The U.S. Department of Defense has agreed to provide additional military support to the U.S. Secret Service during the 2024 election season. This move is part of ongoing efforts to bolster the security of presidential and vice-presidential candidates across the nation.
The Pentagon's decision, announced Thursday, comes as part of a request for heightened security measures during a crucial election cycle, as Just the News reports.
The request, approved by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, outlines the deployment of unspecified military resources to aid in safeguarding candidates. While details regarding the specific military capabilities remain undisclosed, U.S. Northern Command will oversee the execution of these security efforts.
This enhanced support signifies a deepening collaboration between the Pentagon and the Secret Service, aiming to address the complex security needs of an election season that is expected to be highly contentious. The decision underscores the government's commitment to ensuring that candidates can campaign safely, without the threat of violence or disruption.
In a statement, Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh confirmed that U.S. Northern Command would be responsible for the deployment of these military resources. The operations will take place in various locations throughout the country, although specific details have not been released to the public.
As election-related events increase in frequency and scale, the Secret Service will likely benefit from the additional manpower and technical expertise provided by the military. This collaboration is expected to enhance the agency's ability to respond quickly to potential threats.
The decision to involve the military in election security is not unprecedented but reflects growing concerns about the safety of candidates amid an increasingly polarized political environment. The 2024 election season is already shaping up to be one of the most closely watched in recent history, with both major parties gearing up for fierce competition.
Although the specific military assets that will be employed have not been made public, it is likely that they could include specialized units trained in counterterrorism, communications, and logistics support. These capabilities are crucial in ensuring that candidates are protected from both physical and cyber threats.
Past election cycles have seen varying levels of military involvement, particularly in areas where the threat level was deemed significant. However, the nature and extent of the Pentagon's role in this election cycle suggest a heightened level of concern within the government about potential security challenges.
The partnership between the Defense Department and the Secret Service highlights the seriousness with which the federal government is approaching the 2024 elections. With candidates already on the campaign trail and political tensions running high, the need for robust security measures is more critical than ever.
Sabrina Singh’s confirmation that U.S. Northern Command will coordinate these efforts further emphasizes the strategic importance of this operation. The Command's involvement suggests that a wide range of military resources could be mobilized, depending on the evolving security landscape.
The collaboration between military and law enforcement agencies reflects a broader trend of increasing federal involvement in election security. As the election season progresses, both the Pentagon and the Secret Service will likely continue to evaluate and adapt their strategies to address new and emerging threats.
In conclusion, the Defense Department's decision to provide additional military support to the Secret Service underscores the importance of ensuring the safety of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. With U.S. Northern Command taking the lead, this initiative reflects a proactive approach to election security during what is anticipated to be a particularly challenging election season.
Rudy Giuliani is embroiled in a new legal battle, as two former Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, have filed a civil lawsuit against Giuliani, accusing him of attempting to protect his assets after a $148 million defamation verdict.
Freeman and Moss allege that Giuliani, a former lawyer to Donald Trump, is exploiting Florida’s homestead law by falsely declaring a Palm Beach condominium as his primary residence, to avoid paying judgments against him, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The lawsuit comes in the wake of a federal judge’s decision in July to dismiss Giuliani’s bankruptcy case, which had previously provided him with protections from creditors. The case, dismissed due to Giuliani's failure to meet court deadlines and fully disclose his financial situation, has left him vulnerable to the enforcement of the hefty defamation judgment. Freeman and Moss’s legal team argue that Giuliani's move to designate the Palm Beach property as his primary residence is an attempt to shelter it under Florida's homestead exemption, which safeguards primary residences from court judgments.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, aims to challenge Giuliani's claim that the Palm Beach condominium is his primary home. Freeman and Moss assert that Giuliani has not genuinely established the property as his primary residence. Their legal team points to evidence suggesting that Giuliani has spent significant time away from the condominium, calling into question the authenticity of his residency claim.
In a filing related to the case, attorneys for Freeman and Moss highlighted that Giuliani spent 34 days out of a 47-day period away from the Palm Beach property. They argue that there is little evidence to suggest that Giuliani has been physically present at the condominium for the remainder of the time. The lawsuit seeks to enforce an August 8 lien against the property, which would allow Freeman and Moss to seize and sell the condominium if necessary to satisfy the judgment.
Freeman and Moss were the targets of false accusations by Giuliani, who claimed they had engaged in fraudulent activities during the 2020 presidential election. These allegations, made as part of Giuliani's broader efforts to contest the election results, were later debunked by Georgia authorities. In December, a Washington, D.C., jury ordered Giuliani to pay $148 million in damages for defaming the two election workers.
Ted Goodman, a representative for Giuliani, has criticized the new lawsuit, describing it as an attempt to "harass and intimidate" Giuliani. Goodman also labeled the $148 million verdict as "objectively unreasonable" and noted that an appeal is still pending. According to Goodman, this latest legal action is part of a broader effort to "censor and bully" Giuliani and to discourage others from exercising their right to free speech.
Goodman further argued that the justice system has been "weaponized" against Giuliani and others who have spoken out on controversial matters, particularly those related to the 2020 election. He suggested that the lawsuit is an example of how the legal process is being used to target individuals based on their political beliefs and expressions.
Despite Giuliani's attempts to challenge the judgment and his efforts to protect his assets, Freeman and Moss continue to pursue legal action to ensure they are compensated for the harm they suffered. The August 8 lien on Giuliani's Palm Beach condominium represents a significant step in their efforts to enforce the court's ruling and hold Giuliani accountable for his defamatory statements.
The dismissal of Giuliani's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case has left him in a precarious financial position. Without the protections that bankruptcy provided, Giuliani is now fully exposed to the claims of creditors, including Freeman and Moss. The former mayor's financial difficulties have been compounded by his inability to comply with court requirements, which led to the dismissal of his bankruptcy case.
Freeman and Moss’s lawsuit is a stark reminder of the legal and financial challenges Giuliani faces as he contends with the consequences of his actions. The ongoing litigation underscores the seriousness of the defamation judgment and the lengths to which Freeman and Moss are willing to go to secure justice.
As the legal battle unfolds, the focus will remain on whether Giuliani's claims about his Palm Beach property can withstand scrutiny. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for Giuliani's financial future and the ability of Freeman and Moss to collect the damages awarded to them.
In summary, Rudy Giuliani is facing a lawsuit from Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, who accuse him of attempting to shield his assets after a $148 million defamation judgment. The lawsuit challenges Giuliani's claim that a Palm Beach condominium is his primary residence, with evidence suggesting he spends little time there. The legal battle, which follows the dismissal of Giuliani's bankruptcy case, raises questions about his financial future and the enforcement of the defamation judgment.
The legal landscape for social media companies is shifting, as a recent court ruling has put TikTok in the spotlight over its content-promoting algorithm.
A federal appeals court has ruled that TikTok could be held legally responsible for the content its algorithm promotes, following the tragic death of a 10-year-old girl who participated in a dangerous challenge encouraged by the platform, as the Washington Times reports.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling that challenges the broad protections social media companies have long enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This particular case centers on the heartbreaking death of Nylah Anderson, who died in 2021 after engaging in the "blackout challenge"—a viral trend on TikTok that urged participants to choke themselves until they lost consciousness.
Her mother, Tawainna Anderson, filed a lawsuit against TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, in 2022. She alleged that the platform's algorithm had negligently promoted the deadly challenge to her daughter, leading to her untimely death. The district court initially dismissed the case, citing the protections afforded to tech companies under Section 230.
However, the 3rd Circuit Court panel vacated a portion of that dismissal, allowing the lawsuit to proceed in lower courts. The court's ruling noted that TikTok's algorithmic promotion of content could be considered "first-party" speech, which is not shielded by Section 230.
The decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the responsibilities of social media platforms. Legal scholars have pointed out that this ruling could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on Section 230, a law that has been instrumental in shaping the modern internet by shielding tech companies from liability for user-generated content. Legal expert Adam Feldman commented that this case could reach the Supreme Court, either as a standalone issue or in connection with other pending cases, such as Moody v. Netchoice. He noted that the justices might soon have to address the complexities and ambiguities surrounding Section 230, given the growing number of cases challenging its scope.
This development comes at a time when the Supreme Court has previously avoided making definitive rulings on Section 230 in several high-profile cases, including those involving terrorist recruitment and the role of social media in violent incidents. Experts believe that the 3rd Circuit’s decision could be the catalyst that finally pushes the Court to clarify the law's application to modern-day algorithmic content promotion.
For major tech firms, the ruling is seen as a considerable blow. Jeffrey Goodman, a legal commentator, stated that this decision effectively removes the "get out of jail free" card that big tech companies have relied on for years. He emphasized that this ruling could pave the way for social media companies to be held accountable in court when their platforms cause harm, particularly to vulnerable groups like children.
Mary Graw Leary, another legal expert, pointed out that Section 230 has historically prevented many victims from seeking justice in court. She suggested that the judiciary will ultimately need to address these challenges, especially as cases like Anderson’s continue to arise. According to Leary, the courts can no longer ignore the profound impact that social media platforms have on society, particularly when it comes to the safety of minors.
TikTok has yet to issue a public statement regarding the ruling, but the decision has already sent ripples throughout the tech industry. The platform, along with others, may now face increased scrutiny and potential liability as courts begin to reassess the extent of Section 230’s protections.
For the Anderson family, the court's ruling offers a glimmer of hope amid their grief. In a statement, they expressed that while nothing can bring back their "beautiful baby girl," they are comforted by the possibility that holding TikTok accountable might prevent other families from enduring similar tragedies. The Andersons have called for social media companies to take more responsibility in ensuring that harmful content does not reach young users.
The 3rd Circuit’s ruling has highlighted the growing concern among parents and policymakers about the role of algorithms in shaping the experiences of young users on social media. As platforms like TikTok continue to attract younger audiences, the debate over their responsibility to protect these users from harmful content is likely to intensify.
Ultimately, this case could reshape the legal landscape for social media companies, forcing them to take greater care in how their algorithms operate and what content they promote. With the possibility of Supreme Court involvement, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the tech industry and for the millions of users who interact with these platforms daily.
Nicole Shanahan, the running mate of former Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released an advertisement that has quickly gone viral on social media.
The ad, shared on the platform X, humorously addresses "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) and promotes "independence" as the antidote, as Just the News reports.
The video, posted on Shanahan's social media account, features a satirical take on TDS, a term often used to describe intense criticism or opposition to former President Donald Trump. The ad suggests that this syndrome causes people to dismiss serious national issues, from economic struggles to global conflicts.
"My team never sleeps," Shanahan wrote alongside the video, hinting at the effort behind the production. The ad begins with a voiceover asking, "Are you or your loved ones suffering from illnesses such as TDS, also known as Trump Derangement Syndrome?" The video then shifts focus to a list of critical issues that the ad suggests are often ignored due to TDS.
The video highlights problems like historic inflation, illegal immigration, and corporate corruption, urging viewers to reconsider their perspectives. The ad continues by addressing the possibility of World War III and the ongoing chronic disease epidemic, framing them as challenges that demand attention beyond political biases.
Throughout the video, the ad encourages a shift towards "independence" as a remedy for the perceived blindness caused by TDS. The underlying message is clear: the country's pressing issues require a broader perspective, free from the influence of extreme political stances.
The ad culminates with a call to action, urging viewers to "ask your doctor if independence is right for you and enjoy your freedoms once again." This phrase serves as both a humorous nod to medical advertisements and a serious appeal for political detachment. Shanahan's campaign leverages this message to resonate with a wide audience, particularly those disillusioned by the current state of political discourse.
With nearly four million views, the ad's reach has been extensive, sparking discussions and debates across the political spectrum. Some viewers have praised the ad for its clever approach to a divisive issue, while others have criticized it for downplaying the seriousness of TDS and its impact on public opinion.
Regardless of one's stance on the ad, its success in capturing attention is undeniable. The viral nature of the video suggests that Shanahan's message of "independence" is striking a chord with many who feel alienated by the polarized political climate.
Shanahan's ad is not just a commentary on Trump Derangement Syndrome; it also reflects a broader sentiment of frustration with the current political landscape. By addressing TDS through satire, the ad taps into a growing desire for a more balanced and independent approach to governance.
The ad's success on social media underscores the power of digital platforms in shaping public discourse. Shanahan's use of X to distribute the video exemplifies the changing nature of political communication, where viral content can quickly influence public opinion and drive conversations.
As discussions around the ad continue, it remains to be seen how this will impact Shanahan's political ambitions and her partnership with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. For now, the ad serves as a provocative reminder of the deep divisions within American society and the need for solutions that transcend partisan politics.
In conclusion, Nicole Shanahan's "Trump Derangement Syndrome" ad has made significant waves on social media, sparking conversations about political independence and the importance of addressing national issues without bias. The ad's viral success highlights the growing influence of digital platforms in political campaigns and the ongoing debate over how to navigate a deeply polarized political environment.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was forced to withdraw from a high-profile Hamptons fundraiser for Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz on Monday due to a COVID-19 diagnosis.
According to Page Six, former President Bill Clinton stepped in to replace his wife at the event held at the Sag Harbor home of prominent art collectors Lisa and Richard Perry.
The fundraiser, which commanded ticket prices of up to $100,000 at the highest tier, also featured Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff as a speaker. The event was billed as one of the last small gatherings in the New York area before the upcoming election, making it a significant stop on the campaign trail for the Democratic candidates.
The Sag Harbor fundraiser attracted a number of notable figures from the political and business world. Among the event chairs were Sharon and Jon Corzine, Crystal McCrary McGuire and Ray McGuire, Brooke Garber Neidich and Dan Neidich, and Laurie Tisch. The Perry residence, known for housing works by renowned artists such as Frank Stella, Alexander Calder, Ellsworth Kelly, and Donald Judd, provided an impressive backdrop for the political gathering.
An invitation obtained by Page Six emphasized the exclusivity of the event, stating:
This is likely to be one of the last small events in the NY area before the election, so it is not to be missed.
The sudden change in speakers due to Hillary Clinton's illness did not seem to dampen enthusiasm for the event. A source close to the situation noted that the Clintons' involvement was not obligatory, saying, "They don't have to show at these things," and added that the switch was made on short notice.
Despite the last-minute change in lineup, the Hamptons fundraiser, along with another Democratic event held earlier the same day, proved to be highly successful. A source reported that the two events combined raised over $2 million in just four days, indicating strong support for the Harris campaign.
The previous function, held at the home of Michael Kempner, CEO of MWW and an acknowledged supporter of Clinton, was part of a dual-event strategy that seems to have been very successful. A source mentioned that these events together generated more than $2 million in just four days, indicating significant enthusiasm for Harris.
The fundraising success comes on the heels of Hillary Clinton's well-received appearance at the Democratic National Convention, where she reportedly received a standing ovation. However, it's worth noting that the convention itself was not without its health concerns, as multiple attendees later reported testing positive for COVID-19.
While Hillary Clinton's absence from the Hamptons event was unexpected, it appears to be part of a broader series of campaign activities for the Democratic Party. Earlier in the month, celebrities such as Joy Behar and Chris Rock were spotted at another Hamptons fundraiser for Governor Walz, where tickets reached up to $150,000.
The campaign trail is expected to continue heating up as the election approaches. Reports suggest that Vice President Harris will be appearing at a larger event in New York City in the near future, though specific details were not provided in the original article.
These high-dollar fundraisers in the Hamptons and other exclusive locales have long been a staple of presidential campaigns, offering candidates the opportunity to connect with wealthy donors and supporters in intimate settings.
Hillary Clinton's COVID-19 diagnosis led to her withdrawal from a significant Hamptons fundraiser for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Former President Bill Clinton and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff stepped in to speak at the event, which was held at the home of art collectors Lisa and Richard Perry. Despite the change, the fundraiser and another event held the same day raised over $2 million. This success indicates strong support for the Harris campaign as the election approaches, with more campaign events planned in the near future.
ABC News confirmed that microphones will remain muted during the upcoming presidential debate on September 10, despite a last-minute request from Vice President Kamala Harris to alter this rule.
The decision was detailed in a report by Breitbart News, which highlighted the network's commitment to the previously agreed upon debate format. This format had been established while President Joe Biden was still a contender, mandating that only the microphone of the speaker would be active during their allotted time.
The announcement comes amidst speculation about the Harris campaign's motives for requesting the rule change. Some observers suggest that the move may be an attempt to shift media focus away from the third anniversary of the Biden-Harris administration's Afghanistan withdrawal, which has been a subject of criticism.
When the debate was initially planned, both candidates, including then-candidate Joe Biden, agreed to two debates: one on CNN on June 27 and another on ABC on September 10. Biden had insisted on muted microphones throughout the debate, except for the speaking candidate's turn.
After Harris joined the race, both her campaign and Trump's campaign received ABC News's debate rules in writing. Both sides initially confirmed their participation in the network. However, last week, the Harris campaign requested that ABC News and other networks unmute candidates' microphones during the debate.
Trump maintained his opposition to this change, stating on Tuesday:
I have reached an agreement with the Radical Left Democrats for a Debate with Comrade Kamala Harris. It will be Broadcast Live on ABC FAKE NEWS, by far the nastiest and most unfair newscaster in the business, on Tuesday, September 10th, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The timing of Harris's request to change the debate rules has raised questions about the campaign's strategy. Some speculate that it could be an attempt to create a distraction from the upcoming anniversary of the Afghanistan withdrawal or to provide an "escape hatch" if Harris's performance in a scheduled CNN interview is poorly received.
A Trump ally remarked:
At this point, Team Harris is going to be taking an 'L' when they finally accept, as the debate rules aren't changing, or they'll take an even bigger 'L' if they back out of the debate because the Dana Bash/CNN interview goes poorly.
The Harris campaign has confirmed its stance on keeping microphones open. A source close to the discussions shared with Politico Playbook that Harris welcomes the opportunity to respond if she is interrupted during the debate.
The source noted that her opponent appears quite unsettled by her presence, which may lead to rash outbursts, and suggested that the campaign believes it's important for the audience to witness these reactions.
The decision to maintain muted microphones during the debate could have significant implications for both candidates' strategies. For Harris, it may limit opportunities for direct exchanges with Trump during his speaking time. For Trump, it ensures that his statements will not be interrupted by his opponent.
The muted microphone rule is designed to promote a more structured and orderly debate, allowing each candidate to present their views without interruption. However, it also removes the possibility of spontaneous interactions between the candidates, which some viewers find engaging.
ABC News's decision to maintain muted microphones for the September 10 presidential debate has settled a brief dispute between the Harris and Trump campaigns. The network's stance upholds the original agreement made when Joe Biden was still a candidate. This development comes amid speculation about the Harris campaign's motives for requesting the rule change. As the debate nears, both candidates will need to adapt their strategies to the confirmed format, potentially influencing the dynamics of this highly anticipated political event.
A legal expert suggests that Donald Trump's election subversion case may be effectively over following a recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, expressed his belief that the case is unlikely to survive further Supreme Court scrutiny.
According to a report by Newsweek, the July 1 ruling granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution could have far-reaching implications for the ongoing legal proceedings against the former president.
This assessment follows special counsel Jack Smith's submission of a new indictment on August 29, 2024, which aims to address the challenges posed by the high court's ruling.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on July 1 established that presidents have absolute immunity for core political acts and some immunity for other actions taken while in office. This ruling overturned a previous decision by the Washington D.C. Circuit Court, which had set more stringent limits on presidential immunity.
Germain, commenting on the scope of the ruling, expressed surprise at the extent of immunity granted to presidents. He noted that the decision appears to provide protection from prosecution for a wide range of actions, even those potentially motivated by personal gain.
According to Germain:
The Court held that presidential immunity applies regardless of a president's corrupt and personal motives. A president would be immune from prosecution for selling pardons to the highest bidder or assassinating a political rival, and there is a broad presumption that activities having any connection to the presidency are not private activities.
The new interpretation of presidential immunity poses significant obstacles to the prosecution's case against Trump. The former president was initially indicted on four counts related to alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election leading up to the events of January 6, 2021.
Trump has consistently maintained his innocence, characterizing the legal proceedings as politically motivated. The recent Supreme Court ruling may provide his defense team with additional arguments to challenge the validity of the charges.
Germain shared his thoughts on the possible outcome, stating that although lower courts might attempt to navigate around the Supreme Court's ruling, he believes the case regarding election interference is unlikely to succeed at the Supreme Court level.
The legal expert also speculated on possible future scenarios, particularly if Trump were to win the upcoming presidential election. Germain suggested that the Supreme Court's opinion leaves open the possibility for a sitting president to pardon themselves or appoint officials who could dismiss ongoing cases.
Germain reflected on the historical context of the decision:
While I doubt that any member of the constitutional convention, even the most monarchical, would have agreed with that opinion given their broad concern about corruption, that is my reading of the Court's ruling.
In conclusion, the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity has introduced new complexities to the legal proceedings against Donald Trump. Legal experts suggest that the decision may significantly impede the prosecution's ability to pursue charges related to alleged election interference. The case's future remains uncertain, with potential implications for the balance of presidential power and accountability.
Former President Donald Trump has indicated he may vote against Florida's strict six-week abortion ban in an upcoming referendum, according to an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Online.
Trump expressed his view that six weeks is too short a timeframe, potentially setting himself apart from other Republican leaders on this contentious issue.
In the interview at his Mar-a-Lago residence, Trump previewed an upcoming announcement on his voting stance regarding Florida's Amendment 4, which would replace the state's current six-week abortion ban with a 24-week limit.
While avoiding a firm commitment, Trump's comments suggest he favors a less restrictive policy than Florida's current law.
Trump, who takes credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, now finds himself in a delicate position on abortion policy. As a registered Florida voter, he will have the opportunity to weigh in on the state's abortion law through the upcoming referendum.
Trump stated:
Well, I do know, but I do want more than six weeks. I want more than six weeks. I think six weeks is a mistake. And I'll be expressing that soon, but I want more than six weeks.
This stance puts Trump at odds with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who signed the six-week ban into law last year. Trump's comments reflect his attempt to navigate the complex political landscape surrounding abortion rights.
Trump's approach to abortion policy appears designed to maintain his pro-life credentials while appealing to a wider electorate. He emphasized his support for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother, aligning himself with former President Ronald Reagan's position.
Despite his apparent shift towards a more moderate stance, Trump has not committed to vetoing a federal abortion ban if one were to reach his desk as president. Instead, he deflected the question by focusing on state-level decision-making:
I don't mind answering that question, but there's no reason to, because the states are all voting. We have many states voting coming up, including Florida, and the states are all voting on this.
Trump's nuanced position on abortion reflects the challenges he faces in maintaining support from his evangelical base while appealing to moderate voters. His comments on Florida's abortion law and his emphasis on state-level decision-making suggest a strategy to avoid alienating either group.
The political landscape may also influence the former president's stance in key swing states, where abortion rights have become a significant issue. By signaling openness to less restrictive abortion policies, Trump may be attempting to neutralize a potential Democratic advantage on this issue in the upcoming election.
As the 2024 campaign progresses, Trump's ability to navigate the abortion debate will likely play a crucial role in his electoral prospects. His recent comments indicate a recognition of the need to adapt his message on this divisive issue while maintaining his core support.
Trump's recent statements on Florida's abortion ban signal a potential shift in his approach to this contentious issue. He expressed support for a timeframe longer than six weeks for abortion restrictions, putting him at odds with some Republican leaders. Trump emphasized state-level decision-making and maintained support for certain exceptions to abortion bans. His evolving stance reflects the complex political calculations surrounding abortion policy in the lead-up to the 2024 election.
In a shocking turn of events, "Dancing With the Stars" professional dancer Artem Chigvintsev has been arrested on a felony domestic violence charge.
According to a report by the New York Post, the incident occurred in Napa County, California, just days after Chigvintsev celebrated his second wedding anniversary with TV personality Nikki Bella.
The Napa County Sheriff's Department took Chigvintsev into custody on Thursday morning, booking him under California Penal Code Section 273.5(a) PC. This legal statute pertains to injuring a spouse, cohabitant, or fellow parent in an act of domestic violence. The arrest has sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry and the "Dancing With the Stars" community.
The arrest took place in the town of Yountville, Napa County, shortly before 10 a.m. on Thursday. Deputies responded to a domestic violence call, and upon arrival at the scene, they made the arrest. The Napa County Sheriff's Office confirmed that injuries were involved in the incident.
Chigvintsev was booked into the Napa County jail with bail set at $25,000. He was released from custody at 2:18 PM PST on the same day. The booking report lists the dancer at 175 pounds and 5 feet, 9 inches tall.
The alleged victim in this case has requested total confidentiality, according to the spokesperson for the Napa County Sheriff's Office. As a result, details about the victim's identity and the nature of the injuries have not been disclosed to the public.
Artem Chigvintsev has been a regular fixture on "Dancing With the Stars" since joining the show in 2019. He has appeared in every season except for seasons 21 and 28. However, a source close to the production has revealed that there were no plans for Chigvintsev to be part of the upcoming Season 33 of the popular dance competition.
Just days before the arrest, Chigvintsev and his wife, Nikki Bella (professionally known as Nikki Garcia), had celebrated their second wedding anniversary. Both had shared loving messages on social media, with Bella posting a video montage of their 2022 wedding preparations and celebrations.
Chigvintsev expressed his love for Bella in an Instagram post, stating:
Happy anniversary my love, you making me the happiest man alive. Cheers to many many more.
This is not the first time Chigvintsev has faced allegations of misconduct. In 2015, English TV presenter Fern Britton, who had competed with Chigvintsev on the British version of "Dancing With the Stars" called "Strictly Come Dancing," spoke out about her experience working with him.
Britton alleged that Chigvintsev had been verbally abusive during their time together on the show. She recalled him allegedly saying: "Shut your face. Go home before I kill you."
At the time, Chigvintsev denied these allegations, stating that he had treated Britton with respect and genuine care. He maintained that the claims were contrary to his beliefs and character.
Artem Chigvintsev, a professional dancer known for his appearances on "Dancing With the Stars," has been arrested on a felony domestic violence charge in Napa County, California. The arrest occurred just days after Chigvintsev celebrated his second wedding anniversary with Nikki Bella. Details about the alleged victim are being kept confidential, and an investigation is ongoing. This incident has brought attention to past allegations of verbal abuse against Chigvintsev and raised questions about his future in the entertainment industry.
Vice President Kamala Harris' previous openness to expanding the Supreme Court during her 2019 presidential campaign has come back into focus.
According to a report by Fox News, Harris expressed willingness to consider adding justices to the nation's highest court, a position that contrasts with her more recent statements on the matter.
During her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Harris indicated she was open to the idea of "court packing," a term used to describe increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
This stance has resurfaced as the Biden administration faces questions about potential reforms to the judicial branch.
In March 2019, Harris was asked about the possibility of adding justices to the Supreme Court during a campaign event. Her response at the time suggested an openness to the idea, which was gaining traction among some progressive Democrats.
Harris' willingness to consider court expansion was part of a broader conversation within the Democratic Party about potential reforms to the Supreme Court. Some candidates and activists were advocating for structural changes to the court in response to concerns about its ideological balance.
The topic of court reform became a significant issue in the Democratic primary, with various candidates offering their perspectives on how to address perceived imbalances in the judicial system.
Since becoming Vice President, Harris has aligned herself with the Biden administration's more cautious approach to Supreme Court reform. The White House has not endorsed expanding the court; instead, it has opted for a commission to study potential changes.
This shift in messaging has drawn attention from political observers and critics alike. The contrast between Harris' past openness to court expansion and the administration's current position highlights the evolving nature of political stances.
Some have questioned whether this change reflects a genuine evolution in Harris' views or a strategic alignment with the administration's priorities.
The resurfacing of Harris' past comments on court expansion comes at a time when discussions about Supreme Court reform continue to simmer in political circles. While the Biden administration has not pursued court expansion, the topic remains a point of debate among Democrats.
Harris' earlier stance may influence how some voters and political analysts perceive the administration's approach to judicial issues. It also underscores the challenges politicians face when reconciling past positions with current roles and responsibilities.
As discussions about potential reforms to the Supreme Court continue, Harris' evolving stance on the issue may remain a point of interest for both supporters and critics of the administration.
In conclusion, Vice President Kamala Harris' past openness to expanding the Supreme Court during her 2019 presidential campaign has resurfaced, contrasting with her current alignment with the Biden administration's more cautious approach. This shift in position highlights the evolving nature of political stances and the challenges of reconciling past views with current roles. As debates about judicial reform continue, Harris' stance on the issue may remain a topic of discussion in political circles.