For the second time, Donald Trump's sentencing has been postponed, pushing it back to Nov. 26, just after the U.S. presidential election.
The delay has sparked mixed reactions, with some praising the effort to avoid election interference, while others express concerns about the timing and its potential impact on the judicial process, as Newsweek reports.
In May, Trump was convicted by a jury on 34 felony counts tied to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. His sentencing was initially scheduled for July 11 but was later moved to Sept. 18. On Friday, Judge Juan Merchan issued a second delay, citing concerns about the appearance of political interference with the presidential race.
Merchan explained that his decision to move the sentencing to after the election aimed to avoid any potential concerns that the case could influence or be influenced by the upcoming election. The sentencing is now set for Nov. 26. This is the second delay in this case, further complicating the intersection of Trump's legal battles and his presidential campaign.
Not everyone agrees with Merchan's reasoning. Norman Eisen, a legal analyst for CNN, has criticized the delay as a politically motivated decision. He suggested that Trump has been receiving special treatment and referenced another judge, Tanya Chutkan, overseeing a federal election obstruction case involving Trump, who declared that election timing should not interfere with legal proceedings.
On the other hand, Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, believes the delay will make it easier to sentence Trump if he is no longer an active candidate for office. He stated that it would be simpler for Judge Merchan to hand down a decision once Trump is out of the political spotlight.
Andrew Weissmann, a legal expert with MSNBC, highlighted the potential legal pitfalls of the postponement. He noted that by delaying the sentencing, the Supreme Court is kept from intervening before the election. Weissmann indicated that while some see this delay as a win for Trump, the decision could pose problems for him as the guilty verdict remains in place without being affected by the election process.
Weissmann also emphasized that the verdict, which stems from Trump's conviction on falsifying business records related to the hush money payment, is still very much alive despite the delay.
Trump's legal team is set to argue a motion seeking the dismissal of the verdict based on presidential immunity. This defense strategy was bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July, which Trump's lawyers claim provides him immunity due to his status as a former president.
Trump reacted publicly to Judge Merchan's decision, expressing his disapproval of the entire matter on Truth Social, calling the case a "witch hunt" and a "political attack." Trump reiterated his belief that the charges were motivated by his political opponents and designed to interfere with his 2024 campaign. He also expressed appreciation for Merchan's use of the phrase "if necessary" in the decision about the new sentencing date, implying that Trump hopes the case could be dismissed entirely before the need for sentencing arises.
Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance noted that if Merchan had not delayed the sentencing, another court likely would have done so. Vance argued that forcing Trump to appear in court just before Thanksgiving would prevent further delays, ensuring that no additional arguments for postponement could be raised. Meanwhile, MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang attributed much of the delay to the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. Phang has been critical of the ruling, linking it to the broader impact on the case timeline and the broader implications of future Supreme Court appointments, which could be influenced by the results of the 2024 election.
As the November 2024 sentencing date looms, debate continues over whether delaying the process is a strategic advantage for Trump or a hurdle he will have to overcome later. Critics of the delay, such as Norman Eisen, maintain that no one should receive special treatment in the legal system, regardless of their political status.
Ultimately, the postponement has raised questions about the intersection of politics and the legal system in high-profile cases like this one. As Trump continues his campaign for the 2024 presidency, his legal battles remain a key factor in shaping public opinion.
Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance has left the door open to the possibility of reintroducing family separations if he and former president Donald Trump win the 2024 election.
Vance’s refusal to rule out the controversial policy has brought the issue of family separations back into the political spotlight as immigration remains a key focus of the Trump campaign, as NBC News reports.
On Friday, Vance compared family separations resulting from immigration policies to those that happen when criminals are arrested for violent crimes. “Every time that somebody’s arrested for a crime, that’s family separation,” he said. Vance defended the practice by arguing that enforcing the law sometimes leads to these unfortunate situations, but it is necessary to maintain order at the border.
Trump has similarly defended the family separation policy in past remarks. During a 2023 town hall, he acknowledged that the policy was harsh but said it was effective in deterring illegal immigration. “When you have that policy, people don’t come,” Trump stated.
In a recent interview, Trump emphasized plans for mass deportations, indicating that family separations might still be part of his strategy. While he acknowledged the difficulties the policy creates for families, he expressed a focus on ensuring the deportation of those he described as criminals. “Provisions will be made, but we have to get the criminals out,” he said.
The zero-tolerance policy, which led to the separation of over 5,000 families in 2018, was widely condemned by both domestic and international groups. Many families affected by the policy have not been reunified, with a recent Department of Homeland Security report indicating that 1,360 children are still separated from their families.
Homeland Security officials are continuing efforts to reunite children with their families years after the policy was ended. These efforts have been slow, in part due to the lack of adequate records kept by the Trump administration regarding the families affected by the separations. The impact of these separations continues to reverberate, with many children still suffering the emotional and psychological effects, according to opponents.
Advocacy groups have been working to raise awareness of the issue, launching social media campaigns to highlight the stories of those who were separated. One teen named Billy shared his experience of being separated from his father and left without information about his family for 30 days. His hope, he said, is that no one else will have to go through what he did.
Another teen, who remains unnamed, described being moved to New York while maintaining limited contact with his family before being reunited. These personal stories have fueled a renewed push among some to end family separations permanently.
Vice President Kamala Harris has voiced strong opposition to the possibility of reinstating the family separation policy. Harris, who has consistently opposed what she says are punitive immigration measures, is planning to reintroduce a bipartisan border security bill aimed at addressing the border crisis without separating families. She described the previous policy as both inhumane and ineffective in providing a long-term solution to border security.
The debate over immigration continues to be a divisive issue in American politics. While the Trump campaign has focused on cracking down on illegal immigration, critics argue that policies like family separation have lasting consequences for the children and families involved. These effects, they say, are difficult to justify in a system that often lacks transparency and accountability.
For now, Vance's comments have sparked a renewed discussion about what border security will look like under a possible second Trump administration. With immigration remaining a hot-button issue, the potential for returning to harsh policies like family separation is likely to remain a central focus in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
As the 2024 election approaches, Vance and Trump are continuing to promote their vision for border security, while the Biden administration and immigration advocates work to address what Democrats say is the damage done by the family separation policy of 2018.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to deny the Biden administration’s request on Title IX rules may alter the political landscape ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
The ruling prevents the enforcement of new Title IX regulations across 26 states, and legal experts suggest that the outcome could end up benefitting Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, as Newsweek reports.
In August, the Supreme Court ruled against the administration's effort to lift a ban on newly revised Title IX guidelines, which include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. This decision is especially significant as it occurred during the Court’s traditional recess, a period when such rulings are unusual.
Title IX, enacted in 1972, is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. President Biden’s administration expanded these protections in August 2024 to explicitly include gender identity and sexual orientation. However, a coalition of 26 states challenged the changes, delaying their implementation.
The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 ruling, found the administration’s arguments insufficient to overturn lower court decisions that had paused the enforcement of the updated Title IX regulations in those 26 states. These states are led by Republican attorneys general who argue the changes go too far and infringe on state rights. Legal battles in lower courts over the new rules are ongoing.
Michael Popok, an attorney and legal commentator, called the decision a "gift" to Kamala Harris’ campaign. The ruling could galvanize Harris’ support from progressive voters and LGBTQ+ advocates by drawing attention to her alignment with policies that protect gender and reproductive rights. Harris has frequently emphasized these issues, particularly in response to Donald Trump’s positions on abortion and women's rights.
The Supreme Court’s ruling follows its landmark 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which ignited a nationwide debate over reproductive rights. This adds another layer of complexity to the current legal and political environment, which many view as heavily scrutinized by the courts. For the Harris campaign, the ruling strengthens the argument that the future of gender rights, reproductive rights, and educational protections are at stake in the 2024 election.
In contrast, Republican-led states continue to argue that the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX violate states' rights and impose federal overreach. While these lawsuits continue to wind through the courts, the ruling leaves the Department of Education grappling with uneven enforcement across the country.
A spokesperson for the Department of Education expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling but reaffirmed the department’s commitment to defending the new Title IX regulations. The spokesperson noted that schools in 24 states unaffected by the injunction must still comply with the new guidelines.
Legal challenges to the revised Title IX rules are ongoing, with courts expected to review the issue in the coming months. The Department of Education continues to support the changes, which were introduced in April 2024, maintaining that they provide critical protections against discrimination.
The ongoing legal battles could keep Title IX at the center of political debates throughout the 2024 election cycle. As more appeals and court rulings unfold, both sides are likely to continue using the issue to mobilize their respective voter bases.
With the Supreme Court's decision, the stakes in the 2024 election appear to be rising.
Whether the legal outcome favors the administration's Title IX changes or supports the Republican states' resistance, the ruling may prove pivotal for shaping public opinion on these critical social issues.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was seen with her former colleague and paramour, Nathan Wade, during her daughter’s arrest after a routine traffic stop.
Despite previous claims that their relationship had ended, Willis and Wade appeared together at the scene of the traffic incident, raising questions about their ongoing connection, as the Western Journal reports.
Willis’ daughter, Kinaya Willis, was pulled over by police in Tyrone, Georgia, on Aug. 24 for allegedly using her phone while driving. Bodycam footage from the scene reveals that Fani Willis arrived at the stop accompanied by Wade, sparking interest due to their past relationship and professional ties.
Kinaya Willis was stopped for using her phone while driving, which she said happened because she received call from her mother. During the interaction, an officer asked if the two adults were Kinaya’s parents, to which Willis responded that Wade was “just a friend.” The officer then informed Willis that Kinaya’s license had been revoked earlier in the year.
The revocation of Kinaya’s license, which took place in May, was unknown to both Kinaya and her mother, according to their statements. Willis expressed surprise upon learning this from the officer, saying it was “news to me.”
Wade left the scene in the same car in which he had arrived with Willis, while Willis drove away in her daughter’s car. The situation has since drawn attention not only for its personal implications but also for the potential legal consequences.
Nathan Wade’s presence during the arrest raised eyebrows because of his prior involvement in high-profile legal cases led by Fani Willis. Wade had previously been appointed as a special prosecutor by Willis in the case against former President Donald Trump, who is accused of election interference in Georgia.
However, Wade stepped down from his role earlier this year after allegations surfaced regarding his romantic relationship with Willis. The two were reportedly no longer involved, but the footage from Kinaya’s traffic stop suggests a continued personal connection.
Wade’s proximity to the case involving Trump and his presence during the family incident with Willis raises questions about the impartiality of the legal process. Former President Trump’s legal team has been critical of Willis’ handling of the election case, and this incident may provide further grounds for their opposition.
Kinaya Willis now faces legal trouble of her own due to her revoked license and the traffic violation. She is expected to appear in Tyrone Municipal Court on Oct. 24 to answer the charges against her.
As for Fani Willis, her involvement in the case against Trump remains a key issue in Georgia’s legal landscape. The presence of Wade during her daughter’s arrest complicates the narrative, especially given Wade’s prior involvement as a special prosecutor in the same case. The bodycam footage showing Willis and Wade together may fuel further scrutiny from those who are critical of Willis’ conduct in both her personal and professional life. The footage comes at a time when Willis is in the national spotlight due to the high-profile nature of the Trump case.
Fani Willis was present during her daughter Kinaya’s arrest for driving with a revoked license, accompanied by Nathan Wade. Wade had previously stepped down from his role as a special prosecutor in the Trump case due to his alleged affair with Willis.
The situation brings new attention to their relationship and raises questions about ongoing legal matters. Kinaya will face a court appearance on Oct. 24, and the bodycam footage has drawn both personal and political interest. With Willis’ role in the Trump case continuing to develop, this incident may further complicate the public’s perception of her professional and personal life.
President Joe Biden reportedly intervened in 2021 after reports surfaced of turmoil within Vice President Kamala Harris’s office, warning her staff to either support Harris or risk being fired.
In response to staff turnover and dysfunction, Biden emphasized the need for loyalty, leading to an eventual uptick in office stability and staff endorsements for her presidential bid, as The Independent explains.
The reports of internal strife in Harris’s office surfaced in mid-2021, during her first year in office. The vice president’s team experienced a high level of turnover, with more than 90% of her original staff departing by 2024. According to sources, frustrations over Harris’s leadership style, described as overly prosecutorial, contributed to the tension. Staffers expressed discomfort with Harris’s detailed questioning of her schedule and briefings.
In the face of these challenges, Biden reportedly stepped in to address the discontent within Harris’s team. According to sources familiar with the situation, he issued a stern warning to her staffers, making it clear that loyalty to Harris was non-negotiable. Those who could not adhere to this standard risked being removed from their positions.
This intervention was aimed at stabilizing the vice president’s office, which was increasingly seen as dysfunctional by both current and former staffers. In interviews with POLITICO in June 2021, several aides painted a picture of a negative working environment. Despite the intervention, tensions continued for some time, and turnover remained high.
By 2024, nearly all of Harris’s original team had departed, though her office had become more stable as she reportedly adapted her leadership approach.
Harris’s leadership style, particularly her tendency to ask pointed and specific questions, was a recurring theme in critiques from her staff. Some described her management as overly demanding, which contributed to the early instability in her office. The vice president’s scrutiny of every detail in her daily schedule and briefings frustrated some staff members, who found the approach exhausting.
However, over time, Harris’s office found a more sustainable path forward. The turnover rate, while still high, eventually began to slow. Harris adjusted her management style, contributing to a more cohesive and stable team environment by 2024.
High turnover in political offices is not unusual, especially in demanding and high-pressure environments. President Biden’s executive branch has seen a turnover rate of approximately 71%, a figure not far from Harris’s office. Comparatively, the turnover rate for former President Donald Trump’s senior-level staff was said to be about 91%, signaling the pressures of top-tier government positions.
In light of the similarities in turnover rates, the working environment in the Trump administration was also described as chaotic by former aides. Several of Trump’s staffers echoed the complaints that surfaced in Harris’s office, noting a similarly negative atmosphere during their time in the White House. As Harris’s office stabilized, it became evident that the vice president had managed to adapt and grow from the challenges that plagued her early tenure.
By the time the 2024 election season approached, the atmosphere in Harris’s office was said to have shifted notably. Staff turnover had slowed, and the overall working environment was reportedly much improved. Many of the vice president’s former aides expressed renewed confidence in her abilities, especially in light of her potential presidential bid.
A letter from staffers endorsing Harris highlighted her strength and resilience, qualities they said had been apparent even during the most challenging moments of her vice presidency. The former staffers pointed to what they said was her history of tackling tough issues and advocating for marginalized communities as proof of her readiness for higher office. “We have seen her take on bad actors and fight for those who are overlooked and left behind,” the letter stated. “And she has delivered results in every office she has ever held.”
As Harris moves closer to a potential presidential run, efforts to put the turmoil of her early days as vice president seem to have succeeded to a degree. Her office, once plagued by turnover and dysfunction, now claims to be ready to tackle the next challenge.
Federal investigations into top appointees of New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ administration have led to the postponement of his campaign kickoff, raising concerns about his political future.
A planned campaign event for Adams has been postponed after federal agents conducted raids on senior officials in his administration, prompting questions about the impact on his re-election prospects, as Politico reports.
The campaign event, originally set for September 14 at Gracie Mansion, was delayed after federal authorities executed search warrants targeting key figures in Adams’ administration. These include First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright and NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban, both of whom are central to his governance team. The postponement came just days after invitees received an email notification about the change, which cited unspecified reasons for the delay.
This latest development has added to the pressure on Adams, who is already facing multiple federal investigations. Reports from NBC New York revealed two additional probes involving alleged profiteering by individuals connected to the mayor, bringing the total number of federal investigations to four. These allegations threaten to overshadow Adams' reelection campaign and could diminish public confidence in his leadership.
Amid these legal challenges, the mayor’s allies have suggested that the investigations are politically and racially motivated. Bishop Mitchell Taylor, a prominent community leader, argued that Adams is being unfairly targeted because of his race. "This is racially infused," Taylor remarked, questioning whether similar investigations would have been pursued under different circumstances. Taylor emphasized the lack of concrete charges so far, stating, “The public deserves to know what we’re talking about.”
Other prominent voices in New York have echoed these sentiments. Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn and former Gov. David Paterson have both hinted at the possibility of political retribution, with Paterson, in particular, cautioning against prematurely drawing conclusions about the investigations. Still, as Paterson noted in a WABC radio interview, political motives cannot be ruled out, given the high stakes for Adams in his battle to retain office.
Adding to this speculation, some have linked Adams' recent criticism of President Joe Biden’s handling of the migrant crisis to potential political payback from the federal government. Adams has been outspoken about the strain of Biden’s migrant policy on New York City, leading to tensions between City Hall and the White House.
Despite Adams' efforts to downplay the federal probes, his political opponents are seizing the moment to challenge his leadership. Comptroller Brad Lander and other mayoral contenders have raised concerns about the mayor’s ability to focus on the city’s pressing issues while under federal scrutiny. In a post on X, Lander emphasized the need for “steady leadership,” a sentiment echoed by progressive activists and former city officials.
Former Comptroller Scott Stringer, another potential candidate, has also been vocal in his criticism of Adams. Stringer questioned Adams' focus in light of the federal raids, suggesting that the mayor might not be fully attuned to the city's needs. "If this is what his focus looks like, he needs new lenses," Stringer remarked, reflecting growing discontent among the city’s progressive base. Calls for resignations within Adams’ administration have also gained momentum, with activists from New York Communities for Change and other political groups pressuring the mayor to clean house.
However, not all voices are calling for immediate action against Adams. Bishop Taylor and Assemblymember Bichotte Hermelyn have urged caution, warning against making assumptions before all the facts are known. They have pointed out the lack of formal charges or specific accusations against the mayor himself, suggesting that the investigations may ultimately prove to be unfounded.
State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, while refraining from directly criticizing Adams, has instead chosen to focus on policy initiatives that resonate with his constituents. Myrie, for example, has highlighted his work on free afterschool programs, sidestepping the political drama surrounding Adams while still presenting an alternative vision for the city. Meanwhile, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been rumored to be weighing another run for public office, has remained notably silent on the matter.
While the investigations have undoubtedly complicated Adams’ reelection bid, political analysts believe that the outcome remains uncertain. A political consultant commented that Adams could still win reelection, particularly if the federal investigations fail to produce clear evidence of wrongdoing.
“I’m innocent, I haven’t been accused of anything,” Adams could argue, the consultant suggested, positioning the probes as an attack on his character and leadership.
House Republicans have intensified their investigation into the Biden administration’s chaotic exit from Afghanistan, a subject that is heating up as the 2024 election draws near.
The expanding inquiry, focused on military and political failures, has become a major point of criticism from Republicans, especially former President Donald Trump, as Vice President Kamala Harris faces scrutiny on the campaign trail, as the Washington Post reports.
Congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Michael McCaul, are seeking testimony from key military figures involved in the August 2021 evacuation from Kabul, which followed the collapse of the Afghan government.
The military officers under the spotlight are Army Lt. Gen. Christopher Donahue, Navy Rear Adm. Peter Vasely, and Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Farrell Sullivan. All three played critical roles during the hasty evacuation and have reportedly expressed frustration with how the Biden administration handled the situation.
While the officers have provided testimony in the past, the Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee is pushing for more, seeking to uncover deeper insights into the withdrawal process. The chaos surrounding the withdrawal has remained a flashpoint for GOP criticism, particularly focusing on the deaths of 13 U.S. service members in a suicide bombing near Kabul’s airport during the evacuation.
Pentagon spokesman James Adams confirmed that while the officers have previously voiced their views on the situation, no new congressional requests for testimony have been officially submitted. However, the House committee’s actions suggest that a report condemning the Biden administration is likely in the works.
Rep. McCaul and his fellow Republicans are determined to paint the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal as a failure, hoping to make it a key issue in the upcoming election. “It is up to the American people to determine if they believe these things should disqualify Vice President Harris from continuing the Biden-Harris administration another four years,” McCaul stated.
In response, Democrats argue that the investigation is being used as a political weapon. They emphasize that Trump’s February 2020 deal with the Taliban, which established the framework for the U.S. withdrawal, is often overlooked in the current inquiry. An independent report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in 2022 highlighted that Trump’s agreement significantly weakened the Afghan government’s ability to resist the Taliban.
Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado, voiced concern that the investigation is ignoring the broader context of the 20-year war, focusing instead on a brief period under the Biden administration. “Ultimately, they decided to take a partisan approach to this, and weaponize the investigation, and make it just about a one-month period of an over-20-year war,” Crow said. White House spokeswoman Sharon Yang echoed these sentiments, criticizing the GOP-led investigation as offering nothing new and merely rehashing old partisan talking points.
As Trump prepares to challenge Harris in the 2024 race, the Afghanistan withdrawal is becoming a central theme in his attacks. Some families of the service members who died in the Kabul bombing have joined Trump in criticizing the Biden administration's role in the evacuation. Jim McCollum, the father of one Marine who died in the bombing, believes the National Security Council bears significant responsibility for the event.
While Republicans build their case against the Biden-Harris administration, some within the committee have expressed concerns over how the investigation is being handled. Conservative journalist Jerry Dunleavy, who worked on the probe, resigned out of frustration, citing mismanagement and accusing the investigation of becoming overly partisan. Even with criticism from within, Republicans are expected to push forward, using the investigation as a tool to sway voters.
As the committee continues its work, the final outcome will likely include two opposing reports. Republicans are expected to release a scathing condemnation of the administration’s handling of the withdrawal, while Democrats will likely counter with a defense of the decision to end the two-decade war in Afghanistan.
For Republicans, the investigation serves not only as a way to scrutinize the Biden-Harris record but as a potent tool in the 2024 campaign. Trump’s focus on the withdrawal, particularly the tragedy of the Kabul bombing, is expected to resonate with a portion of the electorate, especially those who have been critical of how the war ended.
Former President Donald Trump took aim at his own legal team during a press conference in New York City on Friday, expressing dissatisfaction with their handling of the case involving writer E. Jean Carroll.
Trump voiced his frustration with his attorneys after a hearing related to a potential retrial in the case, questioning their strategies and criticizing key decisions, as Newsweek reports.
During the event, Trump made several remarks critical of his attorneys, claiming they mishandled his defense against Carroll's accusations. In 2023, a jury found Trump guilty of sexual abuse, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages. He spent much of the press conference venting his disappointment and addressing aspects of the case that he felt were inadequately handled by his legal team.
The press conference, which was initially billed as part of Trump's campaign for the 2024 election, quickly turned into a platform for the former president to air his grievances regarding his legal battles. Trump called out his attorneys for not pushing back hard enough in the case, referencing specific evidence he believed should have been highlighted.
One point of contention involved a dress that Carroll claimed to have worn during the alleged incident. Trump said the dress contained an unknown man’s DNA, yet his attorneys did not submit his DNA for testing. He expressed frustration over this decision, suggesting that it could have played a significant role in his defense.
Trump also attacked the judiciary system, accusing the judges of bias. He pointed out that the jury pool in the trial came from a predominantly Democratic area, with only 4 percent of the jurors identifying as Republican. This, Trump argued, made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.
During the event, Trump invited his attorney, Will Scharf, to speak. Scharf described Carroll's allegations as "utterly implausible" and claimed that there was no corroborating evidence to support her story. He emphasized that the case was essentially a "he said-she said" situation, and questioned how Trump could be held accountable without more substantial proof.
Trump himself continued to denounce Carroll’s accusations. At one point, he criticized a former lawyer from his team for not allowing him to attend key parts of the first trial. Trump maintained that he had no involvement with Carroll and suggested that his absence at the trial played a role in the outcome. “So, I didn’t show up, and I was found guilty for something I did not do,” Trump said during the press conference, reiterating his claim that he had never had any interaction with Carroll. He went further, dismissing her completely by stating, “I would not want to be involved with her.”
Beyond his criticism of how the Carroll case was handled, Trump voiced frustration with other legal teams working on his behalf. He complained that his attorneys were not acting aggressively enough in his other legal battles, including the cases related to the Capitol unrest and the handling of classified documents. Trump framed these legal challenges as politically motivated, referring to them as part of a broader "witch hunt" against him. He argued that political forces were using these cases as a means to interfere with his bid for the White House in 2024.
The press conference, which began with a focus on the legal hearing, soon expanded to include Trump's attacks on various witnesses and individuals involved in the cases against him. He repeatedly asserted that the judicial system was biased and unfairly targeting him.
In addition to the $5 million awarded to Carroll in 2023, Trump’s comments during the press conference could reignite further legal consequences. Carroll had previously filed a defamation suit over Trump's public remarks, and in early 2024, she was awarded an additional $83.3 million in damages.
Despite these financial penalties, Trump continued to criticize Carroll openly during the press conference, potentially risking another round of legal repercussions. He dismissed her claims outright, continuing to attack her character and the legitimacy of her accusations.
Trump’s remarks did little to address the specifics of his defense strategy moving forward. Instead, they painted a picture of a frustrated defendant who believes the system is rigged against him, and that his legal teams have not done enough to protect him.
In a significant legal development, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been removed from the presidential ballots in both North Carolina and Michigan, following appeals court decisions in both states.
These rulings have prompted delays in absentee ballot distribution as state officials scramble to adjust their election processes to fit the final slate of candidates, as NBC News reports.
In North Carolina, an appeals court on Friday reversed a previous lower court ruling and ordered Kennedy’s name to be removed from the ballot. The ruling came just a day after the lower court had denied the request, setting off a chain of actions among election officials to halt the mailing of ballots to voters.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections quickly responded to the ruling, emailing county election officials to stop the mailing of ballots. According to Paul Cox, general counsel for the state election authority, officials are now reviewing the order to determine the next steps. "Obviously, this will be a major undertaking for everyone," Cox said.
As a result of the court decision, North Carolina counties are required to reprint ballots, an action that is expected to significantly delay the mailing process. This could especially affect military personnel and overseas voters who rely on receiving their ballots in a timely manner to cast their votes.
In Michigan, a similar scenario is unfolding. An appeals court ruled to remove Kennedy from the state’s ballot, a decision that clashes with the stance taken by Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. Benson had supported keeping Kennedy on the ballot, but now faces an uphill battle in appealing the ruling.
Angela Benander, spokesperson for Benson, announced that an appeal will be filed immediately. With military and overseas ballots needing to be mailed by Sept. 21, Michigan is working under tight deadlines. Absentee ballots for the general public are scheduled for release on Sept. 26, further compounding the urgency of the situation.
Benander emphasized the critical nature of adhering to these deadlines to ensure that all eligible voters, especially those serving abroad, have the opportunity to participate in the 2024 election. “Benson plans to appeal immediately, as military and overseas ballots must go out soon,” Benander said in a statement.
Kennedy’s removal from the ballot comes after the presidential candidate withdrew from the race and endorsed former President Donald Trump. Initially running as a third-party candidate, Kennedy’s presence on the ballot had been seen as potentially weakening support for the Republican nominee.
The legal battles over ballot access are not expected to end with these decisions. In both North Carolina and Michigan, election authorities are reviewing their options, and additional appeals could arise in the coming days. Officials in both states are grappling with how to move forward while balancing legal requirements and voter access.
For voters, particularly those who are serving overseas, these delays could present obstacles to receiving and returning ballots in time. The pressure is now on state officials to rectify the situation quickly, ensuring minimal disruption to the election process.
While the cost of reprinting ballots is one major concern, the implications for the broader election timeline are just as pressing. States must balance the need to follow court rulings with the need to ensure a fair and accessible election process for all citizens, including those abroad.
As the November 2024 election approaches, these ballot issues add another layer of complexity to what is already shaping up to be a contentious election season. With appeals likely, the situation in North Carolina and Michigan will continue to develop in the coming weeks.
The 2024 presidential race faces growing questions over the health transparency of both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
With just two months until Election Day, neither candidate has provided comprehensive, recent medical records, as CBS News reports.
As voters prepare to cast their ballots, the lack of detailed health updates from both Trump and Harris has raised curiosity about the respective physical fitness to lead the country.
At 78 years old, former President Donald Trump’s health is under intense scrutiny. During an interview on Aug. 20, Trump stated that he had recently undergone an annual physical and would release the results “very gladly,” yet no detailed records have emerged. Instead, a brief letter from his doctor, Bruce Aronwald, declared Trump’s overall health to be “excellent” following a September 2023 examination. Specifics, however, were not disclosed.
Concerns about Trump’s health aren’t new. In 2020, he was hospitalized after contracting COVID-19 and has previously been considered obese based on a June 2020 health summary. His past records listed his weight at 244 pounds, and his blood pressure was recorded at 121/79. Trump also underwent cognitive tests in the past, though the results were never made public. Despite the lack of current detailed health updates, the former president insists his health is robust.
At 59 years old, Vice President Kamala Harris has also faced scrutiny for not releasing updated medical records. Although Harris tested positive for COVID-19 in April 2022 and recovered after using Paxlovid, no recent comprehensive physical results have been shared with the public. Requests from CBS News for such records have gone unanswered.
Harris did visit Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in July 2021 for a routine checkup, but the details of that appointment remain largely unknown. Since becoming the Democratic nominee just last month, Harris has yet to provide a letter from her physician, a point of surprise among some political observers. While it’s worth noting that Harris is 19 years younger than Trump, political analysts like Matt Dallek suggest that her lack of transparency may hinder her campaign.
In recent decades, presidential candidates have faced increasing pressure to disclose their health status. Since the 1980s, it has become customary for nominees to release at least some medical information to reassure voters of their fitness for office. Both Trump and President Joe Biden made their health records public by this time during the 2020 election cycle.
In contrast, Harris’ delay in sharing her health details is unusual for a candidate of her stature. Dallek acknowledges that the relatively short time Harris has been in the race may be a factor, but he still finds the absence of information concerning. He suggests that even limited details could quell some voter anxiety.
Gene Healy, a political analyst, echoes this sentiment. Healy expresses doubt about the accuracy of health summaries provided by candidates and advocates for independent medical evaluations. He argues that history has shown how many presidents’ true health conditions were obscured while they were in office, leading to public mistrust.
While voters may expect transparency, there is no legal requirement for candidates to release their medical records. The U.S. does not mandate health disclosures from presidential nominees or sitting presidents, leaving it up to the discretion of the candidates themselves.
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin has proposed a bill that would require future presidents to undergo independent medical evaluations. This proposal stems from growing concerns about the physical and cognitive abilities of aging leaders. However, the bill has not yet gained significant traction in Congress.
In the absence of a legal obligation, candidates like Trump and Harris may continue to withhold detailed health information. Despite public pressure, both campaigns have remained largely silent on the issue as Election Day approaches.