Two Republican members of the New Mexico State House of Representatives are calling for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to be impeached after she temporarily suspended open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days.

Grisham on Thursday said she needed to respond to recent gun-related deaths, which include an 11-year-old boy who was shot and killed while outside a minor league baseball stadium on Wednesday night.

The suspension of open and concealed carry was classified as an emergency public health order.

‘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.

Republican state Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block announced on Saturday they are calling for the governor to be impeached.

‘I am calling on counsel to begin the impeachment process against Governor Grisham,’ Lord said. ‘This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populous. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Even Grisham believes this emergency order won’t prohibit criminals from carrying or using weapons; a basic admission that this will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won’t be able to defend themselves from violent crime.’ 

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Lord said that Grisham is a ‘rogue governor.’

‘She put this emergency order together and it violates her oath. And she’s supposed to be protecting and defending the rights of New Mexico, she can’t just raise her hand one day and say, I promise to uphold this oath and promised to protect the people of New Mexico and the Constitution, and then just one day decide, oh, just kidding,’ Lord said.

Block told Fox News Digital that there ‘is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.’

‘It is an absolutely flagrant attack on law-abiding citizens who she is targeting with this order, and she is trying to force litigation and waste more taxpayer dollars while doing it, because New Mexicans are the ones that are going to have to pay the legal bills on this, not her personally.’

The National Association for Gun Rights and Foster Haines, a resident of Albuquerque, announced on Saturday they filed a lawsuit against Grisham and New Mexico Secretary of Health Patrick Allen, arguing the emergency order is unconstitutional. They are asking for a temporary restraining order against the measure to be issued.

‘Gov. Luhan Grisham is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution and the Supreme Court,’ said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

‘Gov. Luhan Grisham is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution and the Supreme Court’

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., weighed in on Grisham’s executive order, saying it’s unconstitutional.

‘I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution,’ Lieu said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

David Hogg, who advocates for stricter gun laws, said on X ‘I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.’

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said after the order was issued that he has concerns.

‘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.’

Fox News’ Landon Mion contributed to this report.

<!–>

–>

RYE, N.H. – Sen. Tim Scott was anything but the loudest voice at the first Republican presidential nomination debate, but that’s just fine with the conservative lawmaker from South Carolina.

‘The loudest voices too often say too little,’ Scott said in a Fox News interview this past week in what was a clear jab at some of his rivals for the GOP nomination.

Scott, a rising star in the GOP, has been spotlighting an uplifting conservative message as he seeks his party’s presidential nomination. And because he mostly avoided the numerous verbal fistfights at the first debate on Aug. 23, he rarely enjoyed the glare of the primetime spotlight.

The senator — who didn’t target his fellow candidates and wasn’t targeted by any of them — grabbed far less speaking time than most of his onstage rivals and appeared to fade into the background amid the jousting.

Scott repeatedly said the past two weeks that he was the ‘adult in the room’ at the first showdown and that the crossfire between the other candidates on the stage only helps the Democrats and the media.

Scott insists that ‘having an optimistic, positive message, I think is necessary not only for us to be successful in a primary but for us to be successful in the general election.’

And Scott — who was interviewed by Fox News after headlining a ‘No BS Backyard BBQ’ series event in Rye, New Hampshire, hosted by former GOP Sen. Scott Brown — emphasized that in order to win the White House ‘we’re going to have a conservative who’s optimistic, positive, anchored in conservatism, that has a backbone. That is the recipe to persuade not only our base but also independents to join the team and save the nation from the road to socialism.’

At an event in New Hampshire — which holds the first primary and second overall contest in the Republican presidential nominating calendar — right after the first debate, Scott acknowledged that ‘following the rules does not give you more time.’

‘So, lesson learned,’ he added.

But looking ahead to the next debate, a FOX Business-hosted showdown on Sept. 27 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, the senator said, ‘I’m going to remember that lesson, but I’m also going to comport myself in the same fashion.’

And in a Fox News Channel interview on Wednesday, Scott reiterated that substance will drive his debate performance: ‘I’ll provide the American people with an adult in the room.’

It’s the same message from his campaign, which tells Fox News their candidate’s staying the course.

But plenty of pundits and strategists say Scott missed out on a breakout moment at the first showdown and wasted an opportunity.

‘I was very disappointed in his performance,’ longtime New Hampshire-based Republican consultant Mike Dennehy told Fox News.

Dennehy, a veteran of multiple GOP presidential campaigns who remains neutral this cycle, said, ‘[T]o me, it’s not that he didn’t attack anyone. He just wasn’t engaging and forceful. He had what appeared to be rehearsed platitudes.’

‘I absolutely appreciate Scott being the happy conservative warrior. I think that’s important in this race,’ Dennehy said. ‘He has one of the best images of all the candidates.’

But he argued that ‘Tim Scott needs more than just being the happy conservative warrior. He’s stuck. He’s running in place and in neutral right now.’

While Scott crisscrosses the early voting states in the weeks between the two debates, he enjoys a campaign war-chest advantage over many of his rivals.

As Fox News reported last month, his campaign’s shelling out $8 million to run ads in the early voting states, with a Scott-aligned super PAC dishing out $40 million to run spots.

Sources in Scott’s political orbit tout that the senator ‘has the message and the resources to stay competitive’ in the months leading up to the start of the presidential nominating calendar.

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

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Democratic candidate in the closely watched 2024 U.S. Senate race in Michigan, has had a change of heart toward one of her Republican opponents who she previously praised and said she ‘would never’ run against.

‘It’s important Michiganders understand exactly who Mike Rogers is: He was on the Trump national security transition team, and was in talks to be Trump’s FBI Director, but then got fired. Then he became a critic of Trump,’ Slotkin said in a Wednesday fundraising email, just hours after former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers launched his campaign.

‘Regardless of his record on Trump, he’s a true conservative. He supports an extreme nationwide abortion ban with no exceptions for rape, incest, or common miscarriage; he voted to cut Social Security and Medicare; and, with an A rating from the NRA, he voted to *expand* access to guns. He represented a version of my current congressional district, 4 years before I flipped it – but with a different set of values,’ she added.

Her emailed statement ran in stark contrast to her previous praise of Rogers, including that she was ‘proud’ to have him representing her district. Slotkin previously served as a CIA officer and briefed Rogers while he served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which he led until his retirement in 2015.

‘I remember being kind of proud that he was the congressman from back home, and Michigan, and had a very strong national security background,’ Slotkin told the Lansing City Pulse in June 2018 amid her first congressional run.

‘I tell people very openly that I would never be running in this race if Mike Rogers were the congressman because he had offices all over the district. He was engaging people. He had a strong presence on Capitol Hill that was bringing things back to the district. And that, to me, is the core thing. I don’t have to agree with everything he believed in to know that he was working hard for the district,’ she added.

On another occasion in July 2018, Slotkin praised Rogers as ‘different’ than his Republican successor, then-Rep. Mike Bishop, and lauded his maintaining an office in what she called the ‘populist’ part of Michigan’s 8th Congressional District.

Slotkin ultimately defeated Bishop in her 2018 race and represented Rogers’ former district until the state’s congressional map was redrawn following the 2020 census. She has represented the 7th Congressional District since.

When reached for comment, Rogers’ campaign was appreciative of Slotkin’s prior support. 

‘Mike Rogers is working hard to earn the support of every Michigander. We’re happy to hear the congresswoman agrees that Mike is the most qualified candidate for the U.S. Senate,’ campaign communications director Chris Gustafson said.

Slotkin’s campaign did not respond to Fox’s request for comment.

The race is expected to be one of the most closely watched of the 2024 election cycle, and will likely help determine which party ultimately controls the Senate. 

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

Rep. Nancy Pelosi told a reporter Friday that she’s mainly running for office to raise money for herself and other Democrats.

Speaking with outlet Politico, the 83-year-old representative from California said her veteran status in Congress is a major asset for raising funds.

‘My focus is the House and presidency; you’re in a stronger position as a candidate,’ Pelosi told Politico in the interview. ‘You may not know this, but if you’re not a candidate, you really can’t raise money for yourself. And raising money for myself enables me to spend that on other people.’

‘For the House Democrats, though, I needed to be able to still raise significant money for them as a candidate,’ she added.

Pelosi declared her candidacy for her state’s 11th Congressional District representing San Francisco in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. It would be her 20th term in the House of Representatives.

She told the outlet Friday that she has been invigorated by the 2024 election cycle and prospect of taking back the House — and perhaps defeating former President Donald Trump, whom she would not address by name.

‘I feel so excited about the prospect of engaging people in this, I don’t want to use the word ‘fight,’ but this decision for our country,’ she said. ‘I feel I have a leverage, an influence, it’s not power — you know, I had power as speaker — it’s influence and that I shouldn’t underutilize it.’

Pelosi said her decision to run again for office has the full support of her husband.

‘I wouldn’t be doing it if he were objecting,’ she said. ‘He’s apolitical, but he knows what is at stake.’

First elected to Congress in 1987, the Democratic leader made history becoming the first female speaker in 2007, and in 2019 she regained the speaker’s gavel.

Pelosi stepped down from serving as leader of the House Democratic Caucus last year, passing the torch to current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. She now serves among the rank-and-file, though Democratic lawmakers have dubbed her as ‘Speaker Emerita’ out of respect for her more-than-35-year tenure in the House.

Her announcement puts to rest any suggestion of retirement, though it comes amid concerns over the advanced age of numerous elected officials, including octogenarian Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., 90-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and President Biden, who is 80.

Fox News Digital’s Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.

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 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. 

–>

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.