The centrist group No Labels is trying to reach out and speak with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — who this week ended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination — about a possible role in a potential third-party, bipartisan presidential ticket.

Sources in Christie’s political orbit confirmed to Fox News there has been outreach by No Labels but that the organization has not had any actual conversations with the former governor since he suspended his presidential campaign on Wednesday. 

Christie campaign manager Maria Comella on Thursday said that ‘neither the governor nor anyone on the campaign has had conversations with No Labels.’

Former Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee and a No Labels founding co-chair, said in a radio interview after Christie ended his White House bid that Christie ‘could be a very strong candidate’ on the group’s proposed unity ticket.’

Christie, a longtime ally turned vocal GOP critic of former President Donald Trump, in June launched a second bid for the Republican nomination.

Asked in an interview in July if he’d consider joining a possible No Labels ticket, Christie shot down the idea, saying, ‘I think it’s a fool’s errand.’

‘I’m not in this for showtime. I’m not in this for making a point. I’m in this to get elected President of the United States, and there are only two people who will get elected President of the United States: the Republican nominee for president and the Democratic nominee for president,’ Christie said at the time in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s ‘This Week.’ 

Lieberman, in a Sirius XM interview with Michael Smerconish, said Thursday that when Christie made his comments last summer ‘he basically said it was not an effort that had any chance of succeeding, but maybe the world will look different to him now.’

‘I’d like to reach out to him and see if he, Gov. Christie, is at all interested in being on a bipartisan No Labels Unity ticket this year. He could be a very strong candidate,’ Lieberman added. 

Lieberman called Christie ‘refreshingly independent’ and said he ‘might well be’ No Labels ‘material,’ adding that ‘that’s the kind of candidate No Labels is looking for.’

No Labels has said it will pull the trigger on whether to launch a presidential ticket in March, following Super Tuesday, when a slew of states hold nominating contests.

Trump is the commanding front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, and plenty of political pundits argue that any third-party ticket fielded by No Labels would only benefit Trump in a likely rematch this November with President Biden.

There’s also been a chorus of calls from Democrats warning that a No Labels ticket would pave a path to victory for Trump in next year’s election.

No Labels takes issue with that criticism, and has repeatedly pushed back on such notions.

‘That’s not our goal here,’ Lieberman told Fox News Digital last year. ‘We’re not about electing either President Trump or President Biden.’

Sources in Christie’s political orbit sounded skeptical when asked about the former governor joining any No Labels ticket. And they pointed to Christie’s comments on Wednesday as he dropped out of the race.

‘I want to promise you this — I am going to make sure that in no way do I enable Donald Trump to ever be President of the United States again. And that’s more important than my own personal ambitions,’ Christie emphasized as he suspended his campaign.

‘Even though I am suspending this campaign, I am not going away, and my voice is not going away,’ he added.

Referring to Trump, Christie stressed, ‘I am not going to be a part of a generation who willingly stands by and says, ‘It’s too hard. He’s too loud, he’s too strong.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson met with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to discuss what kind of role Congress has to play in legislating on artificial intelligence.

‘It was a very good meeting,’ Johnson told reporters afterward. ‘We talked about where we are with regard to the approach of Congress to AI.’

He said they had a ‘very thoughtful discussion’ about how the Senate and House can forge a bipartisan path forward.

‘There’s unlimited potential [in] AI, but we also all agree, and Sam agrees, that there are some dangers as well. And so there’s a role that Congress needs to play in figuring all that out, and we’re in the process of doing that,’ Johnson said. 

Altman would not go into specifics about what they discussed when asked by Fox News Digital.

‘I’m grateful for how much he cares about the issue and excited to see what the legislative process will do,’ he said of the meeting.

‘It was a sort of pretty high level meeting, just about trying to balance this sort of tremendous upside and figure out how to mitigate the risk but make sure that the U.S. does really great here,’ Altman added.

Johnson did not answer a shouted question from Fox News Digital on Friday morning about whether he had any follow-up plans on AI after the meeting.

The meeting came a day after the top Republican and top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee announced a bipartisan working group to look at the impact of AI on the finance industry.

‘The rapid advance of artificial intelligence technology holds immense promise to transform society and our economy for the better, but it also comes with risks,’ Chairman Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., said. ‘The Working Group will explore this technology’s potential, specifically its adoption in our financial system. It will also find ways to leverage artificial intelligence to foster a more inclusive financial system, while establishing the U.S. as the world leader in AI development and terms of use.’

Ranking member Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said the group would ‘investigate the ways in which this technology may embed historic inequities in the financial services and housing markets through the use of data that reflect underlying bias or discrimination.’

FIRST ON FOX: Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell told the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committees on Friday that if a new subpoena is issued under the ‘duly authorized impeachment inquiry,’ the first son ‘will comply for a hearing or deposition.’ 

The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees this week formally recommended to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress, after he defied congressional subpoenas for a closed-door deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden. 

But Lowell penned a letter to the committees on Friday, saying the initial subpoenas were ‘legally invalid’ as they were issued before the full House of Representatives voted to formalize the impeachment inquiry against the president. 

‘If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a hearing or deposition,’ Lowell wrote. ‘We will accept such a subpoena on Mr. Biden’s behalf.’ 

Lowell’s offer comes ahead of a House Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday, where lawmakers will prepare a contempt of Congress resolution. Once prepared, it will set up a full floor vote on whether to recommend the first son for prosecution on the matter. 

Sources told Fox News Digital a full House vote on the matter could come as early as Wednesday. 

Lowell, in a footnote, states that ‘Rep. Glenn Ivey suggested a procedure for a hybrid process-a public deposition; hearing with alternating rounds of questions for Republicans and Democrats, and with similar rules (e.g., role of counsel in questioning), as is done in a closed-door deposition.’ 

‘Four Republicans actually voted in committee in support of this process,’ the footnote states. ‘Perhaps that could be the basis for our discussion.’ 

Reacting to Lowell’s offer, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said Hunter Biden ‘is giving Republicans exactly what they have been demanding this week.’ 

‘It is time for Chairs Comer and Jordan to call off this truly absurd and wasteful contempt proceeding and finally take yes for an answer, which Chair Jordan already said he would ‘certainly’ do,’ Raskin said.  

Hunter Biden made a surprise appearance at the House Oversight Committee markup with his attorneys Abbe Lowell and Kevin Morris. Biden and his attorneys ultimately left the markup session before the vote on the resolution. 

Hunter Biden, ahead of his subpoenaed deposition on Dec. 13, had offered to testify publicly. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, rejected his request, stressing that the first son would not have special treatment and pointed to the dozens of other witnesses who have appeared, as compelled, for their interviews and depositions. Comer and Jordan vowed to release the transcript of Hunter Biden’s deposition.

The first son, though, defied the subpoena, ignored the offer and delivered a public statement outside the Capitol. At the time, he said his father ‘was not financially involved in my business.’ 

Comer said Wednesday that Hunter Biden ‘blantantly defied two lawful subpoenas.’ 

‘Hunter Biden’s willful refusal to comply with the committees’ subpoenas is a criminal act’ that ‘constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution as prescribed by law,’ he said.

‘We will not provide Hunter Biden with special treatment because of his last name,’ Comer said. ‘All Americans must be treated equally under the law. And that includes the Bidens.’ 

Lowell’s offer also comes after Hunter Biden on Thursday pleaded not guilty to all federal tax charges stemming from Special Counsel David Weiss’s investigation. Hunter Biden also pleaded not guilty in September to all federal gun charges from Weiss’ probe. 

Meanwhile, the White House refused to answer questions on whether it was told in advance that Hunter Biden would attend the House Oversight’s markup session on Wednesday. 

‘So here’s what I’ll say. And I’ve said this many times before: Hunter, as you all know, as a private citizen, he’s not a member of this White House,’ White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. ‘He makes his own decisions, like he did today about how to respond to Congress.’

She went on to refer ‘any further questions, any additional questions about this process’ to Hunter Biden’s attorneys.

When pressed again on whether the White House was informed in advance, Jean-Pierre said, ‘I don’t have anything — we don’t have anything else to share beyond that.’

Last month, Comer and Jordan expanded their investigation to probe whether President Biden was involved in his son’s ‘scheme’ to defy his subpoena for deposition, which, they say, ‘could constitute an impeachable offense.’ 

Some of my earliest memories of politics revolve around the New Hampshire primary contests leading up to the 2008 U.S. presidential election. I was a high school student at Hanover High School in Hanover, New Hampshire, eager to make my voice heard and cast my first ballot as a newly minted 18-year-old in November 2008. I knew I should be prepared and well-informed. It was my duty, and part of the New Hampshire cultural fabric (as it remains today).  

So, I made it a point to listen to all candidates’ platforms – both those I agreed with, as well as those I did not agree with – during the primary race, even though I knew I couldn’t vote until November given my age.  

I attended town halls, listened to advertisements and witnessed speeches that had audiences ranging from dozens to hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of people. Interestingly, I recall healthcare being a top priority for many campaigns, a policy area that had impacted (mostly negatively) Americans from all backgrounds. That always stuck with me. 

Everyone promised to fix the issue. Affordable, high quality healthcare for all Americans was the universal goal, with each candidate varying in the specifics on how to achieve it.  

Fast-forward over 15 years, and healthcare is still not ‘fixed’ despite continued promises and even highly touted laws being passed, such as the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, over a decade ago. While some may argue we’ve made some progress, it’s not been nearly sufficient.  

Costs continue to skyrocket, clinical outcomes are often inconsistent, prescription drug prices remain astronomically high for many and access remains uneven across countless demographics.  

Pair those factors with historical inflation and a mass exodus of healthcare professionals who are burnt out in the setting of increasing bureaucratic barriers to care and decreasing reimbursement, and it’s no surprise that healthcare remains a major concern of voters in New Hampshire and nationwide. In fact, eight in 10 voters say the affordability of healthcare is ‘very important’ for candidates to discuss on the campaign trail. 

Leading Republican candidates are starting to appreciate the importance of healthcare to voters, as well as President Joe Biden. 

At the end of November, former president Donald Trump announced he was ‘seriously looking at alternatives’ to the ACA if elected to a second term, though specifics have yet to be announced. The former president does have some healthcare wins to his credit while in The White House.  

Those include leading bipartisan initiatives on healthcare price transparency, which is supported by nine in 10 Americans and has been continued under the Biden administration, and initiatives like ‘Patients Over Paperwork,’ launched by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma. He also moved ‘right to try’ policy forward to allow Americans who are sadly terminally ill seek access to investigational medications.  

But it is not just Trump who has begun to take on healthcare as the race for the Republican nomination for the 2024 U.S. presidential election heats up. Former UN ambassador and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who also appears lukewarm on the ACA, has highlighted the importance of medical malpractice reform to allow doctors and patients to work collaboratively to improve health, not just focus on ‘defensive medicine’ that drives up costs by encouraging unnecessary care to avoid lawsuits.  

Fast-forward over 15 years, and healthcare is still not ‘fixed’ despite continued promises and even highly touted laws being passed, such as the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, over a decade ago. While some may argue we’ve made some progress, it’s not been nearly sufficient.  

Additionally, her support of health savings accounts and willingness to acknowledge that the next president must tackle the reality that many entitlement programs, including Medicare, are running out of money and need an overhaul demonstrate her understanding that healthcare issues negatively impacting Americans must be addressed. 

And the other remaining Republican candidates? Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently reported his health plan would ‘supersede’ the ACA, though provided no clear details. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy has promoted increasing health insurance options and competition that cover ‘actual health.’  

But it’s not enough. Many of these policy suggestions are superficial soundbites that sound good but lack substance – at least at present. Few details have been provided by any candidate, yet health care remains a central issue of concern for voters. So much so, in fact, that President Biden has recognized its importance and is reportedly focusing a major portion of his re-election campaign on highlighting key health care measures that he would pass if elected to a second term.

The Republican presidential candidates and President Biden should be more forthcoming with tangible ways they will ‘fix’ health care issues negatively impacting Americans. Voters, especially those in early caucus and primary states, must demand more specifics and insights from candidates into the solutions being proposed to address health care challenges faced by our fellow Americans.

JERUSALEM – The Biden administration’s insistence on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians after the terrorist movement Hamas’ massacre of 1,200 people, including over 30 Americans, is facing renewed criticism.

‘I do not think a two-state solution is possible, and, even if possible, it is not advisable. For more than 50 years, hundreds of self-proclaimed ‘peacemakers,’ led by the United States, have attempted to coerce Israel and the Palestinians into a two-state solution,’ former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman told Fox News Digital.

Friedman, who served as the U.S. ambassador under former President Trump said, ‘The efforts repeatedly fail regardless of who’s in charge and the reasons are profound and immutable: 1) the Palestinians are not willing to accept a Jewish State; 2) the likelihood of a Palestinian state becoming a terror state is extremely high, presenting an existential threat to Israel; and 3) the West Bank (referred to by Biblical adherents as Judea and Samaria) is biblical Israel and, absent Israeli control, hundreds of Jewish and Christian holy sites will be destroyed.’

President Biden penned a November 2023 opinion article in the Washington Post, where he called for a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. ‘The Palestinian people deserve a state of their own and a future free from Hamas,’ Biden wrote.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been on a weeklong tour of the region, meeting with Arab and Israeli leaders and repeatedly made the case for a two-state solution.

‘As I told the prime minister, every partner that I met on this trip said that they’re ready to support a lasting solution that ends the long-running cycle of violence and ensures Israel’s security.  But they underscored that this can only come through a regional approach that includes a pathway to a Palestinian state,’ Blinken said at a press conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.

For Israelis, who have experienced multiple wars and waves of Palestinian terrorism since the Arabs rejected a two-state solution in 1947 following the re-birth of the Jewish state, there is less appetite for a peace process with entities who foment terrorism. 

In 1937, the British government’s Peel Commission recommended that the Holy Land be divided between Jews and Arabs; in short, a two-state solution. The Arabs dismissed the proposed partition plan.

In 1947, the Arabs, under the leadership of the pro-Nazi Hajj Amin Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, rejected the U.N. partition plan that outlined two states, one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs.

Twenty years after the Arab world rejected the U.N. partition for a two-state solution, the Arab League met in Khartoum, Sudan, in 1967, where it delivered its ‘Three No’s’—no to peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.

After movement in 1994 with the Oslo peace process agreement between Israel and the Palestinians under the late Palestine Liberation Organization leader, Yasser Arafat, a setback unfolded in 2000.

Arafat flatly rejected a generous peace deal from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to establish a Palestinian state at the start of the new century. 

Following Arafat’s opposition to Barak’s offer, the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) launched a second terrorist campaign, known as the Intifada, against Israel, resulting in the murders of 1,184 Israelis.

Eight years later, in 2008, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed to Arafat’s successor, PLO Chairman and PA President Mahmoud Abbas, a wide-ranging deal to recognize a Palestinian state. Abbas dismissed the offer. 

The Biden administration sees the PA and its Fatah Party as the peace partner for Israel, with a view toward bringing about a unified Palestinian state covering the West Bank and Gaza.

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the Palestinian Authority, which oversees parts of the West Bank, and its ruling Fatah Party ‘have yet to condemn the Hamas  [for the] October 7, 2023 mega-terror attack in southern Israel, in which some 1,200 people were killed and about 240 were kidnapped.’

MEMRI located damning statements from senior Fatah officials who aligned themselves with Hamas, a U.S. and EU-designated terrorist organization. 

Jibril Rajoub, secretary of Fatah’s Central Committee and chairman of the Palestinian Soccer Federation, said ‘Hamas is and will remain part of the [Palestinian] national fabric, part of the [Palestinian] struggle and the Palestinian political fabric. This campaign [i.e., the Gaza war] will be a springboard for attaining Palestinian national unity, with one people, one leadership and one goal: the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with complete sovereignty over all the Palestinian territories.’

Rajoub wrote on his Facebook page, according to MEMRI, ‘…What happened on October 7 was not terror but a natural reaction to the Israeli occupation.’

Benny Begin, the veteran Israeli lawmaker, told Fox News Digital that ‘The so-called ‘Two-State Solution’ (TSS) is a political slogan that carries no weight in real life. The jacket lapel of moderate Chairman Mahmoud Abbas tells it all: he carries a miniature key, symbolizing the ‘right’ of seven million (his number) descendants of Arab refugees of the 1948 war of Israel’s birth to return to their original homes within Israel. No Israeli government of whatever makeup can accept it.’

He continued, ‘On the other hand, the peace agreement must include the vital article stating that the agreement marks ‘the end of all mutual claims.’ No Palestinian Arab leader will be able to sign it without full realization of ‘the right to return’ and hope to stay alive. This is beyond them even if they wanted to, and they don’t.’

Begin concluded that, ‘There are other valid arguments that nullify the political applicability of the TSS clickbait, but the above argument should suffice. It was the real reason for the failure of previous attempts by Israeli leaders to reach a TSS agreement, and trying it again is yet another costly exercise in futility.’ 

Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served in the Obama administration, told Fox News Digital, that, ‘The need for a peaceful accommodation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been clearer. Hamas is an enemy of peace and started this brutal war. But what will end it is not just the elimination of Hamas’s military capacity and ability to threaten Israeli civilians, but also a political settlement between Israelis and Palestinians that provides hope for the Palestinian people.’

Rubin, who also served under former President George W. Bush, added that ‘It’s this hope that will deter, along with effective security pressure from Israel, a resurgence of Hamas among the Palestinian people after Israel deems its military mission in Gaza complete.’

A Fox News Digital press query to a spokeswoman for the Palestinian Authority was not immediately returned.

FIRST ON FOX: A group of House Republicans is going directly to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for more information on the decision-making that led to senior officials in the White House and Pentagon reportedly being in the dark for days about Austin’s recent hospitalization.

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., led a group of two dozen GOP lawmakers in writing a letter to Austin with questions about who was part of the decision to delay disclosure, how Austin would respond ‘if one of your combatant commanders was unable to discharge the duties of their office for three or four days and you were not informed’ and who was in the loop about his situation from the beginning, among other details.

‘First and foremost, we wish you a speedy recovery and are sorry to hear about your recent cancer diagnosis. We are glad to hear that you are now recuperating and have been moved out of the ICU,’ reads the letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital.

‘However, we are gravely concerned about the lack of transparency from the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding your recent hospitalization, which included a four-day stint in the intensive care unit,’ it continues.

‘According to reports, congressional leadership, the Deputy Defense Secretary, the President, the National Security Advisor, and other members of the National Security Council were not informed about your hospitalization until three days after your hospital admission. Given your critical role in protecting our nation as Secretary of Defense, it is deeply concerning that you kept your extended hospital stay a secret from the President and other senior national security officials.’

It comes as pressure mounts on the Pentagon over Austin’s hospitalization and cancer diagnosis, and how they were disclosed. The Defense Department’s inspector general said Thursday they’re looking into the matter.

The Pentagon publicly revealed on Jan. 5 that Austin had been in the hospital since Jan. 1 due to complications from elective surgery. But a Politico report later revealed that not only was the media kept in the dark, the highest levels of the White House and top officials in the Pentagon itself were not aware until Jan. 4 that Austin was in the hospital.

The non-disclosure prompted a flurry of bipartisan concern, with top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services committees calling for more transparency about the incident.

Austin’s doctors announced on Tuesday that he had been treated for prostate cancer. On the same day, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said, ‘Nobody at the White House knew that Secretary Austin had prostate cancer until this morning.’

Meanwhile, Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers, R-Ala., led a letter to Austin on Wednesday, similarly pushing him to give Congress more answers.

‘With conflicts around the world, it is preposterous that you and others in the Department allowed this to occur. This level of confusion surrounding not only your whereabouts, but your capacity to lead the Department has shaken what little confidence existed in any previous commitment to transparency,’ the letter reads.