economy. We had phenomenal people in the military.’ Then he veered off into saying that he had defeated ISIS in four weeks (of course he had some help from our brave soldiers).

I’m not saying Trump didn’t bring in some talented people. But the folks he has been insulting in highly personal terms include his former secretary of State, secretary of Defense, attorney general and two chiefs of staff – the very top of the Cabinet and the White House. 

I also found this telling, when Baier asked what he might do differently in a second term. ‘ I would like to be less combative,’ Trump said, ‘but I find the press is extremely dishonest and if not combative, I don’t get my word across.’

Of course, Trump repeatedly denounced the media as the ‘enemy of the people’ and ‘fake news,’ but it’s also hard to argue that most of the press corps isn’t viscerally against him.

When Baier pressed him about the classified documents indictment, Trump said he just needed more time to go through the boxes stored at Mar-a-Lago: ‘These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things, golf shirts, clothing, pants. Shoes.’ This will undoubtedly become known as the Golf Shirts Defense. 

But Trump ignored or only partially complied with government subpoenas. In any event he said he’s not worried about the indictment because he had every right to take the classified material from the White House (which the government and most lawyers dispute) and that he will win the case.

There was also plenty of back and forth when Baier told him ‘you lost the 2020 election.’

Trump dug in, as always: ‘Bret, you take a look at all of the stuffed ballots, you take a look at all of the things, including things like the 51 intelligence agents.’

The Fox News anchor responded there were ‘recounts in all of the swing states there was not significant widespread fraud.’

Trump: ‘But we’re trying to get recounts, real recounts, not just numbers of votes cast.’

Baier: ‘There were investigations of widespread corruption. There was not a sense of that. There were lawsuits, more than 50 of them by your lawyers, some in front of judges, judges that you appointed.’

Many other outlets are replaying the interview and it was Trump’s first sitdown with a top anchor from Fox’s news division since he declared his candidacy. My colleague Bret did a tremendous job, a master class in interviewing a challenging subject.

In my Jason Miller interview, he talked about Trump’s media blitz being his political pushback against what he views as a weaponized Justice Department, then added this:

‘There should be equal time for Joe Biden as well. There should be a camera on Joe Biden 24-7. The American people deserve to know just how terribly he’s doing.’

Partisan shot aside, the Trump camp would love to see Biden get more air time on the theory that he’ll stumble and commit more gaffes. I think that’s baked into the cake at this point. A majority of Democrats don’t view the 80-year-old president as up for a second term.

Biden did a rally in Philadelphia and is ramping up his fundraising, but he’s still running a low-key campaign and giving the press little access. This is reminiscent of the 2020 campaign, when Biden basically campaigned from his basement during the pandemic. Right now, if you think about it, why would Biden want to make much news when Trump is being deluged by negative indictment coverage?

The Biden family is very much in the news, however, thanks to yesterday’s plea deal by Hunter Biden. The president’s son got off extremely easy. In exchange for pleading guilty to two misdemeanor charges related to filing late taxes, he will get only probation – a stark contrast to the many years in prison that Trump will face if convicted.

In the agreement with the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware, a charge will also be filed on Hunter having lied on a government form to buy a gun by saying he has not used drugs, but not be prosecuted. His addiction problems are at the heart of his chaotic life, as he has acknowledged.

There’s no way this investigation would have taken five years if Hunter’s last name was Smith. At the same time, the average person probably would have gotten off with just misdemeanors. 

But given that Trump already predicted that Hunter would be charged with something minor to make the ‘strike’ against him seem fair, this debate is just beginning. The U.S. attorney, David Weiss, had a very limited mandate. House Republicans are investigating whether Joe Biden, as vice president, helped his son get big-bucks contracts from such outfits as the Ukrainian gas giant Burisma. There is chatter about taped conversations with Joe and Hunter Biden and the two men supposedly splitting a $10-million bribe, but this has yet to surface, the sources are elusive and nothing has been proven yet.

One thing is certain: The president has often said his son has done nothing wrong. After the guilty plea, he can’t say that anymore.

EXCLUSIVE: Republican leaders on the House Natural Resources Committee are probing the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) over the high-profile eco group’s relationship with foreign donors as part of a broader investigation.

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., the chairman of the panel’s oversight subcommittee, penned a letter Tuesday to LCV President Gene Karpinski, demanding answers to a series of questions about his organization’s internal operations. The lawmakers particularly questioned whether LCV is in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The letter noted that LCV is registered to lobby on policies within the committee’s jurisdiction — the group opposes fossil fuel drilling on public lands and pushes green energy policies — but has received millions of dollars in contributions from Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss billionaire. Under FARA, individuals and organizations financed by a foreign principal or which lobby for a foreign principal must register to do so.

‘The Committee is concerned that LCV’s relationship with foreign donors, such as Swiss national Mr. Wyss, who are prohibited from contributing, either directly or indirectly, to domestic political campaigns, may impact LCV’s political and lobbying activities relating to America’s ability to achieve energy independence,’ Westerman and Gosar wrote in the letter first obtained by Fox News Digital. 

‘As you are aware, such political and lobbying activities may require compliance with FARA,’ the GOP lawmakers continued in the letter. ‘The central purpose of FARA is to ‘promote transparency with respect to foreign influence within the United States by ensuring that the United States government and the public know the source of certain information from foreign agents intended to influence American public opinion, policy, and laws.’’ 

They added that the law makes registration requirements clear for a person or group ‘acting in the political or public interests of a foreign government or entity,’ even when done through intermediaries. FARA registration also includes individuals or entities that conduct several other activities, like public relations and political consulting work, for a foreign principal.

According to the lawmakers, failing to register under FARA may result in an up to $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.

The oversight into LCV, they said, is part of the committee’s broader investigation into ‘potential manipulation of U.S. tax-exempt organizations’ by foreign entities aimed at influencing American environmental, natural resource and energy policy. The probe will take a look at LCV, the LCV Action Fund, LCV Victory Fund and LCV Education Fund.

‘Public records show highly unsettling ties between a foreign billionaire and the dark money network that funds the League of Conservation Voters,’ Westerman told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s deeply troubling to find any association between unregistered foreign interests and domestic lobbying efforts in our nation’s capitol.’

‘Even more concerning are the efforts by such groups to limit American energy production and effectively eliminate America’s energy independence,’ he said. ‘Unregistered foreign interests have no place in manipulating organizations that influence America’s environmental, natural resources and energy policies, and it’s Congress’ duty to conduct thorough oversight of this situation.’

Overall, the LCV reported receiving $114.7 million in financial contributions in 2021, a roughly 48% increase compared to the $77.7 million it received in 2020, according to the group’s tax filings obtained by Fox News Digital late last year. A large portion of the group’s funding has come from the Wyss Foundation and Berger Action Fund, two dark money groups overseen by Wyss.

Additional filings obtained by watchdog group Americans for Public Trust (APT) showed that a single anonymous donor, likely Wyss himself, wired a staggering $278.9 million to the Berger Action Fund between April 2021 and March 2022. The group, in turn, contributed $72.7 million to 12 separate organizations, all of which are involved in political campaigns, including nearly $3.5 million to LCV.

In addition, the Berger Action Fund funneled $20.3 million to a group called Fund for a Better Future (FBF), the largest donation the fund received that year. FBF then sent nearly $10.7 million to LCV, the most significant contribution FBF gave to any group in 2021.

And the Berger Action Fund sent an additional $42.5 million to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a key cog in a billion-dollar dark money network. Sixteen Thirty Fund subsequently contributed $18.9 million to LCV.

The Wyss Foundation wired another $60,000 to the LCV in 2021 and $210,000 to the LCV Education Fund in 2020.

Molly McUsic, who sits on LCV’s board of directors is also the president of Wyss Foundation and a director on the board of the Berger Action Fund.

‘The Berger Action Fund and Wyss Foundation are committed to complying with all rules governing their activities and have established strict policies prohibiting their funds from being used for get-out-the-vote activities, voter registration, or supporting or opposing political candidates or parties,’ a spokesperson for the Berger Action Fund and Wyss Foundation told Fox News Digital in April.

‘Berger’s grants to the Sixteen Thirty Fund and Fund for a Better Future supported advocacy, including for the Inflation Reduction Act, which lowers prescription costs, expands access to health care, invests in clean energy, and closes tax loopholes,’ they continued. ‘This funding also supported advocacy around the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to ensure the final legislation contained significant investments in climate and green infrastructure.’

Fox News Digital reported at the time that LCV Victory Fund, the group’s political action committee, and another group Climate Power hired BlueLabs Analytics, a Washington, D.C.-based data science organization, to mine data of more than two million of President Biden’s voters in crucial swing states with advertisements and mailers ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Experts raised concerns that the operation, and other similar funding schemes for political activity potentially tied to Wyss, may violate federal statute given his nationality.

‘Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss spent nearly $73 million to influence American politics and policy, routing most of that money through the Arabella Advisors network,’ Caitlin Sutherland, APT’s executive director, told Fox News Digital. ‘Without offering any evidence, Mr. Wyss’ groups insist that his foreign money does not end up in partisan electoral activities.’ 

‘But now we have proof that the climate groups he funds funneled money to specifically target Biden voters in key states,’ she continued. ‘This dangerous pattern of giving by the left’s largest foreign mega-donor warrants immediate congressional oversight.’

LCV didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.