Thursday, June 28, 2018

SHOCK: Rep. Joe Crowley defeated in Democratic primary upset by newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez



In the photo: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Rep. Joe Crowley, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus who was thought by some to be a future Speaker of the House, suffered a shocking primary defeat in New York's 14th House District Tuesday.

With 88 percent of precincts reporting, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- who has never held elected office -- led Crowley by more than 3,600 votes.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Bernie Sanders supporter who has called for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had gained the endorsement of several left-wing groups, including MoveOn and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

"We have built power. We have organized," Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter as the polls closed. "What we have built is permanent. No. Matter. What."

Soon after The Associated Press called the race, the New York City branch of the DSA tweeted congratulations to Ocasio-Cortez, saying that her victory proved "that working class people are hungry for a voice in politics."

In a statement, Crowley congratulated Ocasio-Cortez on her victory and said he looked forward to supporting her against Republican Anthony Pappas in November.

"The Trump administration is a threat to everything we stand for here in Queens and the Bronx, and if we don't win back the House this November, we will lose the nation we love," Crowley said. "This is why we must come together. We will only be able to stop Donald Trump and the Republican Congress by working together, as a united Democratic Party."

The National Republican Campaign Committee celebrated the defeat of "poor Joe Crowley."

"House Democrats, hoping for a post-Pelsoi era, are now left leaderless," NRCC spokesman Matt Gorman said. "The only person happier tonight than Nancy Pelosi is the NRCC."

President Trump also reveled in the downfall of the man he called "Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley."

"That is a big one that nobody saw happening," Trump said of Crowley's defeat. "Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!"

Crowley, the fourth-ranked House Democrat and a ten-term incumbent, was viewed by many observers as the one person a broad enough support base to potentially succeed House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi or House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. 

His defeat leaves a large gap in the House Democratic leadership and ensures that Pelosi and Hoyer will be able to remain in their posts, if they choose to do so.

In a statement, Pelosi described Crowley as "an unwavering champion for America’s working families for almost two decades" who "brought principled, unifying and forward-looking leadership to the historic challenges of the Trump Administration" as the Democratic caucus chair.

"I salute Chairman Crowley for a formidable legacy of achievement for the people of New York," Pelosi concluded. "I congratulate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on her victory."

Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

_____________

IN OTHER NEWS

Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pick




Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.

The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington for months; the decision comes a year after Kennedy's former law clerk Neil Gorsuch took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. 

Trump, reacting to the opportunity to select a second high court pick, called Kennedy a "great justice" and said he'd begin the search for a replacement immediately.

“Hopefully, we’re going to pick somebody who will be as outstanding,” Trump said.

On the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed the chamber would vote “this fall” on Kennedy’s successor.

Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy's moderate-conservative views often left him the "swing" -- or deciding -- vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.

A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake.

That body will consider Trump's latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold.

But Democrats are expected to try and transform the court opening into a broader political referendum on Trump's leadership, and the future of social issues like immigration, gun rights and race.
   
Republicans, for their part, hope Kennedy's replacement helps them in the November elections. Still, McConnell indicated he hopes for a vote in the fall.

Without Kennedy, the court will be split between four liberal justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents and four conservatives who were named by Republicans. Trump's nominee is likely to give the conservatives a solid majority and will face a Senate process in which Republicans hold the slimmest majority, but Democrats can't delay confirmation.

Kennedy was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and sworn in the following year.

While often voting with the court’s conservative bloc, he has been a key swing vote in a number of cases and occasionally sided with the court’s liberal wing, particularly on issues such as gay rights and abortion. Most notably, he wrote the 2015 ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, which found that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

His retirement had been rumored in recent years, with several of his former clerks having said they thought he was considering stepping down.

While it is not clear whom Trump will nominate, the eventual nominee is likely to face resistance from Senate Democrats -- who are still bristling from Senate Republicans’ blockade of Obama-pick Merrick Garland in 2016 and would balk at the possibility of Trump hardening the conservative bloc on the court.

Kennedy’s retirement comes after both Gorsuch and Kennedy were key votes in two controversial decisions this week -- upholding Trump's 'travel ban' and ruling against union's 'fair share' fees.

Both decisions were 5-4.

Fox News' Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

_____________

President Trump will meet next month with Putin in Helsinki, Finland, White House announces

Fox News Alert

Photo: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ambassador John Bolton

President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet on July 16 in Helsinki, Finland, the White House announced on Thursday.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

BOMBSHELL: Supreme Court deals blow to unions, rules against forced fees for government workers



In a major legal and political defeat for big labor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that state government workers cannot be forced to pay so-called "fair share" fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities.

The conservative majority said a union's contract negotiations over pay and benefits were inextricably linked with its broader political activities, and concluded workers had a limited constitutional right not to underwrite such "speech." The case specifically examined union fees paid by non-members.

“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a non-member’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”

After announcing the last of two remaining decisions, the court recessed for the summer without any justice announcing a retirement from the bench. There had been muted speculation that senior Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy would be prepared to step down after three decades on the high court, but no announcement arrived.

While the current case applies only to public-sector employees, meanwhile, the political and financial stakes are potentially huge for the broader American labor union movement, which had been sounding the alarm about the legal fight.


The unions say 5 million government employees in 24 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by this ruling.

The majority overturned the high court's four-decade-old precedent -- known as the "Abood" decision -- dealing with so-called "agency" fees, allowing states to require public employees to pay money supporting collective bargaining and other union activities.

Alito said while overturning past decisions should be rare, this issue justified it.
"There are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake," he said.

The key plaintiff was Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, who pays about $550 annually to the powerful public-sector union known as AFSCME. While not a member of the union, he is required under state law to hand over a weekly portion of his paycheck -- which he says is a violation of his constitutional rights.

"I work for Health and Family Services, and I'm forced to pay money to a union that then supports political causes that I don't agree with," Janus told Fox News.

President Trump cheered the court decision on Twitter, writing: “Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!”

Trump's Justice Department has been clear on its position -- announcing in December it was reversing course from the previous administration and supporting Janus.

Writing the dissent for the court's four liberal members, Associate Justice Elena Kagan said the majority succeeded in its "crusade" by "turning the First Amendment into a sword."

"Judicial disruption does not get any greater than what the Court does today," she said in a rare oral dissent read from the bench. "The majority has overruled Abood for no exceptional or special reason, but because it never liked the decision. It has overruled Abood because it wanted to. Because, that is, it wanted to pick the winning side in what should be -- and until now, has been -- an energetic policy debate."

Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined her.

"Almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech,” Kagan added. “So the [court] majority’s road runs long. And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices. The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance-including over the role of public-sector unions."

Justices split 4-4 on the issue in a similar case two years ago, just after Antonin Scalia died. But with Neil Gorsuch now filling the vacancy left by Scalia, he was seen as the deciding vote this time. During arguments back in February, Gorsuch played it close to the vest and left court watchers guessing -- he had no comments or questions from the bench during nearly 70 minutes of oral arguments.

On Wednesday, he sided with the conservative majority.

Labor leaders oppose so-called "free riding" by workers like Janus, however, and say they have a legal duty to advocate for all employees.

Nearly 30 states have so-called "right-to-work laws" that restrict forced fees. But many public-employee union members are in other states.

States that do allow "fair share" fees say they go to a variety of activities that benefit all workers, whether in the union or not. That includes collective bargaining for wage and benefit increases, grievance procedures, and workplace safety.

AFSCME President Lee Saunders had argued that strong labor unions are needed because they give “the strength in numbers [workers] need to fight for the freedoms they deserve,” including retirement plans and health care.

The repercussions could affect unions nationwide. Union membership nationwide is less than 11 percent of the American workforce, but about a third of government employees are members.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations


By Bill Mears| Fox News


Supreme Court rules 5-4 to uphold travel ban

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration's policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government's issuance of immigrant visas.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority” under federal law.

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the President find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump's policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential power, especially within the immigration context.

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit court last December concluded Trump's proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of aliens.

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department's request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April.

Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list, or about 8 percent of the population, he said.

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president's orders, said the president's policies violate the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom:

"Any reasonable observer who heard the President's campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his Administration's persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the President's promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States."

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

EDITOR”S NOTE: The travel restrictions slow or limit entry from citizens of North Korea, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. Iraqi citizens do not face the same travel restrictions, but will "be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if they pose risks" to U.S. security, the White House said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Monday, June 25, 2018

How to Re-Elect Trump


OPINION

By The Editorial Board

The Wall Street Journal


Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, left, walks past White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, right, after speaking to the media during the daily briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, Monday, June 18, 2018. Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press


You’re so deplorable you can’t eat in their restaurants.

Hillary Clinton lost the Presidency in 2016 for many reasons but one was surely because she called people who disagreed with her a “basket of deplorables.” Millions of Americans knew who she meant, and nearly 63 million voted for Donald J. Trump.

The political left is now repeating that mistake as its cultural and political vanguard sends a message of condescension, hostility and now ostracism to anyone who voted for Mr. Trump or has worked with or for him for the good of the country. Their relentless contempt might end up re-electing him.

On that score don’t underestimate how the refusal by a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, to serve White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders will resonate politically. 

Ms. Sanders had taken a seat at the Red Hen with several others on Friday when owner Stephanie Wilkinson asked her to leave. Ms. Wilkinson told the press, which is turning her into Rosa Parks, that her restaurant “has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.”

Except toward people who don’t share Ms. Wilkinson’s views. Rest assured every Trump supporter in America will be reminded of this episode from here to November. The message: Now you’re so deplorable they won’t serve you in their restaurants.

Meanwhile, hecklers ran Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen out of a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C. last week. Protesters are also harassing Ms. Nielsen at home, blaring audio of crying children detained at the border and shouting “no justice, no sleep.”

Then there’s actor Seth Rogen, who bragged on TV that he recently refused to take a picture with Paul Ryan and the House Speaker’s sons. He delivered a lecture instead. Apparently rudeness to children is now a badge of courage.

No doubt some on the right behave as badly—though when they do they don’t become media heroes. But the irony is that the main beneficiary of all this is Donald Trump.
….
But Republicans and other voters also know when they are being sneered at and marginalized. 

They don’t think it’s un-American to ask if maybe immigrant parents shouldn’t take their toddlers on a dangerous illegal trip across the border. 

They may not like Mr. Trump personally, but they do like that he stands up to the cultural arbiters who hate them. 

Mr. Rogen and his fellow political censors won’t admit it, but they are playing into Donald Trump’s hands.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Dear America, The LEFT Has Declared War On You


By Kevin McCullough |Townhall


While you’ve been busy enjoying your new jobs, improved wages, lower taxes, and less government interference in your life the left has decided that all of those things are immoral. 

They must be undone. 

And those who enjoy them must be made to understand that they are not good American citizens, but some sort of participant to hurt others. 

They would love to say it makes you a racist, except that African Americans and Hispanics are enjoying the best economy they’ve ever known in American history. 

They would love to say your lack of desire to give government more and more of what you earn makes you an elitist, except that you aren’t. 

You’re creating new companies, hiring more people, and taking control back of your personal choices. 

This leaves less capital for them to make choices for you and run your life with. Therefore when all options have been exhausted their desperation leaves them with only two options—conform to the new energy transforming life, business and people in America, or destroy it.

They are displaying raw unmeasured contempt for you.

In the past week public mobs—always organized by leftist groups—have taken to public harassment of women who merely work for the current administration.

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was literally shouted at until she left a dinner at an eatery near the White House. 

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders just Friday evening was told she would not be served (nor her family) at the Red Hen eatery of the Shenandoah Valley in Lexington, Virginia. 

She was told she was refused service was because she works for the President. 

Secretary Nielsen has had additional groups camped outside her house playing loud speakers, disturbing the peace of she and her neighbors. 

Entitled leftist celebrities like Robert De Niro bogart awards shows encouraging viewers to sexually violate the President. 

Washed up former TV stars like Tom Arnold claim they will harass the First Lady at her son’s school. 

And true Hollywood losers like Peter Fonda claim that Sarah Sanders’ as well as Melania Trump’s children should literally be raped by pedophiles and sex traffickers.

They believe they can and will eliminate you in a big blue wave in November.

There is an obvious purpose in the illegitimate behavior that they are engaging in. 

Taking the primary methods of the losers from the “Occupy” movement they believe there is no moral barrier stopping them from doing anything at all (in their way of thinking) “necessary” to take back power. 

They believed they had finally launched America onto its great socialist enlightenment under dear leader Obama, and they all but believed they had eight more years with the Hillary Clinton presidency. 

The only problem turned out to be that she was a horrible candidate, and Trump understood the people of this country better than she did. That’s why he routed her. In a contest of states 33 to 17 is a spanking by any measure.

They no longer (if they ever did) believe in the rule of law.

That they had control of extended reach into law enforcement, justice, the judiciary, and all of the media and entertainment elite allies they enjoy, the left never believed that they would ever see the tornado of activity that has occurred in the first eighteen months of the Trump administration. 

A Supreme Court Justice who will reliably remove power from the hands of government, twenty-four appellate court judges, and seventy-one additional judicial appointments that all reflect that same judicial temperament add up to a limited window of time before much of the anti-constitutional hackery that has taken place over the last few decades is toast. 

But they are content to undo as much of what is true just and good as they can on any level. This week Gubernatorial candidate for New York—Cynthia Nixon—openly advocated for the elimination of Immigration & Customs Enforcement. She claimed they had gone adrift from their mission. Yet their mission is to do nothing but enforce immigration and customs law.

They have tried to ambush our representative form of governing—believing along the way they had the right to do so.

Their activist agents in the FBI (at least five of them identified in the report released by Inspector General Horowitz) demonstrated that there was no filter governing their approach to investigation. 

Agent Strzok volunteering in texts to sympathizers they he/they had the power to stop a lawfully executed election and that they would. 

The slimy behavior of Comey, Lynch, McCabe and Dr. Rice, their willingness to countenance, cover the backside for, and go the extra mile to mislead everyone only demonstrates this idea that they have no responsibility to respect the process of our republic. 

They feel entitled not only to disagree with us, but to rig the system against us in an attempt to force our conformity.

They will sink to any level necessary, even the prostituting or in some cases the threatened molestation of children to make their point.

That they were willing to threaten the children of the First Lady, the Press Secretary and joking or otherwise suggest molestation as a way to even the score against their opponents, is sick. 

That they literally seem unmoved by the fact that smugglers and human traffickers will thrive if we re-adopt their catch & release procedures is even worse. 

Yet, even in the debate over such policy, they lied in using pictures from 2013-14 to justify their rage.

They were just fine with TIME magazine lying through its teeth on this week’s cover, and they have no perception of the danger endless catch & release has on our neighborhoods, hospitals, and schools. 

All of which indicates their unwillingness to literally care for America as opposed to many others who wish to come here without a commitment to “be” American.

They believe you have no right to think, opine, govern, or act in any way that creates dissonance with their core beliefs.

Follow any number of left leaning celebrities, pundits, politicians, public figures & elected officials on Twitter (as I do) and you will easily see that everything I have argued here is already happening

The desperation at the loss of power, the open & undeniable hostility towards traditional America, their mockery making of our elections, laws, and public servants, their use of any and all tactics to fight back regardless of how gutter-prone they may be all pale in comparison to what they believe about their own beliefs. 

No longer interested in a pluralistic society with many different world-views competing in generations’ long struggle over ideas. They have had enough.

They are not interested in hearing opposing viewpoints, much less allowing them to prosper. 

This is why they want no church to teach that abortion is taking a human life, many sexual behaviors are literally unhealthy, or that people should choose to do good vis-a-vie their earnings vs. being forced to at the government’s point of a gun.

All of these were on display over the past week.

Every one of these points was illustrated on some level. 

They have declared a war on America. What America is. What she stands for. What she believes. 

They are angry. 

They are fueled by hate for everyone who disagrees with them—though many may describe it as piously as a law professor claiming to see a court case from all sides. 

They are bitter. 

And they are ticked that America is prospering, making more money, doing more good, and getting better sleep than they do.

War has been declared, and we can only hope that America responds in the best way she knows how—under God, with Liberty & Justice for all.

Friday, June 22, 2018

Gowdy scorches Comey in blistering opening statement at IG hearing






House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy scorched James Comey in a blistering opening statement at a high-profile congressional hearing on Tuesday, declaring “we can’t survive with a justice system we don’t trust.”

Gowdy kicked off the hearing featuring testimony from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on his review of the Hillary Clinton email case. The top DOJ watchdog is on Capitol Hill for the second day in a row to discuss the explosive report.

But Gowdy launched into Tuesday's session -- a joint hearing held by the House oversight and judiciary panels -- with a fiery condemnation of the former FBI director and certain agents in the bureau he led.

Referring to IG findings that Comey defied his superiors in his handling of the Clinton email case, Gowdy accused the ex-director of essentially operating by his own rules.

"We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which DOJ policies to follow and which to ignore," he said.

Gowdy accused Comey of watering down his initial statement on the investigation's findings and making other decisions on his own. While Comey has suggested he acted unilaterally out of concern for the Justice Department's handling of the case, Gowdy questioned why he didn't seek a special counsel -- as he indirectly did regarding concerns about the Trump administration.

“Instead, he appointed himself FBI director, attorney general, special counsel, lead investigator and the general arbiter of what is good and right in the world according to him,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy said that Horowitz’s report, which was released last Thursday, should “conjure anger, disappointment and sadness in anyone who reads it.”

He also said that, in the wake of the IG report, there were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to "prejudge" the outcome of the Clinton case.

“These exact same FBI agents and attorney prejudged the outcome of the Russia investigation before it even began,” he added.

He said “prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins” is the “textbook definition of bias.”

Horowitz also testified on Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In that hearing, he confirmed that his office was investigating Comey for potentially mishandling classified information, regarding the sharing of memos detailing conversations with President Trump.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.



__________________________


FBI agent Peter Strzok ‘escorted’ from FBI building, lawyer confirms



Peter Strzok, the FBI agent under fire over a series of anti-Trump text messages, was "escorted" from the FBI building, his lawyer confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday.

Strzok's lawyer, Aitan Goelman, argued that even though his client has "played by the rules," he has been targeted by "unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks."

"All of this seriously calls into question the impartiality of the disciplinary process, which now appears tainted by political influence," a statement from Goelman said.

He said that Strzok "has complied with every FBI procedure, including being escorted from the building as part of the ongoing internal proceedings." The attorney did not say exactly when Strzok was escorted out.

"Instead of publicly calling for a long-serving FBI agent to be summarily fired, politicians should allow the disciplinary process to play out free from political pressure," Goelman said. "Our leaders and the public should be very concerned with how readily such influence has been allowed to undermine due process and the legal protections owed to someone who has served his country for so long. Pete Strzok and the American people deserve better."
The FBI had no comment when contacted by Fox News.

News of Strzok's removal came after Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed during a Congressional hearing earlier Tuesday that his office was looking into whether Strzok's anti-Trump bias played a role in the launch of the bureau's Russia probe.

Horowitz's report on the Clinton email investigation, which was released last week, revealed a text sent by Strzok to his then-colleague and lover Lisa Page.
The IG report said Page texted Strzok in August 2016, prior to then-candidate Donald Trump's election night win, saying "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

"No. No he won't. We'll stop it," Strzok responded.

Roughly 50,000 text messages were sent between the pair over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign and Trump's first year in the White House. Among them included comments that focused on special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, while others bashed the president.

Others also showed an allegience to former FBI Director James Comey in the wake of his firing.

When asked to comment about the FBI official being escorted from the agency, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told Fox News that "it's way past time for Peter Strzok to hopefully start to find a different career and restore some credibility to the FBI that most of us love and admire and certainly lady justice has to be someone who wears a blindfold and with Peter Strzok it was obvious with his text messages that that was not the case."

Fox Business' Bruce Becker and Fox News' Bill Mears, Brooke Singman, Alex Pappas and Jason Donner contributed to this report.