Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy rejected Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ demands to reappoint Reps. Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, both Democrats from California, to the Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday.

Jeffries said in a letter to McCarthy on Friday that Schiff and Swalwell were ’eminently qualified’ legislators with more than two decades of providing oversight of the nation’s intelligence community.

But McCarthy has expressed concerns with both legislators, telling Punchbowl News recently that ‘Swalwell can’t get a security clearance in the private sector. I’m not going to give him a government security clearance.’

In a letter replying to Jeffries, McCarthy laid out his reasons for rejecting the demand.

‘I appreciate the loyalty you have to your Democrat colleagues, and I acknowledge your efforts to have two Members of Congress reinstated to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,’ McCarthy wrote. ‘But I cannot put partisan loyalty ahead of the national security, and I cannot simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for membership to this essential committee. Integrity matters more.’

McCarthy added that ‘the misuse of this panel during the 116th and 117th Congresses severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions – ultimately leaving our nation less safe.’

Swalwell reportedly had ties to suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang, also known as Fang Fang. The allegations were first reported by Axios in December 2020 and prompted House Republicans to remove Swalwell from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The Democrats tabled the resolution.

Swalwell’s alleged ties with Fang include her being part of his fundraising efforts for his 2014 reelection campaign, though she did not make any donations, according to intelligence officials. She also interacted with Swalwell several times over several years and placed an intern in his office. She reportedly fled the United States and returned to China.

Swalwell continues to say he did not do anything wrong.

As for Schiff, McCarthy has stated that the legislator has lied too many times to the American public. Schiff was one of the Democrats’ lead spokesmen on the explosive accusations that former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the run-up to the 2020 election. The subsequent investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller ‘did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.’

Mueller’s investigation also found no evidence that Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in order to cover up a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Former President Trump has a three-point lead over President Biden in a hypothetical rematch in 2024, according to an Emerson College poll.

The poll was released on Tuesday and shows Trump with a 44% to 41% lead over Biden in the hypothetical matchup.

43% of people surveyed in the poll hold the economy as their top issue, followed by healthcare at 13%, immigration at 11%, threats to democracy at 10%, and crime at 7%.

In the Republican primary, the poll found that Trump leads Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis 55% to 29%, with Mike Pence getting 6% among Republican voters and Nikki Haley getting 3% of support.

Since Emerson’s November poll, support for DeSantis has increased by 4% while Trump’s support has stayed the same.

There is an age and educational divide within the Republican primary. Young Republican voters under 35 break for Trump over DeSantis, 73% to 13%, whereas college educated voters break for DeSantis over Trump 40% to 33%,’ said Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling.

Biden leads DeSantis in a hypothetical matchup by less than a percentage point, 40% to 39%. Biden has lost three percentage points in the hypothetical matchup to DeSantis since Emerson’s November poll.

44% of voters approve of the job that Biden is doing, and 48% disapprove of his handling of the job.

Since the November poll, Biden has seen a five percentage point recovery in his job approval.

A Republican in the U.S. Senate is looking to prevent lawmakers and their spouses from trading stocks on which the officials would have privileged information and used the bill’s title to make a not-so-subtle dig at former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

On Tuesday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced the PELOSI Act, officially the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, requiring members and their spouses to divest any holdings or put them in a blind trust within six months of entering office.

‘Members of Congress and their spouses shouldn’t be using their position to get rich on the stock market – today l’m introducing legislation to BAN stock trading & ownership by members of Congress. I call it the PELOSI Act,’ he wrote on Twitter Tuesday.

The bill comes after revelations last year that Nancy’s husband, Paul Pelosi, traded between $1 million and $5 million of stocks for semiconductors just days before Congress allocated $52 million to the industry. The stocks were later sold at a loss to remove the appearance of impropriety.

Other lawmakers and their spouses have made similarly advantageous trades, including Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who sold investments after receiving classified briefings on the coronavirus pandemic.

Hawley’s bill excludes mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and Treasury bonds purchases.

Hawley’s bill would require any profits made by a lawmaker to be returned to American taxpayers.

It also specifically amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which prohibits using nonpublic information for private profit, commonly known as insider trading — which is already illegal for business leaders and everyday Americans.

The bill currently requires the President of the United States, the vice president, specific executive branch employees, the Postmaster General, some civilian employees, certain members of Congress, and judicial officers to file a report that includes the source, type, and value of income gained from any source other than their current employment.

This bill was previously amended in 2012, when Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, ID-CT, introduced the ‘Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act’ or the ‘STOCK Act’ to help eliminate congressional insider trading.

The legislation, which was signed into law, prohibits lawmakers and employees from utilizing information gained through legislative meetings to profit privately. The act also says lawmakers are not exempt from insider trading prohibitions under securities laws.

It requires congressional lawmakers to report any stock transactions by themselves or their family members of $1,000 or more within 45 days.

The push to prevent lawmakers from privately profiting through their public office has bipartisan support, and Hawley, and others on both sides of the proverbial aisle have initiated legislative action to outlaw such action.

Earlier this year, Hawley introduced a bill that would ban lawmakers from making stock trades while in office. Sens. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., introduced similar legislation.

Earlier this month, Reps. Chip Roy, R-TX, and Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., reintroduced a bill that would ban lawmakers and their family members from trading individual stocks or using their public office for ‘political gain.’

The TRUST Act, formally the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust in Congress Act, would require lawmakers and family members to transfer specific investments into a qualified blind trust while serving in Washington.

‘Strengthening our democracy and building true resilience against corruption is not just about preventing unethical decisions, but it is also about addressing the feeling among many Americans that their elected officials and government don’t work for them. This perception is damaging to our democracy, and the TRUST in Congress Act would help build trust and assure the public that Members of Congress are not serving their own financial interests,’ Spanberger said at the time.

She also said the bill would create a ‘firewall between Members of Congress and their investments.’

Original cosponsors of the bill include Reps Scott Perry, R-Penn., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.,  Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Dusty Johnson, R-SD, Nikema Williams, D-Ga., Dean Phillips, D-Minn., Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, Angie Craig, D-Minn., Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Penn., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn., Pete Sessions, R-Texas, Grace Meng, D-N.Y. and Joe Courtney, D-CT and more.

President Biden, former President Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence are all under scrutiny for their improper retention of classified documents, potentially complicating their bids, or potential bids, for the White House in 2024.

Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign in November, months after the FBI seized classified records during an unprecedented raid on his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida.

Biden has been considering a 2024 re-election campaign, but sources have said he will not make an announcement on whether he will run for a second term until after he delivers the State of the Union address.

Biden will give that address Feb. 7, just weeks after the FBI searched and seized classified records from his home in Wilmington, Delaware. Documents were also found at the Penn Biden Center.

Both Trump and Biden are now under special counsel investigation for their retention of classified records.

On Tuesday, Pence, who is also mulling a 2024 presidential run, informed Congress he had discovered documents bearing classified markings in his Carmel, Indiana, home Jan. 16 from his time as vice president during the Trump administration.

According to his team, Pence informed the National Archives Jan. 18 of a small number of potential classified documents found in two small boxes. Another two boxes contained copies of vice presidential papers. The National Archives then informed the FBI.

After the documents with classified markings were discovered, they were immediately put into a safe, according to the Pence team.

The documents were collected by the FBI at Pence’s home Jan. 19. Pence was in Washington, D.C., for the annual March for Life when the FBI collected the documents.

The Pence team said that the decision to search the former vice president’s home and office of his political advocacy group, Advancing American Freedom, came after the initial revelations that Biden held classified records at the Penn Biden Center think tank.

Classified records were found inside the Washington, D.C., offices of the Penn Biden Center think tank on Nov. 2, 2022, but only disclosed to the public earlier this month.

A second stash of classified documents was also found inside the garage of the president’s home in Wilmington in December but revealed to the public earlier this month, prompting Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint former U.S. Attorney Rob Hur to serve as special counsel.

Days later, additional classified documents were found in the president’s home in Delaware. The FBI conducted a more than 12-hour search of Biden’s Delaware home Friday, seizing additional classified records.

As for Trump, the FBI conducted an unprecedented early morning raid on his private residence in Palm Beach Aug. 8, 2022, and seized classified records, including some marked as top secret.

Trump and his legal team dispute the classification and argued that they were cooperating with the Justice Department and FBI ahead of the unprecedented predawn raid of the former president’s Palm Beach home.

Garland on Nov. 18 appointed former DOJ official Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate the issue of classified records being held at Mar-a-Lago.

When he appointed Smith, Garland and top DOJ officials were simultaneously conducting an internal review of President Biden’s mishandling of classified records. That review, and the discovery of classified records at Biden’s office, was not disclosed to the public until January.

The Justice Department revealed the classification level of Trump documents held at Mar-a-Lago but refuses to disclose the classification level or contents of the classified records discovered in Biden’s home and office.

It is unclear the level of classification of the Pence records and whether a special counsel will be appointed to investigate the documents.

TUKWILA, Wash. – A Washington card room owner argued that tribal casinos have unfairly monopolized sports betting and is suing state and federal officials for the right to get in on the game. But local tribes — including his own — say his suit threatens their economies and sovereignty.

‘There’s zero circumstances in which I’d settle,’ Maverick Gaming CEO Eric Persson told Fox News. If his suit makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court like he expects, a ruling in his favor could affect sports betting in states far beyond Washington, according to a PlayUSA analysis.

‘I have the resources to go all the way, and so do they. So there’s going to be a battle,’ Persson continued. ‘We’re going have a lot of fun, and I’m going to win. That’s what makes it fun.’

Maverick Gaming owns about 20 neighborhood card rooms throughout the state, properties Persson compares to ‘Cheers’ bars. They generally have a bar, restaurant and up to 15 tables where customers can play poker, blackjack, baccarat and other games.

But the flashing lights and jangling music of slot machines are absent, reserved for the state’s 29 tribal casinos. And — for now at least — so is sports betting. 

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning sports gambling in 2018, the states were given the opportunity to create their own rules. Two years later, the Washington legislature decided to allow sports wagering on Native American lands only, with proponents saying tribal governments were well equipped to oversee responsible gaming while also avoiding widespread expansion.

The tribes ‘have a lot of clout in our legislature,’ said Republican Sen. Curtis King, who sponsored a competing bill in 2020 that would have extended sports wagering to card rooms and mobile apps. ‘They were able to stop that bill from moving forward.’

‘What that means is on a Saturday or Sunday, when football is going, one less reason to be in a card room, one more reason to be in a tribal facility,’ Persson said. ‘And we don’t think that’s fair.’

So Maverick Gaming sued the state and federal government, alleging Washington’s implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) has created tribal monopolies on some types of gambling. The suit further argues the tribal monopoly violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause by ‘irrationally and impermissibly discriminating on the basis of race and ancestry.’

‘This is trying to make a mockery of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,’ said Rebecca George, executive director of the Washington Indian Gaming Commission. ‘To think about the arguments that this is racial discrimination is not only wrong, it’s offensive.’

In 1988, IGRA created a framework for Indian gaming as a means of generating revenue for tribes and encouraging their economic development.

Washington, along with most Western states, has authorized gambling within a limited scope. The proceeds from tribal gaming fund essential government services such as education and healthcare, and that windfall has finally sent ‘numbers ticking in the right direction for our people,’ George said.

‘Indian gaming is doing what it intended to do, and that is to help pull people out of poverty,’ she said. 

CARD ROOM OWNER READY FOR SCOTUS BATTLE OVER TRIBAL GAMING MONOPOLY:

Persson grew up in Hoquiam, a small town about an hour north of the Shoalwater Bay tribe, of which he is a member. With his sights set on a career in gaming, Persson graduated from Georgetown University law school and started building his empire, now spanning 31 casinos across Nevada, Colorado and Washington. 

As Persson looks to cash in on sports betting, his tribe is leading the opposition, portraying him in court documents as someone who ‘left the reservation and relocated’ to Nevada and amassed his wealth.

‘He now seeks to destroy … the major source of employment and discretionary revenue for his own Tribe,’ reads part of the Shoalwater Bay motion asking a federal judge to throw out the suit. More than a dozen other Washington tribes have signed onto the request, characterizing Maverick’s suit as an attack on their existing rights and interests.

Shoalwater Bay’s motion is ‘theatrics,’ Persson told Fox News.

‘It’s not awkward for me,’ he said. ‘It should be awkward for them. They’re the ones that should be embarrassed.’

But tribal organizations argue Maverick’s suit is about more than just sports betting and that undermining Washington’s gaming compacts could threaten their status as sovereign nations. This comes as the Supreme Court considers a challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act, brought by the same law firm representing Maverick Gaming. 

‘As an Indian person, to think about the impacts that either one of these cases would have into our communities is devastating,’ George said.

Any suggestion that his suit could threaten the political status of tribes is ‘ridiculous,’ Persson said.

‘People like to throw out adjectives that sound scary, but at the end of the day, the tribes are sovereign nations and this is about sports betting,’ he said. ‘This is about not letting tribes have monopoly on sports betting the state of Washington.’

Persson hopes the suit will be argued later this year but expects appeals will take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

‘We believe when we get to the Supreme Court, we’re going to win,’ he said.

A Supreme Court ruling on the case could reach far beyond Washington and potentially impact states with similar tribal gaming relationships, according to an analysis by PlayUSA. In Florida, for example, the state government authorized sports betting so long as private companies reach a deal with the Seminole Tribe first (that law is currently embroiled in legal challenges).

‘Do I think this lawsuit has a chance? I don’t think so,’ George said. ‘Do I think that they will appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court and that we will spend a lot of money fighting it? Yes.’

She said thinking of the amount of money that will be spent is ‘sickening.’

‘Knowing where that money could be going, to education and health care and saving salmon and all the things that tribal governments really care about,’ she said. ‘I think it’s unfortunate.’

Persson said allowing card rooms to participate in sports betting would have a minimal impact on tribes’ bottom lines. Currently, 90% of his business comes from within a three-mile radius, which rarely overlaps with tribal land, he said.

But the benefit to card rooms and their employees would be huge, he added.

‘There’d be over 600 jobs paying over $75,000 a year that would help a lot of families,’ he said. ‘I think sometimes that gets lost in the shuffle. So much politics being played, and card rooms being excluded and tribes feeling like they’re winning. But who’s hurting is Washingtonians because these jobs matter.’

Ramiro Vargas contributed to the accompanying video.

Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar, who were stripped of their committee assignments by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have accused him of ‘political vengeance’ in a statement Tuesday evening after he again blocked their appointments.

‘It’s disappointing but not surprising that Kevin McCarthy has capitulated to the right wing of his caucus, undermining the integrity of the Congress, and harming our national security in the process,’ said Schiff, D-Calif., Swalwell, D-Calif., and Omar, D-Minn., in a joint statement.

The statement is the latest exchange in an ongoing tiff between McCarthy, R-Calif., and the three Democrats after he removed them from choice committee assignments after Republicans took over the majority, and he was elected Speaker.

‘He struck a corrupt bargain in his desperate, and nearly failed, attempt to win the Speakership, a bargain that required political vengeance against the three of us,’ the Democrats continued in the letter.

Immediately following his decision, Schiff, Swalwell and Omar asked McCarthy to reconsider.

But, he did not.

‘Despite these efforts, McCarthy won’t be successful. We will continue to speak out against extremism and doggedly defend our democracy,’ the Democratic trio said.

After the three Democrats were unsuccessful in convincing McCarthy to reinstate their committee positions, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the highest-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, vouched for them.

In a letter, Jeffries said the legislators were ’eminently qualified’ and had experience justifying a position overseeing the nation’s intelligence community. Schiff and Swalwell previously served on the House Intelligence Committee while Omar served on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

That also failed to convince McCarthy, who said in an open letter that ‘national security’ and ‘integrity’ matter more than ‘partisan loyalty.’

‘I appreciate the loyalty you have to your Democrat colleagues, and I acknowledge your efforts to have two Members of Congress reinstated to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,’ McCarthy wrote to Jeffries. ‘But I cannot put partisan loyalty ahead of national security, and I cannot simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for membership to this essential committee. Integrity matters more.’

The Republican added: ‘As such, in order to maintain a standard worthy of this committee’s responsibilities, I am hereby rejecting the appointments of Representative Adam Schiff and Representative Eric Swalwell to serve on the intelligence committee.’

McCarthy also said, ‘It is my assessment that the misuse of this panel during the 116th and 117th Congresses severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions – ultimately leaving our nation less safe.’

‘Therefore, as we enter a new Congress, I am committed to returning the Intelligence Committee to one of genuine honesty and credibility that regains the trust of the American people,’ the California Republican said.

McCarthy alleges Swalwell’s prior relationship with a suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang, Schiff’s alleged propensity for lying to Americans and Omar’s outspoken criticism of Israel would keep them off their respective committees.

Since becoming House Speaker, McCarthy has vowed to make the legislative process ‘more open and transparent.’ He has also created select committees tasked with investigating the COVID-19 pandemic government response and the weaponization of the federal government.

Republicans on the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic include Chairman Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, and Reps. Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mariannette Miller Meeks of Iowa, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, Michael Cloud of Texas, John Joyce of Pennsylvania, Majories Taylor Greene of Georgia, Ronny Jackson of Texas and Rich McCormick of Georgia.

The GOP members of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government include Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Chris Stewart of Utah, Elise Stephanik of New York, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Chip Roy of Texas, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, Greg Steube of Florida, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Kat Cammack and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Tuesday that Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., will be removed from Congress if an investigation by the House Ethics Committee concludes he violated the law.

The committee’s investigation was launched following reports that Santos fabricated parts of his background, including his education and work history, during his 2022 campaign. The freshman congressman is also being probed by several federal, state and local entities.

McCarthy has largely defended Santos against calls for his resignation. The speaker has condemned some of Santos’ conduct, but Tuesday was the first instance in which he suggested potential consequences for the New York Republican.

‘If for some way when we go through Ethics, and he has broken the law, then we will remove him,’ McCarthy told reporters at a press conference outside his office.

But McCarthy also reiterated prior statements that he believes Santos should maintain his House seat because he was elected to serve.

‘You know why I’m standing by him? Because his constituents voted for him,’ he said. ‘I do not have the power, simply because I disagree with somebody on what they have said, that I will remove them from elected office.’

McCarthy said last week that he always ‘had a few questions’ about Santos’ resume. Santos was named to two committees — Small Business and Science, Space, and Technology — by House Republican leadership last week.

The speaker’s remarks come after reports revealed Santos had fabricated parts of his background during his 2022 campaign, in which he defeated Democrat Robert Zimmerman.

Santos had lied about his work and education history, connections to an alleged Ponzi scheme, his mother’s death and that he had previously been married to a woman despite now being openly gay.

He is also accused of using a fake animal charity in 2016 to scam a disabled veteran by raising money for their dog’s cancer treatment and then keeping the funds himself. Santos denies the allegation.

Santos has faced calls to resign from Republicans and Democrats in Congress and numerous New York State Republicans. Santos said earlier this month that he would resign if the 142,000 people who voted for him asked him to.

A Republican bill introduced this week would force members of Congress and their staff to get health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, a change aimed at forcing lawmakers to recognize the longstanding problems with the VA.

House and Senate lawmakers and staff are required to get their health coverage through the Washington, D.C., health insurance exchange created under Obamacare. They get access to gold-level plans, which means they pay 20% of their health care costs while taxpayers cover 80%.

But, under legislation proposed by Rep. Warren Davidson, an Army veteran and Republican from Ohio, lawmakers and staff would receive VA care at VA facilities ‘as if such members and staff were veterans.’ Davidson says the point is to make lawmakers more aware of the problems with the VA.

‘Providing our veterans with the highest quality care is a bipartisan issue on which nearly all members of Congress agree,’ Davidson said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘The VA is charged with fulfilling our nation’s obligation to provide veterans with the health benefits they have earned. To fulfill that obligation, the VA will require consistent and intentional congressional oversight.

‘When I talk with veterans, they always stress the urgency surrounding veterans’ health care issues, particularly for mental health services,’ he added. ‘My bill will ensure members of Congress have a stake in improving the VA health care system.’

The VA has been under tight scrutiny since 2014, when it became clear it was systematically underreporting veteran wait times for health care to make it look as though veterans were getting timely care. That practice led to findings that some veterans died while waiting lengthy periods of time for VA care. And that prompted Congress to create a pilot program allowing some veterans to get care outside the VA.

Under former President Trump, the option of private care became permanent under the MISSION Act, but the Biden administration has come under fire for trying to downplay the private health care option. In a 2022 hearing, Republicans criticized VA Secretary Denis McDonough for redirecting a MISSION Act link from a webpage that educated veterans about their private care options to a page that encouraged them to sign up for VA care.

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, last year called it an example of ‘blatant bias’ against the MISSION Act.

‘Since I have been in Congress, I have supported the VA Mission Act, VA Accountability Act and the PACT Act,’ Davidson said. ‘These bills increased access to care, expanded benefits and improved the quality of care. However, more must be done to improve the VA.’

Veterans and veterans organizations continue to complain about wait times for care. Through requesting federal documents, veterans groups and their allies have found evidence the VA is again generating data to make it appear VA wait times are not as long as they are.

For example, they found that instead of measuring wait times starting from the day a veteran requests care, the VA is starting the clock when a VA ‘scheduler’ starts the work of setting up an appointment, which can be weeks or even months after a veteran first requests care.

The appearance of short wait times can make it harder for veterans to qualify for care outside the VA. Under the MISSION Act, one factor that makes veterans eligible for private sector care is long wait times, and veterans’ groups say artificially short wait times are preventing thousands of veterans from getting the care they need outside the VA.

Last year, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) sued the VA for access to documents detailing the VA’s implementation of the MISSION Act. While a judge ordered the VA to produce those documents, AFP last month returned before a Washington, D.C., judge to demand it produce more relevant documents, including papers that reveal which senior leaders in the VA are trying to limit the use of the MISSION Act.