Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Sunday ruled out a 2020 presidential run and taking a DNA test to prove Native American ancestry — an issue that has nagged her Senate campaigns and would almost certainly create problems in a White House bid.

“I’m not running for president,” Warren, a champion of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, told “Fox News Sunday.”

When asked Sunday whether she’d agree to calls for genetic testing to resolve the heritage controversy, Warren launched into a family history, as purportedly told by her parents and grandparents, before saying, “It’s a part of who I am, and no one’s ever going to take that away.”

Warren, who is seeking a second Senate term this year, has been accused of saying she is of Native American heritage to help in securing jobs, including one as a Harvard law professor.

She has acknowledged identifying as a minority, but denies using such status to help advance her career.

President Trump has repeatedly called Warren, a Wall Street critic and potential White House rival, “Pocahontas,” a notable American Indian woman in colonial history, to highlight the controversy.

“Let me tell you a little bit about my family,” Warren said Sunday. “My mom and dad were born and raised out in Oklahoma, and my daddy was in his teens when he fell in love with my mother.

“She was a beautiful girl who played the piano. And he was head over heels in love with her and wanted to marry her. And his family was bitterly opposed to that because she was part Native American.

“And eventually my parents eloped and they survived the Great Depression, they survived The Dust Bowl. They went through a lot of hard times. They raised three boys, my older brothers, all of whom went off to the military.

“They raised me. They knocked around and it was tough but they hung together. They hung together for 63 years. I know who I am because of what my mother and my father told me, what my grandmother and my grandfather told me, what all my aunts and uncles told me and my brothers.”

By Joseph Weber | Fox News

Cop who didn’t enter school during Florida shooting resigns, has home guarded, is slammed as ‘coward’ by Trump

The home of the former school resource deputy who stayed outside the Florida high school as last week’s massacre unfolded was being protected Friday by law enforcement officials — even as President Trump called out the ex-cop, suggesting he was a “coward.”

Deputy Scot Peterson, shown speaking in 2015, was armed and stationed on campus when Nikolas Cruz opened fire.

Reporters who attempted to approach the West Palm Beach home of ex-Broward County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Scot Peterson were reportedly met with resistance from at least six police officers who were standing guard outside.

“They prevented us from approaching the house,” WSVN’s Frank Guzman tweeted Thursday.

An Associated Press reporter said he approached Peterson’s home Thursday night, seeing lights on inside and cars present. He rang the doorbell twice, but no one answered.

TIMELINE OF FLORIDA SCHOOL SHOOTING

Before departing for his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday morning, Trump, in a set of fiery remarks, lambasted Peterson.

“When it came time to get in there and do something, he didn’t have the courage, or something happened,” Trump said. “He certainly did a poor job. That’s the case where somebody was outside, they are trained, they didn’t react properly under pressure or they were a coward.”

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson, who was armed when gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, “never went in[to]” the building that was under attack. He said the school resource officer instead took up a position viewing the western entrance of the building.

Officials said Thursday the resource deputy assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, never entered the building during Feb. 14’s mass shooting.  (Reuters)

Israel said he was “devastated, sick to my stomach” after learning of Peterson’s inaction during the school shooting that left 17 people dead. The sheriff said he believes Peterson remained outside the building for roughly four minutes, while the shooting in total lasted around six minutes. Israel said the officer never fired his weapon.

“What matters is that when we, in law enforcement, arrive at an active shooter, we go in and address the target,” the sheriff said. “And that’s what should’ve been done.”

When asked what Peterson should have done, Israel said the deputy should have “went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer.”

He added: “There are no words. I mean, these families lost their children…I’ve been to the funerals…I’ve been to the vigils. It’s just, ah, there are no words.”

Peterson resigned Thursday after video surveillance showed he never entered the school, even though he “clearly” knew there was a shooting taking place, officials said.

Officer Tim Burton of the Coral Springs Police Department, who responded to the shooting, told the New York Times that Peterson “was seeking cover behind a concrete column leading to a stairwell.”

It’s time to employ School Protectors.

Because we live in a sick society where human life has such little value and so many Americans have been stripped of their humanity (see our article Liberals Have Created Murder Monsters of February 16, 2018), our schools have become defenseless shooting galleries for any psychotic idiot who gets his hands on a firearm.

Let’s just say up front that anyone who suggests that gun control legislation will protect our children from shooters is out of touch with reality, and cares more about a political philosophy than protecting our children.

Because schools are gun-free zones (another failed liberal idea), psychotic child killers use them as their personal killing fields, launching them into eternal infamy without any resistance.

Reluctantly, we must face the fact that schools are no longer safe places to send our defenseless children. They must now be hardened.

Arming teachers and coaches is one idea I heard the President discussing today. That’s good–so long as you can find teachers willing to pack heat during the day.

We have National Guard and Military personnel who are available and on the payroll already. I suggest that we assign at least two to each school, to be on active patrol throughout the school day.

Of course, many don’t like the idea of uniformed officers patrolling our schools carrying fully automatic weapons (real assault weapons–not the single shot AR-15s that the media tell us are assault weapons). I would agree that full military uniform could give a militaristic flavor to our schools that we don’t want. However, undercover Air Marshall style guards simply won’t blend into the youth environment. I would suggest a uniform that looks much more civilian, yet is easily recognizable as a School Protector.

Not only will School Protectors harden our schools to would-be shooters, who will no longer have unrestricted access to shoot defenseless children by the dozens before responders can arrive, but their very presence will have a calming effect on every campus, making it essentially bully-free. After all, as we say, an armed population is a polite population.

By James Thompson

A federal grand jury on Friday indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies for allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election, in a case brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that detailed a sophisticated plot to wage “information warfare” against the U.S.

The Russian nationals are accused of setting a “strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election.”

The indictment – the first filed against Russian nationals as part of Mueller’s probe – effectively returns focus to the meddling activities out of Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election, following a string of charges relating to the actions of Trump associates.

Further, the DOJ made clear that the indictment does not allege that any of the interference changed the outcome of the presidential race.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe, said at a Friday press conference.

President Trump reacted to the indictments by seizing on Rosenstein’s comment that the election results were not impacted by the Russians’ activity.

“Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President,” Trump tweeted. “The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!”

The 37-page indictment, signed by Mueller, said the actions detailed by prosecutors date back to 2014.

The defendants are accused of spreading derogatory information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, denigrating Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — and ultimately supporting Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders and then-Republican candidate Donald Trump.

“There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”

– Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

It says the defendants spread derogatory information about various candidates throughout the 2016 campaign and by “early to mid-2016” were supporting Trump’s presidential campaign.

Rosenstein, though, said that after the election, the group worked both to stage rallies in favor of President-elect Trump and in opposition to his election.

Rosenstein on Friday described a sophisticated operation by Russian organization Internet Research Agency. He said the scheme involved setting up hundreds of social media accounts using stolen or fictitious identities to make it appear like the accounts were controlled by individuals in the U.S. He said the defendants posed as politically active Americans and recruited “real Americans” to stage rallies and engage in political activities.

But Rosenstein said those Americans did not know they were communicating with Russians.

“We have known that Russians meddled in the election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said. “These Russians engaged in a sinister and systematic attack on our political system. It was a conspiracy to subvert the process, and take aim at democracy itself.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill, though, reacted by continuing to suggest that people associated with Trump or his campaign could have been involved in Russia’s meddling.

“It is imperative that the Special Counsel investigation be allowed to continue to follow the facts on the Trump-Russia scandal, unhindered by the White House or Republicans in Congress,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. “The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia’s interference in our election and the involvement of Trump officials.”

The president ignored shouted questions from reporters as he departed the White House for Florida on Friday afternoon.

But in a statement released by the White House, Trump said “We cannot allow those seeking to sow confusion, discord, and rancor to be successful.”

“It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions,” he said. “We must unite as Americans to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections.”

Video

Former DOJ official: 13 Russian nationals won’t face justice

READ THE INDICTMENT OF RUSSIAN NATIONALS

According to the special counsel, the indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States, three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and five defendants with aggravated identity theft.

The three entities charged in the indictment are Internet Research Agency LLC, Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering.

The 13 Russians charged are: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin; Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov; Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik; Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova; Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva; Sergey Pavlovich Polozov; Maria Anatolyrvna Bovda; Robert Sergetevich Bovda; Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly; Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev; Gleb Igorevich Vasilchenko; Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina and Vladimir Venkov.

The indictment says Internet Research Agency registered with the Russian government as a corporate entity in 2013. It employed hundreds of individuals for its online operations and had an annual budget equaling millions of U.S. dollars, the filing said.

Prosecutors accuse the Russians of communicating with a real U.S. person affiliated with a Texas-based grassroots organization. They learned from that person to focus their activities on “purple states like Colorado, Virginia and Florida,” the indictment says.

It also says the group’s employees – referred to as “specialists” – created social media accounts to look like they were operated by Americans. They created group pages on Facebook and Instagram with names like “Secured Borders,” “Blacktivist” (to promote the Black Lives Matter movement), “United Muslims of America,” “Army of Jesus,” “South United” and “Heart of Texas.”

They also created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts, like one named “Tennessee GOP” under the @TEN_GOP handle that attracted more than 100,000 followers.

According to the indictment, the specialists were instructed to post content online that criticized “Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them).”

It said they used pro-Trump, anti-Clinton hashtags online like “#Trump2016,” “#TrumpTrain,” “#MAGA,” “#IWontProtectHillary,” and “Hillary4Prison.”

It says the defendants, around the latter half of 2016, encouraged minority groups in the United States not to vote in the election or vote for a third party candidate. An Instagram account they controlled called “Woke Blacks” posted a message on Oct. 16, 2016 that read: “We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.”

The special counsel’s office also said Friday that an American, Richard Pinedo, 28, of Santa Paula, Calif., pleaded guilty Feb. 12 to identity fraud as part of its investigation. A filing from prosecutors said Pinedo sold bank account numbers over the internet.

By Alex Pappas, Judson Berger | Fox News Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.. Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

America watched in horror as 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz murdered 17 students and faculty at his former Florida high school. Predictably, progressives, liberals and leftists began beating the same old “gun control” drums. They have been floating extravagant claims that this was actually the 18th such murderous attack at schools in just the first 6 weeks in 2018. If only Congress would pass a law, these murderous attacks would stop–that is the leftist mantra.

CHALLENGE: Liberals–tell us now; what law could Congress pass to prevent the murderous attacks on children and young adults in America?

Over the past 48 hours this question has been posed hundreds of times on television and radio programs, and not one leftist has been able to articulate a workable piece of legislation that would eliminate these murders, including mass murder rampages in “no gun” zones like schools.

Fact: Around 330 million guns are owned by approximately 110 million Americans. Most citizens that own firearms are never involved in a gun violence incident (0.02%)

Fact: The cities in America with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest gun violence and murder rates.

Fact: Almost all of those who commit murder in America, especially carried out with gun violence, are young men who supported Barack Obama for president.

Fact: Total gun violence last year was 61,500 incidents, resulting in 15,590 deaths, and 31,183 injuries. The greatest part of these were black-on-black criminals, in liberal cities with strict gun control laws.

Fact: Assault weapons ARE UNLAWFUL in America. The AR-15 rifle is not an assault weapon, or even an automatic weapon. Although consumers like it’s quasi-military look–it is just a one-shot at a time rifle.

Look at the last few generations that liberalism in America have created. Children are raised with no allegiance to country–they are taught by Hollywood, Nightly News, Television Shows, Liberal Politicians, Teachers and Professors (collectively, Leftists) that America is evil, created by slave-owners to exploit minorities. Children are taught by Leftists that there is no God. Children are taught by Leftists that they are victims, and are owed something by society. Children are taught by Leftists that they should not work hard or try to excel–that they will be fully rewarded and compensated for merely showing up. Children are taught by Leftists that they are the most important person in the world, and that they should be revered and treated as a celebrity. Children are taught by Leftists that pornography is good, that abortion is good, that drugs are good, that violent video games are good, and that promiscuity and homosexuality are good. Children are taught by Leftists that family, parents, church and service to others are bad.

When I was young, most families owned a gun, and most young men received training in how to use firearms. This training was offered at schools, at scouts, and by local gun enthusiast organizations. There were very few gun violence incidents during that time.

Clearly, gun control laws, or the lack of more of them, are not the answer. What is the answer? If liberals are serious about stopping or even slowing gun violence in America, to curb the greatest volume of gun violence they should begin be keeping guns out of the hands of young urban minority males–the people who actually commit most of the murders. Of course, they protest that this is racial profiling–which only tells us that they aren’t buying their own BS about gun control.

The real answer is to reverse the tide of Leftist propaganda in America. Reverse the anti-God, Anti-Christian, Anti-Family, Anti-American, Anti-Personal Responsibility instruction that the Left has been force-feeding our children, and begin to teach them to be productive, responsible citizens again.

Any takers?

I didn’t think so.

By James Thompson

NOTHING.

First, ask yourself how an American citizen would fare sneaking over the border of France, Spain, Switzerland, Canada or even Mexico. Would you be able to sign up for welfare benefits? Would you be allowed to get a house and just stay there? Could you get work on the side? Would your children be treated for free in their hospitals? Would you ever receive citizenship, or the right to vote–or even a driver’s license? Of course not. That’s not how any other nation in the world handles border-crashers. So what is the impetus for making America an open-borders nation?

One may ask why Democrats are so insistent on continually representing the interests of everyone BUT average working Americans. They are just a little too quick to spend their energy on border-crashers. It is well-known that if they had the power, they would award instant citizenship to everyone within our borders, including those who broke our immigration law to be here.

The children brought into the country unlawfully with those border-crashers are commonly referred to as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients. DACA was a Democratic Party  scheme to keep this class of non-citizen in the country as long as possible (hence, “delayed”), while they worked on convincing the American people that these non-citizens should be allowed to remain, and even gain certain “rights.”

Of course, the main right that interests the Democrats is the right to vote–for Democrats.

Do illegal aliens tend to support Democrats more than they support Republicans? Of course–overwhelmingly. Why? Because Democrats have spoon fed them government benefits, despite the fact that they are not entitled to such benefits–supplied on the backs of taxpaying American workers. They have cultivated the political support of this non-citizen class, promising every benefit of citizenship in return for a promise of political support when the time arrives. As motor-voter and other types of expanded voter registration schemes rise in popularity, it is obvious that it is only a matter of time until every warm body will get a vote before the Democrats are done. All of those beautiful Democrat votes . . .

So what’s in the deal for American citizens? There is no benefit–only the burden of so many of these people collecting benefits from the American taxpayer. A surprisingly small percentage of illegal aliens receive no benefits. Although a number of DACA recipients are productive people, the vast majority are not.

The follow up question is what’s in a DACA deal for the GOP? Again, the GOP can only suffer by adding millions of Democratic Party voters to the voting rolls. There is no upside. So why is the GOP so anxious to make a DACA deal? They have always had a self-destructive need to be “liked.” That’s the only idea that comes to me. Self-destruction.

PUBLIUS

The Democratic National Committee entered the midterm elections year “dead broke,” with a paltry $400,000 in party coffers, according to federal records.

The committee finished 2017 with roughly $6.5 million in available cash and about $6.1 million in debt, according to recently released Federal Election Commission filings. That leaves a balance of just $422,582 to start a year that will culminate in midterm elections, in which Democrats are hoping to recapture a majority in the House.

The DNC’s fundraising challenges have been well known since shortly after the 2016 elections, when President Trump defeated front-running Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The committee has been rocked by turmoil, including the resignation of chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz amid leaked emails some say showed DNC brass “rigged” the primaries so Clinton would defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In addition, the selection in February 2017 of former Obama administration official Tom Perez to replace Wasserman Schultz, over Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, sparked discord about the party continuing to hew to its establishment power base. More recently, the DNC has emerged as a key figure in the Russia collusion investigation, amid revelations it helped fund the so-called “anti-Trump” dossier that apparently led, at least in part, to the start of the probe.

Party officials say the funding figures are not as dire as they may appear, as donors are more likely to give to individual candidates than to monolithic groups like the DNC or its counterpart, the Republican National Committee.

“Democratic candidates across the country are out-hustling and out-organizing Republican incumbents, many of whom have not faced a competitive challenge in a very long time and are struggling to find those old campaign muscles,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Friday, pointing to Republican incumbents trailing their Democratic challengers in fundraising in dozens of House races.

Still, the DNC’s money woes come at critical time, as it tries to retake the House and mount a longshot bid to retake the Senate.

Video

Marie Harf: DNC has to rebuild its image before 2020

The RNC raised $132 million through last year, double the DNC’s $66 million, which along with group’s minimal cash led The Intercept reporter Ryan Grim, among the first to report the story, to tweet that the DNC is “dead  broke.

Democratic Party aides said in response to the new numbers that the DNC’s 2017 haul was more than what the party raised in previous off-election years, including the year ahead of the 2006 midterms, when Democrats regained control of Congress and years when former President Barack Obama helped raise money.

By Joseph Weber | Fox News The Associated Press contributed to this story.

President Trump said the recently released memo alleging intelligence abuse during the FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign “totally vindicates” him.

Among his first statements following Friday’s release of the now-declassified memo by Republicans in control of the House Intelligence Committee, Trump suggested Saturday the revelations in the document prove the ongoing probe is a “witch hunt.”

“This memo totally vindicates ‘Trump’ in probe,” Trump tweeted Saturday. “But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their [sic] was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace!”

The four-page memo, written by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., alleges intelligence abuse by the Department of Justice and the FBI during the 2016 presidential campaign. Particularly, it alleges that the two agencies requested a surveillance warrant using a disputed anti-Trump dossier funded by Democrats.

The memo said former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified to the committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

The memo said it was not disclosed that the dossier was authored by an outspoken Trump critic and former British spy, Christopher Steele.

“What’s going on in this country, I think it is a disgrace,” the president said at the White House after the memo was released. “When you look at that, and you see that, and so many other things what’s going on, a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves, and much worse than that.”

Nunes told Fox News’ Bret Baier on Friday that the release of the memo was out of “an obligation to the American people.”

“I have an obligation to the American people when we see FISA abuse,” Nunes said on “Special Report.” “These are secret courts that exist to target for foreigners, for catching terrorists, for catching people who might be bad actors and the American citizens that are represented before this court have to be protected, and the only place that can protect them is the U.S. Congress when abuses do occur.”

Trump has repeatedly argued that the investigation – which was taken by special counsel Robert Mueller in May – that the probe has found no collusion from his campaign and should be concluded.

Prior to the release of the memo Friday, Trump tweeted: “The top Leadership and Investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans – something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. Rank & File are great people!”

By Joseph Weber | Fox News

Fox News’ Paulina Dedaj contributed to this report.

While a panel of news anchors was discussing President Trump’s attacks of the mainstream media, urging the American public to remain skeptical of the press, Brzezinski proclaimed that Americans may begin to trust Trump over the press.

The MSNBC host recently lamented the influence President Trump has in influencing the American agenda:

“Well, I think the dangerous edges here are that he’s trying to undermine the media, trying to make up his own facts, and it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging…”

Still think that MSM is “real news”? According to MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, it’s their job to control “exactly what people think,” too. Yes, that’s right—one of the most popular anchors at a major mainstream news conglomerate literally just said it’s the media’s job to control exactly what people think.

[pullquote]Mika Brzezinski: “…so much that he could control exactly what people think…and that is our job.”[/pullquote]

And yet, somehow, people keep saying that Trump’s supporters are putting out fake news. They attack Breitbart, they attack Silence is Consent, they attack Info Wars, and they attack our movement.

Can people not see the hypocrisy of the MSM? They literally aren’t even trying to hide it anymore—Mika Brzezinski literally says that it’s “our job,” to “control exactly what people think.”

By Jon Anthony

The Trump White House and Capitol Hill Republicans cranked up the pressure Monday on Democrats to abandon their immediate demands for immigration measures and vote in support of a temporary spending bill to end a government shutdown now in its third day.

“They shut down the government,” White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning. “The pressure is on them.”

President Trump tweeted that Democrats shut down the government to appease the “far left base” and are now “powerless” to change course.

“The Democrats are turning down services and security for citizens in favor of services and security for non-citizens. Not good!” he tweeted.

A critical test vote is now set for early afternoon on a measure to fund the government through Feb. 8. The vote would end a Democratic filibuster that forced the shutdown overnight Friday – and could require nearly a dozen total votes from Democratic members this time around.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced on the floor ahead of the test vote that they’ve reached an agreement — and “will vote today to re-open the government.”

He said this comes with a commitment to negotiate on immigration, and immediately consider such legislation if there’s no agreement by Feb. 8.

Video

Conway: Trump will talk immigration after Dems reopen gov’t

The vote will be the GOP-controlled Senate’s second attempt to break the filibuster, after failing to get the required 60 votes Friday. But whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has the votes remains unclear.

Republicans have a 51-49 member majority in the Senate. The Friday night vote was 50-49.

Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain did not vote because he’s home recovering from cancer. Four other Republican senators — Sens. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina; Rand Paul, of Kentucky; Mike Lee, of Utah; and Jeff Flake, of Arizona — voted against the bill.

The Capitol Visitor Center is empty, as the government shutdown enters its third day.

Flake and Graham were part of a bipartisan group of senators that met Sunday to broker a possible deal in which rank-and-file members would provide the 60 votes, then perhaps help pass the spending bill later this week by a simple 51-vote majority. In exchange, McConnell has vowed to immediately address immigration reform.

“When the Democrat filibuster of the government funding bill ends, the serious, bipartisan negotiations that have been going on for months now to resolve our unfinished business — military spending;  disaster relief;  healthcare; immigration and border security — will continue,” McConnell said Sunday night in announcing the noon vote. “It would be my intention to resolve these issues as quickly as possible … Importantly, when I proceed to the immigration debate, it will have an amendment process that is fair to all sides. But the first step in any of this is re-opening the government and preventing any further delay.”

Graham and Flake are expected to support the spending measure this time. If that holds, and the five Democrats who supported the first bill support this one, an additional six Democrats are needed to break the filibuster. Pressure could be heavy on senators who represent states with large federal workforces – like Virginia’s Tim Kaine and Mark Warner and Maryland’s Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen. Likewise, Democratic senators up for reelection this fall or from swing states could face pressure – like Ohio’s Sherrod Brown or Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey.

Democrats have withheld the votes on a spending bill in an attempt to force Trump and fellow Republicans in Congress to include protections for illegal immigrants brought into the United States as children.

Trump will in early March formally end deportation protections provided to the estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants now protected by former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order.

Trump has said he wants comprehensive immigration reform but that border security, particularly a U.S.-Mexico border wall, should be included in the plan.

Schumer, D-N.Y., argued again Sunday that he offered a compromise immigration plan to Trump to avoid a shutdown, including billions for his must-have wall.

“On Friday in the Oval Office, I made what I thought was a very generous offer to the president, the most generous offer yet,” Schumer said Sunday on the Senate floor. “The president must take yes for an answer. Until he does, it’s the Trump Shutdown.”

Republicans are adamant this is the “Schumer Shutdown.”

While the Democrats’ move appeals to their liberal base, they have faced backlash for forcing the shutdown, considering U.S. military personnel and nearly 1 million other federal employees will be furloughed and not receive pay until the government reopens.

Flake, who was part of the weekend bipartisan negotiations, later said, “We have a commitment to move to immigration,” but sounded uncertain about whether McConnell would have the votes. He also said the bipartisan group would meet again Monday before the vote.

Five Democratic senators voted Friday to end the filibuster: Sens. Doug Jones, of Alabama; John Donnelly, of Indiana; Heidi Heitkamp, of North Dakota; Joe Manchin, of West Virginia; and Claire McCaskill, of Missouri. They all face 2018 reelection in states that Trump won in 2016.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Singer Moby claimed his friends in the CIA asked him to spread the word that President Trump has ties to Russia because he has a larger social media following than the government agency.

Moby, whose birth name is Richard Melville Hall, told Kentucky radio station WFPK in an interview this week that he has friends in the CIA who asked him for his help.

The subject came up after the host, Kyle Meredith, asked the electronic singer about his cryptic Facebook post he wrote in 2017. The post stated that after he spent time with friends who “work in D.C.” he could “accurately post” that the Fusion GPS Dossier was “100% real. He’s being blackmailed by the Russian government.” The post also claimed Trump has colluded “with the Russian government, and has been since day one,” wants to go to war and there are “right-wing plans to get rid of Trump.”

Moby said he wrote the post because his “friends” he claimed are “active and former CIA agents” asked him to “pass on some information.”

“They were like, ‘This is the Manchurian Candidate, like [Putin] has a Russian agent as the President of the United States,’” he told Meredith. “So they passed on some information to me and they said, like, ‘Look, you have more of a social media following than any of us do, can you please post some of these things just in a way that sort of put it out there.’”

Moby concluded by saying he did not know if “there was collusion” but “where there is smoke there is fire.”

Meredith and Moby spoke more about politics before ending the interview asking the singer who he would like to see run for president next.

Moby said his dream candidate would be former first lady Michelle Obama.

Trump and the Kremlin have repeatedly denied allegations that Russia and the Trump campaign colluded in the 2016 presidential election. A special counsel, led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been appointed to investigate the potential wrongdoing.

Fox News’ Kaitlyn Schallhorn contributed to this report.

Republican Joe Arpaio, a close ally of President Trump and former sheriff known for his provocative approach to combatting illegal immigration, is running for Senate in Arizona.

The 85-year-old Arpaio could shake up the late August Republican primary in a critical open-seat race to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Trump pardoned Arpaio last summer, sparing the former sheriff jail time after he was convicted of ignoring a federal court order in a racial-profiling case.

The polarizing yet iconic former Maricopa County sheriff, beloved by many conservatives for his hawkish immigration policies, presents an alternative to the unimpressive Kelli Ward and a potential obstacle to Rep. Martha McSally. She is expected to launch within days and is widely viewed as the Republicans’ strongest general election candidate.

In a telephone interview with the Washington Examiner, Arpaio shrugged off concerns about his age, dismissed Republican insiders’ anxiety that his poor reputation with nonwhite voters would put the seat in play for the Democrats in the midterm, and discussed plans to work with Trump on behalf of Arizona.

“I have a lot to offer. I’m a big supporter of President Trump,” Arpaio said. “I’m going to have to work hard; you don’t take anything for granted. But I would not being doing this if I thought that I could not win. I’m not here to get my name in the paper, I get that everyday, anyway.”

Arpaio served as the elected sheriff of Maricopa County, which encompasses Phoenix and surrounding suburbs, for 24 years until a Democrat ousted him in 2016.

Through strict opposition to illegal immigration and unorthodox policing methods, Arpaio cultivated a national image as a tough, law-and-order cop. That made him a favorite of conservative media and popular on the GOP endorsement circuit as Republicans throughout the country sought to bolster their border security bona fides in primaries.

Arpaio’s sharp rhetoric and law enforcement practices also drew intense criticism. Democrats, some Republicans, and advocates for immigrants — both legal and illegal — accused him of unconstitutional racial profiling and even bigotry. Arpaio said he expects more of the same in his Senate campaign, but vowed not to alter his approach.

“My mother and father came here from Italy, legally of course. I have a soft spot for the Mexican community having lived there,” he said. “I’m not going to get into my personal life, but I will say we have four grandkids and some have a different ethnic and racial background. I don’t say that. I don’t use my grandkids. So, I have a soft spot, but still, I’m going to do my job. You have to do it.”

“Being a U.S. senator is a little different than being the sheriff, because you can do a lot of things in the U.S. Senate, and I have many plans, believe me. It’s tough. It’s a tough decision. But, if you’re going to come across that border, you should be arrested and get the consequences of it,” Arpaio added.

Trump won Arizona in 2016 by just 4.1 percentage points. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was rising in the state until the final 10 days of the presidential campaign, when the FBI revealed that it was taking a fresh look into her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state and halted her momentum.

Trump’s job approval numbers with nonwhites and suburbanites since have been poor. That’s potentially significant in Arizona, where both voting blocs can be influential.

To be sure, Arpaio’s reputation and close affiliation with Trump is virtually guaranteed to rev up a conservative base that had pushed the pragmatic Flake into retirement because of his feud with the president. That could work in his favor in a midterm, elections in which Republican turnout has tended to dominate. But in an election shaping up as challenging for the GOP, Arpaio’s candidacy could make nervous a party defending a 51-49 Senate majority.

Even if Arpaio loses the primary to McSally, he would have had seven months to push her to the right and define GOP messaging on a host of issues — and not just in Arizona. Trump is sure to promote Arpaio’s campaign, and Republican primary candidates all over the country might follow his lead.

Arpaio said he relishes the fight, whether from the Left or from supporters of McSally on the Right.

“I am outspoken. I’m looking forward to it. Let them come. They’ll have their political firing squads and bring tons of money here, because they don’t want to lose,” he said. “I just want to do everything I can to support our president.”

Arpaio said he expects Democrats to make an issue of the pardon. It was granted on Aug. 25, his wife’s 86th birthday. Arpaio noted that fact, and that he shares a birthday with Trump — June 14 — with a sense of satisfaction, as he did the periodic calls from the president to check in on his wife’s health.

The former sheriff said he has not personally discussed his Senate bid with Trump and emphasized that he didn’t ask for the pardon nor did he know that it was coming. But Arpaio did not apologize for it, calling his conviction part of a political witch hunt by former President Barack Obama and his first attorney general, Eric Holder.

Unprompted, Arpaio added that Flake, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., with whom he said he has a “love-hate” relationship, opposed the pardon.

“This started under Obama and Holder 60 days after they took office and it took them all these years to get me on a contempt of court charge, a misdemeanor. You get the same time for barking dogs,” he said.

Arpaio was vague on his policy agenda beyond immigration enforcement. That’s not unusual. Candidates, especially at the beginning of a campaign, tend to try and keep their message focused on a few bullet points and maintain flexibility by not putting down too many markers.

Arpaio’s main offer to Arizonans: He would support Trump unflinchingly, should he win the nomination and defeat the likely Democratic nominee, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. That’s not insignificant. Both Flake and McCain have a contentious relationship with the president, and he with them.

To that end, Arpaio suggested he could support some form of legalization of participants in the since discontinued Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program that protected illegal immigrants brought in as children from deportation. Of course, in typical fashion, Arpaio offered his own view of what should be done.

“I have a far-out plan, which may look stupid,” he said. “When they come to your attention that they’re here illegally, these young people, deport them back to Mexico — or whatever — and then try to put them on a fast track to come back into the United States legally with special permits. What’s wrong with that? They’d say they don’t know where their home country is, so let them go there and spend six months, because it might take that long to do paperwork to get them here legally and let them see their home country and see what it’s really like. They ought to be proud where they came from. I’m proud being an Italian American. I’m proud of Italy. I’m proud my father, mother came over, proud of it. So, you could kill two birds with one stone.”

“That would be no amnesty, everybody would be happy, you deport them and then let them come back with all their education here. I’m sure they could find a temporary job or help the foreign countries and build up relations and come back. That’s just a big picture that I have. People may say I’m crazy. What am I crazy about? It just makes sense.”

The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.

FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in the coming weeks.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.

The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.

One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.

The witness discussed his interview solely on the grounds of anonymity. He said the agents were from Little Rock and their questions focused on government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary Clinton led President Obama’s State Department.

The FBI office in Little Rock referred a reporter Thursday to Washington headquarters, where officials declined any official comment.

The Wall Street Journal reported late last year that several FBI field offices, including the one in Little Rock, had been collecting information on the Clinton Foundation for more than a year. The report also said there had been pushback to the FBI from the Justice Department.

A renewed law enforcement focus follows a promise to Congress late last year from top Trump Justice Department officials that law enforcement would revisit some of the investigations and legal issues closed during the Obama years that conservatives felt were given short shrift. It also follows months of relentless criticism on Twitter from President Trump, who has repeatedly questioned why no criminal charges were ever filed against the “crooked” Clintons and their fundraising machine.

For years, news media from The New York Times to The Daily Caller have reported countless stories on donations to the Clinton Foundation or speech fees that closely fell around the time of favorable decisions by Clinton’s State Department. Conservative author Peter Schweizer chronicled the most famous of episodes in his book “Clinton Cash” that gave ammunition to conservatives, including Trump, to beat the drum for a renewed investigation.

Several GOP members of Congress have recently urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel to look at the myriad issues surrounding the Clintons. Justice officials sent a letter to Congress in November suggesting some of those issues were being re-examined, but Sessions later testified the appointment of a special prosecutor required a high legal bar that had not yet been met.