A plurality of Democrats say they want President Biden to step aside and not seek a second term in the White House next year, according to a new national survey

Forty-four percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters questioned in a Monmouth University Poll released on Monday said the president should step aside and allow someone else to run as the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer in 2024. A quarter of respondents said Biden should seek re-election next year, with 30% saying they had no preference.

The poll’s release comes as the president gears up to run for re-election. Biden has repeatedly said he intends to seek a second term in the White House, but he has yet to make any formal announcements. However, the president hinted toward a re-election campaign during a speech early last month to party leaders and activists at the DNC’s winter meeting, which was held this year in Philadelphia.

‘We’re just getting started,’ Biden told a boisterous crowd. ‘I intend to get… more done.’ 

‘Let me ask you a simple question – are you with me?’ the president asked the crowd. The question instantly elicited cheers and loud chants of ‘four more years.’

While no major Democrats are expected to primary challenge the president, best-selling author and spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson earlier this month launched her second straight long-shot bid for the party’s presidential nomination.

But if the president surprises the political word and decides not to seek another term, the Monmouth poll indicates that Democrats have no clear idea on whom they’d like to see as their party’s 2024 nominee.

Just over half of those questioned (51%) couldn’t offer a name when asked who they would like to see as the Democrats’ standard-bearer next year if the president declined to run again.

Vice President Kamala Harris grabbed the backing of 13%, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – the runner-up in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic nomination races – and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg – who ran in 2020 – both at 6% support. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts – another 2020 Democratic presidential contender – was at 4%, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom at 3%. No one else topped 1% in the survey.

While only a quarter of those questioned said they wanted Biden to run for re-election, the president enjoyed a favorable rating of 74% in the poll.

‘Democrats appear to be saying they like the job Biden has done, but maybe it’s time for him to move on when his term is up. However, no top tier of candidates emerges when these voters are asked to name a preferred alternative. Part of that could simply be the holding pattern that Democrats are in because Biden has signaled that he will, in fact, run,’ Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said.

The Monmouth University poll was conducted March 16-20, with 542 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters nationwide. The survey’s sampling error for results in the release was plus or minus 6.3 percentage points.

Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman has missed nearly 83% of Senate roll call votes since checking himself into a hospital to receive treatment for clinical depression last month. 

According to government watchdog GovTrack, Fetterman has missed 53 of the 64 Senate roll call votes held during February and March. His average falls well beyond the lifetime record for missed votes for all current senators, which stands at 2.3%.

Wednesday will mark six weeks since Fetterman first checked into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on the night of February 15, and there is still no clear indication as to when he might return to work. His office has provided periodic updates, including that he is making progress towards his recovery, as well as that he has been able to continue doing some work from the hospital.

On March 6, Fetterman’s chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, posted on Twitter that the senator ‘will be back soon,’ and included pictures of the two sitting together working from a table at the hospital.

Last week, Fetterman’s communications director, Joe Calvello, also said the senator would be back ‘soon,’ but did not provide any further details on the time frame beyond that it would be ‘at least over a week.’

Fetterman’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital specifically about the day-to-day operation of the office in his absence, however his staff has reportedly been filling gaps wherever needed in order to keep the office going.

Jentleson told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star earlier this month that staff would likely be doing the same amount of work even if Fetterman were physically present in the office, and touted that between a third and half of the staff were policy experts.

He also noted in the report that Fetterman ‘certainly will miss votes’ considering his condition, but that this was a ‘pretty good time’ out of any other time during the calendar year to miss because of the lack of significant legislation.

The votes Fetterman missed include a number of judicial and other nominations, as well as a bipartisan bill that sought to strike down a new Labor Department rule encouraging retirement fiduciaries to consider environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues in their investments.

Fox News’ Houston Keene contributed to this report.

New Jersey’s attorney general said Monday that his office has taken control of the police department in the state’s third-largest city, Paterson, less than a month after officers there fatally shot a well-known crisis intervention worker during a tense standoff.

Attorney General Matt Platkin said at a news conference that his office had assumed control of all police functions without delay, including the division that investigates internal police matters. His announcement didn’t mention the shooting of 31-year-old Najee Seabrooks directly, but it reflected activists’ concerns about how the department was being run.

‘There is a crisis of confidence in law enforcement in this city,’ he said to brief cheers and calls of ‘Thank you’ from the audience. ‘Something has to change, and it will change starting now. Earlier this morning, I exercised my authority as attorney general and superseded the Paterson Police Department.’

Platkin said the takeover amounted to a ‘pledge’ to residents and officers that the state is committed to safety in the city.

Isa Abbassi, a 25-year veteran of the New York Police Department currently serving as the chief of strategic initiatives there, will take charge of Paterson’s police department in May, Platkin said. In the meantime, a New Jersey State Police officer will serve as the department’s interim head.

In addition to the takeover, Platkin said he’s implementing some other changes. They include a program that pairs a police officer with a mental health screener in an unmarked vehicle to respond to 911 calls about mental or behavioral health issues.

He also said the state will revamp its protocols statewide for dealing with people who have barricaded themselves in a room or building — as Seabrooks had done for more than five hours before he was killed. Platkin also formed a ‘working group’ to study and make recommendations on interactions between police officers and violence intervention officers.

The standoff started about 8 a.m. March 3 when police were called to Seabrooks’ brother’s apartment where he had been holed up in the bathroom. Seabrooks, who was a crisis intervention worker and mentor with the nonprofit Paterson Healing Collective, had called 911 at least seven times and told dispatchers that people were threatening him and he needed immediate help.

Police arrived soon after and talked to him through the door, offering to get him water and calling him ‘love’ in one instance. But the tension increased when he told police he was armed with a ‘pocket rocket’ gun and a knife.

Police shot Seabrooks when he emerged from the bathroom with a knife, according to the attorney general’s office.

His death shook his co-workers, who were at the scene and texting with him, Seabrooks’ boss at the Paterson Healing Collective Liza Chowdhury said. She said Seabrooks had been texting with colleagues, asking to see them, but that police blocked the co-workers from entering the apartment.

Chowdhury said Monday that she appreciated Platkin’s decision, but she also called on him to fire the officers who were involved in the shooting.

In the weeks since his death, anti-violence advocates organized a vigil calling for a number of reforms, including the creation of a civilian review board. The New Jersey Institute for Social Justice has called on the Justice Department to investigate the city’s police department, and the ACLU of New Jersey said the shooting shows the need to invest in non-law enforcement responses to mental health calls.

It isn’t clear how long the takeover will last. Platkin said he’s ‘in for the long haul.’

Platkin didn’t specify what behavior led to the takeover, but his office has been involved in a handful of investigations in the city of more than 150,000 that’s roughly 20 miles northwest of New York.

In February, Platkin announced an aggravated assault charge against a Paterson officer who he said shot a fleeing unarmed man. In December, a grand jury declined to indict Paterson police officers involved in the death of a man they restrained two months earlier.

The U.S. Department of Justice has the power to sue police departments where there has been an established pattern of illegal behavior, corruption or unconstitutional policing practices, and issue legally binding consent decrees to require changes in those practices. It recently issued a report that will lead to a consent decree in Louisville, Kentucky, and it put the police department in New Jersey’s biggest city, Newark, under federal supervision.

State actions against local departments are less common because of local control is often stipulated in state constitutions.

Paterson’s police department is the largest to be taken over by the state in recent years, but it isn’t the only one. Among the others are the 11-officer department in Lavallette, as well as three others in Union County.

South Dakota’s House failed Monday to override Gov. Kristi Noem’s recent veto of a bill that would have created government regulations for the use of cryptocurrency in the state.

The bill had passed smoothly throughout the legislature, and Noem’s veto of last week was upheld on a 37-30 vote.

Proponents had argued the bill would have centralized different cryptocurrency systems through one government oversight commission, boosting transparency. But opponents saw the proposed regulations as a tool for potential government surveillance and overreach, saying they wanted more time to see how such legislation fares in other states.

Six other states have passed the Uniform Commercial Code’s update, which requires tangible records of cryptocurrency exchanges so that they can be considered money. National commercial standards aim to regulate digital currency exchanges by adding transaction records, but Noem said such a step would take away from South Dakotans’ market freedoms.

‘It would be imprudent to create regulations governing something that does not yet exist. More importantly, South Dakota should not open the door to a potential future overreach by the federal government,’ Noem said in a statement last week in vetoing the bill.

As similar bills emerge in other state legislatures, Republican counterparts like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota have expressed concerns about possible government surveillance akin to China’s heavy-handed oversight of its markets. The suspicions over regulation of a Central Bank Digital Currency come a year after President Joe Biden’s executive order to explore a federal bank-owned digital currency. Biden’s step triggered a burst of misinformation, including claims it would create a cashless society.

Bill proponents argued that those who believe the government would replace cryptocurrency companies with a federal system are mistaken, and that the bill simply would have bridged federal government and digital currencies, which are not currently recognized as money.

The bill’s sponsor, House Republican Hugh Bartels, said he expects most of the country will pass such code updates amid the rise of various forms of cryptocurrency.

‘The misconception is that this bill is authorizing central bank digital currency,’ Bartels said. ‘It’s just setting up a way to do business with it.’

The first most popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin, launched more than a decade ago. While fundamentally digital money, cryptocurrencies are not backed by any government institution.

The Senate is expected to vote this week on an amendment from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to establish a Senate-approved watchdog over the billions of dollars the U.S. has sent to Ukraine, as senators work their way toward the expected repeal of the 1991 and 2002 Iraq war authorizations.

Hawley told Fox News Digital on Monday evening that the right person for the job would be ‘tough, tenacious,’ and said the ideal candidate would be similar to John Sopko, the current special inspector general for Afghanistan.

‘He’s done a terrific job – maybe he’d like to do this job. I mean, he already knows how to do it. And that’s winding down,’ Hawley said in reference to Sopko’s work on Afghanistan. ‘Maybe he’d like to shift over to Ukraine. I think that would probably be my first choice, but somebody like him, who’s been tough, tenacious, and independent.’

RUSSIA’S LATEST NUCLEAR THREAT SLAMMED BY NATO 

Hawley’s amendment is getting a vote as part of the Senate’s bid to repeal two Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs), which are joint resolutions by Congress to allowing the president to direct military assets under certain conditions. The 1991 AUMF was passed after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the second authorized the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002.

The amendment needs at least 60 votes to pass, meaning Hawley would need several Democrats to cross the aisle and vote in favor of it.

Asked about what his argument to his left-wing colleagues would be, Hawley said, ‘We spent $113 billion on Ukraine. It is now the largest recipient of United States overseas aid, we need to have one watchdog that is fully accounting for everything we spent and how it’s being used. It’s very simple.’

UKRAINE CALLS FOR EMERGENCY UN MEETING OVER PUTIN’S ‘NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL’ IN BELARUS 

‘Don’t spread this out over numerous agencies, no clear reporting requirements. Let’s give the public an accounting of how their taxpayer money is being spent,’ Hawley said.

Senate Republicans are divided over its support for continuing Ukraine aid in the face of Russia’s invasion, and Hawley himself is vehemently against it. But he said even colleagues who don’t share his view have shown support for his proposal.

‘I have talked to all members about this. I’ve brought this up at our regular caucus meetings. We have discussed what this amendment would do, and made a strong case for it,’ Hawley said. ‘No one has said ‘Oh, no, I’m against this.’ Multiple people who are strong proponents of aid to Ukraine have said ‘Yeah, I think that makes sense.’’

If passed, the amendment would require the president to appoint and the Senate to confirm an inspector general to oversee the money going to help Ukraine fight off Russia. It would also mandate that watchdog to submit quarterly reports to Congress on dollars and military equipment sent overseas, as well as Kyiv’s adherence to anti-corruption standards.

‘It’s very hard to argue that there should not be robust oversight, which is what this amendment does, so I would hope this would not be controversial,’ Hawley said.

The office of Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul confirmed Monday that a member of his staff was ‘brutally attacked’ on the streets of Washington, D.C over the weekend.

‘This past weekend a member of my staff was brutally attacked in broad daylight in Washington, D.C.,’ Paul said in a statement. ‘I ask you to join Kelley and me in praying for a speedy and complete recovery, and thanking the first responders, hospital staff, and police for their diligent actions.’ 

‘We are relieved to hear the suspect has been arrested. At this time we would ask for privacy so everyone can focus on healing and recovery,’ he added.

Paul’s office did not confirm the identity of the staff member who was attacked, however a press released issued by the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department on Monday afternoon said the victim was an adult male who had sustained ‘life-threatening injuries.’

The statement announced the arrest of a suspect, 42-year-old Glynn Neal, ‘in reference to an Assault with Intent to Kill (Knife) offense,’ and that the incident occurred on the 1300 block of H Stree, NE, less than 1.5 miles from the U.S. Capitol.

Sen. Paul himself was attacked by a neighbor and sustained serious injuries in 2017. He suffered six broken ribs, including three displaced fractures, and his recovery was complicated by fluid and blood around the lungs and recurrent pneumonia.

Paul and his wife were also previously attacked by a mob as the pair made their way back to a hotel following Donald Trump’s 2020 Republican National Convention acceptance speech at the White House. One man was charged with assaulting a police officer near Paul at the time but it was later dropped.

Crime has been on the rise in Washington, D.C., including the number of murders committed in the city. Last year, D.C. hit 200 murders in consecutive years for the first time since 2003.

Fox News’ Brian Flood contributed to this report.

The public and journalists often chastise Congress for passing ‘messaging’ bills. 

Here’s more on a ‘messaging’ bill.

The House or Senate know a bill doesn’t stand much of a chance of becoming law. But the party in power wants to send ‘a message.’ Sometimes that message is directed to the base. A bill may declare ‘We hear you. We know you want us to pass this.’ The message is sometimes protective. Congress could face criticism for not acting on a given issue. So, the legislation serves as a fig leaf.

Speaking of messages, Congressional Republicans certainly got the message during the pandemic about public education. Online schooling for K-12 exposed what GOPers contend are deep flaws in public education. Parents grew agitated about what lessons they saw taught in the classroom – beamed through to the kitchen table. Some parents also grew upset at school closures, mask requirements and vaccines.

‘After COVID, the veil has been lifted on a corrupted system that’s been indoctrinating our children with racial division and hated. Parents are now awakened,’ charged Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex.

Raucous school board meetings commanded headlines in 2021 and 2022. In fact, problems with public education boosted the re-election of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and ushered Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) to victory.

That’s why House Republicans promised to develop a ‘parents bill of rights’ in their ‘Pledge to America’ campaign document before the 2022 midterms. Republicans know that education and the role of parents emerged as a wedge. The House approved the bill late last week. And even if the plan never becomes law, House Republicans can point to the legislation as making good on a key campaign promise – and sending a message.

The bill requires school districts to post curriculum, offer at least two in-person meetings to parents each year, allow parents to speak at school board meetings, restrict what pronouns teachers may use to address students and publicize the book collection in the school library.

‘The left is scared to death of parents having more of a say in their kids education,’ argued House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. ‘Why do we need a law to do what everybody thinks is the right thing to do?’

In response to the rambunctious school board meetings, the Justice Department issued a memo citing ‘a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and (school) staff.’ Republicans say the memo went too far, suggesting that the DoJ labeled parents ‘terrorists.’

‘I don’t think the FBI or any of those organizations are targeting parents unduly,’ said Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md. ‘I did see a lot of threats that were made and I talked to some of the people in those offices. They feel personally threatened. Their families had been threatened. I think it’s important for law enforcement to take a look at that.’

But, as is often the case, books and what students are reading emerged as the biggest flashpoint in the parents bill of rights debate. Both sides converted the House floor into a virtual library, hauling in stacks of books as props to help make their case of what books were offensive – or were unfairly targeted for removal.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C. highlighted a book titled ‘Beyond Magenta.’ He said it was a book ‘on the LBGTQ youth.’ He also cited additional titles ‘The Book is Gay’ and ‘Gender Queer.’

‘Parents, is this something you want your children to read?’ asked Norman.

Democrats asserted that Republicans were only targeting certain types of books. 

‘‘The Life of Rosa Parks.’ ‘Who is Sojourner Truth?’ ‘The Biography of Nelson Mandela.’ ‘The Story of Harvey Milk,’ recited Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, holding up each tome. ‘Do you notice any pattern here? They want to ban books about Black and brown people and LGBTQ+ people. It’s sick. It is hateful.’ 

Democrats said that Republicans were only catering to certain parents.

‘When they talk about a parents bill of rights, they’re talking about a specific demographic of parents,’ said Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y. ‘Those books are an attack on Black or brown students.’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., suggested that Republicans tried to attack ‘marginalized communities’ in ‘the flowery language of ‘parental rights’’

‘I can say what my progressive value is. And that is freedom over fascism,’ said Ocasio-Cortez.

Ironically, Republicans railed against the federal government’s role in local education. Many GOPers campaigned for years about abolishing the Department of Education. Some lawmakers – from both sides, incidentally – found it a little rich that Republicans now wanted to dictate education policy from Capitol Hill.

‘This legislation is nothing more than an attempt to nationalize our education system,’ said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Penn.

When challenged about handing down national requirements, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., insisted that Congress wasn’t infusing itself into local policies.

‘This has nothing about Washington,’ said McCarthy. ‘This says the parent can now know what’s being taught in the school.’

The House approved the parents bill of rights measure 213-208. All Democrats voted nay.

‘This bill should have passed unanimously. But unfortunately some Members are more concerned with appeasing teachers unions and radical activists in their party rather than standing with parents,’ said House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn.

But Emmer, who is in charge of garnering GOP votes for bills, failed to secure unanimity on his side of the aisle.

Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Ken Buck, R-Colo., Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., and Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., all voted nay.

But overall, Republicans stuck together to approve a key tenet of their legislative agenda.

This brings us back to ‘messaging.’

The House approved the package. But it meets a blockade across the Capitol Rotunda.

‘The House Republican school control bill is Orwellian to the core and it will not see the light of day here in the Senate,’ said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 

Republicans made good on their campaign promise. But it’s dead in the water.

This is emblematic of legislation which may move through the House and Senate this Congress. The narrow divides make it unlikely either body will advance much of anything to President Biden’s desk.

That means you may not get a lot of laws over the next two years.

But everyone gets ‘the message.’

New York Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman is pushing legislation against big oil ‘profiteering’ after reporting sizable assets in the same major oil companies he’s targeting.

Goldman announced this month he’s co-sponsoring legislation called The Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act which would ‘tax large oil companies profiteering in the wake of the COVID pandemic’ and reinvest in ‘underserved and climate justice communities.’

‘Since the start of the COVID pandemic, Big Oil has raked in record profits while gas prices soar, American families struggle to make ends meet, and climate change continues to wreak havoc on our communities,’ Goldman said in a statement regarding the proposal and another piece of legislation called the Energy Resilient Communities Act.

‘These two critically important pieces of legislation would redirect unjustifiable corporate profiteering to the pockets of everyday Americans and invest in life-saving green infrastructure in communities that are on the front line of the devastating effects of climate change.’

The windfall profits legislation aims to tax oil companies that produce or import more than 300,000 barrels daily. The per-barrel tax would equal ‘50% of the difference between the current price of a barrel of oil and the pre-pandemic average price per barrel between 2015 and 2019.’

The tax would also apply to ‘oil profits in 2022 and going forward so that Americans gouged by high prices are made whole,’ a press release from his office said, which later added that ‘oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron cannot simply gouge consumers further without the threat of losing market share.’

However, Goldman reported significant holdings in oil companies his legislation targets, and even the very ones his office singled out. The New York Democrat said he held between $100,001 and $500,000 in Exxon Mobil investments in his financial disclosure form submitted in July 2022. He also reported between $100,001 and $500,000 in Chevron assets.

The two giants, however, were not the only prominent oil companies in his investment portfolio. Goldman reported between $100,001 and $500,000 in assets in ConocoPhillips, which produces millions of barrels of oil daily and would face taxes under his proposal.

The disclosures further show that he had investments of up to $100,000 in Marathon Petroleum Corp., which also produces millions of barrels of oil daily and would face new taxes.

Goldman’s legislation would use the revenue from the oil taxes to give consumers a rebate that would phase out for single filers who earn over $75,000 in annual income and joint filers who make over $150,000.

‘With oil priced at roughly $90-100 per barrel, this levy would raise approximately $49.1 billion per year,’ the press release says. ‘At this price, single filers would receive an estimated $260 each year and joint filers $390.’

Goldman, a wealthy heir to the Levi Strauss jean company fortune, entered Congress this year but began pushing far-left climate policies during his midterm campaign.

During the 2022 elections, Goldman’s campaign website said climate change is an ‘urgent, existential threat’ and that he supports the principles behind the controversial Green New Deal.

‘Dan supports the principles and goals of a Green New Deal to transition to clean energy, which will also create millions of good-paying union jobs,’ the website states. 

‘Dan will work to incentivize private companies to invest in renewable energy and encourage community and public power production. We must promote public-private partnerships to address climate change at the necessary pace to save our planet,’ it adds.

Goldman’s office did not respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment on his oil company investments.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said Sunday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg doesn’t have a choice on whether to testify before Congress about possible criminal charges being levied against former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s alleged hush money payments during the 2016 presidential election are a federal matter and should be brought to the U.S. Department of Justice.

‘This is not a local investigation, this is a federal investigation,’ Comer said. ‘He’s investigating a presidential candidate, not to mention former president of the United States, for a federal election crime. That has no business being litigated in a local district attorney’s office.’

‘And when he says he’s not going to cooperate with Congress, unfortunately for Mr. Bragg, he doesn’t have the luxury of determining whether or not he can comply with congressional requests, because he crossed over two levels of government, from the local level to the federal level, to try to prosecute something that clearly if there was a reason for prosecution, it should be done by the Department of Justice,’ he said. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, sent a letter last week signed by Comer and House Committee on Administration Chairman Brian Steil, R-Wis., demanding that Bragg testify before Congress in the wake of his ‘unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.’

The letter also demanded that Bragg turn over records and communications related to the case or the office’s receipt and use of federal funds.

Bragg’s office said the DA would not cooperate with the request to testify, calling the lawmakers’ requests ‘an unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty.’

‘Nonetheless, to assist Congress in understanding the ways in which the DA’s Office has used federal funds, we are preparing and will submit a letter describing its use of federal funds,’ the office responded in a letter.

The Republicans fired off another letter Saturday re-upping their requests, saying Bragg’s offer was ‘insufficient.’

‘While we appreciate your offer to submit a letter detailing the District Attorney’s Office’s use of federal funds, and we look forward to that submission, such a letter alone does not satisfy our oversight requests or preclude the Committees from proceeding with them,’ the letter said.

Comer said on CNN Saturday that ‘it’s not a sincere argument to say it’s a local investigation when you’re investigating a presidential candidate and the former president of the United States.’

‘We believe that [Bragg] should come explain to us exactly what he’s investigating,’ he said. ‘If Mr. Bragg wants to come in and explain to us what he’s doing, and he makes a good explanation, he makes a good argument, and we see that we’re in an area where we don’t belong, as some of the Republican senators say, then we’ll back off. But we’re sick and tired of the meddling in federal elections, and I don’t believe that Bragg would be doing this if Donald Trump were not running for president.’

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested Saturday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has dropped the case against him for alleged campaign finance violations.

‘I think they’ve already dropped the case,’ Trump told reporters aboard his plane after appearing at a campaign rally in Waco, Texas.

‘It’s a fake case. Some fake cases, they have absolutely nothing.’

When asked for comment about Trump’s claim the case has been dropped, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital: ‘This has been dropped because everyone knows this was a partisan witch-hunt by a radical, leftist DA that sought to politically weaponize the Justice system to influence an election.’

It was reported last week that Bragg’s office would likely issue an indictment for alleged hush-money payments that Trump supposedly made as a presidential candidate in 2016 to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have demanded that Bragg testify before Congress about the details of his probe.

The D.A’s office blasted the Republicans’ request in a statement Saturday 

‘We evaluate cases in our jurisdiction based on the facts, the law, and the evidence. It is not appropriate for Congress to interfere with pending local investigations,’ the office said. ‘This unprecedented inquiry by federal elected officials into an ongoing matter serves only to hinder, disrupt and undermine the legitimate work of our dedicated prosecutors. As always, we will continue to follow the facts and be guided by the rule of law in everything we do.’

The office told Fox News Digital that Bragg ‘stands by’ his previous pledge to publicly state the conclusion of the investigation, ‘whether we conclude our work without bringing charges, or move forward with an indictment.’