Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel argues that Vice President Kamala Harris bears responsibility for the anti-Israel protest chaos expected at the upcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago.
According to a recent report in Breitbart News, as many as 100,000 protesters are anticipated, representing various radical causes, particularly anti-Israel groups.
Strassel points out that Harris missed an opportunity to distance herself from the anti-Israel radicals who will be demonstrating throughout the convention.
She highlights Harris's recent hiring of a liaison to Muslim and Arab communities with a history of participating in radical anti-Israel protests on college campuses.
While Harris has stated that she does not agree with everything said at anti-Israel protests, she has praised the "emotion" behind them. These protests have often included antisemitic rhetoric and violence in cities and on college campuses nationwide.
Strassel wrote:
[E]nraged leftists haven't gone anywhere, as evidenced by their meltdown over Kamala Harris's consideration of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as a running mate. She ducked that confrontation by going with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, yet what Democrats continue to fail to appreciate is that this crowd won't be appeased by anything less than full capitulation. That includes an end to any support for Israel.
The Coalition to March on the DNC, which includes groups like Black Lives Matter and Students for Justice in Palestine, is coordinating buses to bring protesters to Chicago.
They are also soliciting donations for supplies like "medical kits" to "withstand the repression" of local police.
Other radical organizations planning to attend include Samidoun and Behind Enemy Lines, which advocate for "direct action" beyond peaceful marching. One Behind Enemy Lines post referred to Harris and President Biden as "Killer Kamala" and "Genocide Joe."
Harris has previously shown support for violent protests. In 2020, she helped raise bail funds for rioters involved in the Black Lives Matter movement and joined protests near the White House that escalated into violence. She also labeled the federal law enforcement officers in Portland as resembling a paramilitary group.
Strassel suggests that Harris's handling of any potential disturbances at the DNC will be revealing. However, she believes that Democrats have already missed their opportunity to distance themselves from extreme elements, as demonstrated by the resignation of Columbia University President Minouche Shafik following her inability to address antisemitic protests on campus.
In conclusion, WSJ columnist Kimberley Strassel contends that Vice President Kamala Harris is responsible for the anticipated anti-Israel protest chaos at the upcoming DNC in Chicago.
Harris has missed opportunities to distance herself from radical elements and has a history of supporting violent protests. The scale of the expected demonstrations and the involvement of extremist groups suggest a volatile situation that Harris and the Democrats may struggle to control.
Vice President Kamala Harris is encountering mounting pressure regarding her stance on anti-Israel protests expected at the upcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago.
According to a report from Breitbart News, Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel argues that Harris has missed an opportunity to distance herself from radical anti-Israel demonstrators.
The DNC, scheduled to take place in Chicago, is anticipating as many as 100,000 protesters representing various anti-Israel groups and other activist causes. Only one pro-Israel group has planned to demonstrate, and it has not received a permit from the city to march to the convention site.
Harris has previously expressed support for the "emotion" behind such protests, despite their often including antisemitic rhetoric and instances of violence on college campuses and in cities across the United States. While she has stated that she does not agree with everything said at these demonstrations, her recent hiring decisions have raised eyebrows.
The Vice President recently appointed a liaison to the Muslim and Arab communities, who has a history of participating in radical anti-Israel protests on college campuses. This individual has also argued against the notion that such protests are inherently antisemitic.
These actions have led to criticism from various quarters, with some questioning Harris's ability to take a firm stance against extremist elements within the protest movements.
The Coalition to March on the DNC, which includes organizations such as Black Lives Matter and Students for Justice in Palestine, is coordinating the transportation of protesters to Chicago. The coalition has requested donations for supplies, including medical kits, to "ensure that the March on DNC coalition" can "withstand the repression" of local law enforcement.
Kimberley Strassel from the Wall Street Journal wrote:
The Coalition to March on the DNC boasts 150 groups, including Black Lives Matter and Students for Justice in Palestine. It is already coordinating buses of protesters into Chicago. It's asking for donations for "medical kits" and other supplies to "ensure that the March on DNC coalition" can "withstand the repression" of the Chicago police. Among other groups coming are outfits like Samidoun and Behind Enemy Lines, which agitate for "direct action" that goes well beyond marching.
Other groups planning to attend include organizations that advocate for "direct action" beyond peaceful marching. Some have made references to historical protests, such as the violent demonstrations outside the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.
The Vice President's history with protest movements has come under scrutiny in light of the upcoming DNC demonstrations. In 2020, Harris solicited bail money for Black Lives Matter rioters and participated in protests outside the White House after they had turned violent.
She also referred to federal law enforcement officers in Portland as a "paramilitary" during that period. These past actions have led some critics to question how she will respond to any potential chaos at the DNC.
The situation draws parallels to recent events at Columbia University, where President Minouche Shafik resigned due to her failure to address antisemitic protests effectively. This has raised questions about how Harris and other Democratic leaders will handle similar challenges at the convention.
Vice President Kamala Harris is facing criticism over her approach to anti-Israel protests expected at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Her past statements supporting the "emotion" behind such demonstrations and her recent hiring decisions have drawn scrutiny. The anticipated scale of the protests, with up to 100,000 demonstrators expected, has heightened concerns about potential chaos at the event. Harris's history of involvement with protest movements has led to questions about how she will respond to any disruptions at the DNC.
The number of illegal border crossings since the Biden-Harris administration took office has surpassed 12.5 million, marking the highest total in U.S. history.
This figure includes both apprehensions and estimated "gotaways," according to a report by Just The News.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released monthly border apprehension data on August 17, 2024, claiming a 34% decrease in illegal border crossings from June to July.
However, the total number of apprehended illegal border crossers has exceeded 10.5 million in the current fiscal year, with two months remaining until September 30.
The reported 12.5 million illegal border crossers, including both apprehensions and estimated gotaways, now outnumber the individual populations of 45 U.S. states. If these border crossers were to form a state, they would rank as the sixth most populous, surpassing Illinois.
This figure represents a significant increase from previous comparisons. In March, the total illegal border crossers exceeded the populations of 43 states, up from 23 states in June 2022 when such comparisons were first made.
The scale of these numbers is unprecedented in U.S. history, with no previous administration reporting even a fraction of this total in a single term or multiple terms combined.
Despite the record-breaking numbers, CBP officials have presented a different narrative. Troy Miller, a senior official performing the duties of the CBP Commissioner, stated that recent Biden-Harris policies have led to "the lowest number of encounters along the southwest border in more than three years."
U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., challenged this interpretation, saying:
Despite the false narrative they're attempting to project, the unprecedented border crisis the president and his 'border czar' have created continues to rage on. This administration is orchestrating a massive shell game, encouraging otherwise-inadmissible aliens to cross at ports of entry instead of between them – thereby creating a façade of improved optics for the administration, but in reality imposing a growing burden on our communities.
The current fiscal year has seen 2,597,784 illegal foreign nationals apprehended nationwide. This follows 3.2 million in fiscal 2023, which was the highest number on record. Fiscal 2022 saw over 2.7 million apprehensions, breaking previous records, after nearly 2 million were apprehended in fiscal 2021.
Southwest border encounters for the current fiscal year through July stand at 1,925,773. This comes after a record of nearly 2.5 million in fiscal 2023, preceded by nearly 2.4 million in fiscal 2022 and over 1.7 million in fiscal 2021.
The northern border has also seen unprecedented numbers under the current administration. This fiscal year, 162,865 illegal border crossers were apprehended at the northern border, following a record of nearly 190,000 in fiscal 2023 and nearly 110,000 in fiscal 2022.
In conclusion, the Biden-Harris administration has overseen a dramatic increase in illegal border crossings, with total numbers surpassing 12.5 million since taking office. This figure exceeds the populations of most U.S. states and represents the highest total in the nation's history. Despite CBP claims of recent decreases, the overall trend shows record-breaking apprehensions across both southern and northern borders, with critics arguing that current policies have exacerbated the situation.
In a recent Supreme Court decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch aligned with his liberal colleagues in dissenting from the majority's ruling on Title IX regulations.
The Court's 5-4 decision denied the Biden administration's request to block a lower court injunction on new Title IX rules, as reported by Newsweek.
The case revolves around the Department of Education's (DOE) new Title IX rules, which were finalized earlier this year and went into effect on August 1, 2024. These rules, in part, reversed a Trump-era interpretation that excluded gender identity and sexual orientation from Title IX protections.
Several Republican-led states filed lawsuits against these new regulations, resulting in lower federal courts temporarily blocking the entirety of the new rules in 26 states.
The Supreme Court's majority declined the DOE's emergency request to reinstate portions of the new rules unrelated to gender identity and sexual orientation. The majority stated they were not provided "a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts' interim conclusions."
Justice Gorsuch joined Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. They argued that while the gender identity and sexual orientation rules should be paused during appeals, the rest of the new rules should be allowed to resume.
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, stated, "I would grant most of the Government's stay requests and leave enjoined only its enforcement of the three challenged provisions. The lower courts went beyond their authority to remedy the discrete harms alleged here."
The Court's decision does not indicate how it might rule on any of the new Title IX rules in the future, including the provisions regarding gender identity and sexual orientation. It merely allows the lower court injunctions to remain in place while the cases proceed through the appeals process.
A DOE spokesperson responded to the ruling, saying:
While we do not agree with this ruling, the Department stands by the final Title IX regulations released in April 2024, and we will continue to defend those rules in the expedited litigation in the lower courts. The schools that are not enjoined within the 24 states are obligated to comply with the final 2024 Title IX regulations and we look forward to working with school communities all across the country to ensure the Title IX guarantee of nondiscrimination in school is every student's experience.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed the Court's decision, stating, "I am grateful that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that no part of the Biden administration's Title IX rule should go into effect while the case proceeds. This is a win for student privacy, free speech, and the rule of law."
On the other hand, civil rights organizations expressed disappointment with the ruling. Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project, criticized the use of lawsuits as "attacks on trans kids as a way to roll back other rights for women and girls."
Cathryn Oakley, the Human Rights Campaign's senior director of legal policy, stated:
It is disappointing that the Supreme Court has allowed far-right forces to stop the implementation of critical civil rights protections for youth. Every young person deserves the opportunity to be able to access a public education without discrimination because of who they are.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to deny the Biden administration's request to partially lift injunctions on new Title IX rules has sparked debate. Justice Gorsuch's alignment with the liberal justices in dissent highlights the complexity of the issue. The ruling allows lower court injunctions to remain in place in 26 states while appeals proceed. Reactions to the decision have been mixed, with supporters praising it as a win for privacy and free speech, while critics argue it hinders civil rights protections for students.
George Santos, the former U.S. Representative expelled from Congress, is expected to plead guilty in his fraud case during a hearing on Monday in federal court on Long Island, according to sources familiar with the matter.
As reported by ABC News, this development could potentially avoid a trial scheduled to begin next month, for which hundreds of potential jurors had already been summoned.
The sources, however, caution that Santos, known for his erratic behavior, could still change his mind. The former congressman currently faces 23 felony charges, including allegations of defrauding donors, lying about his finances, and improperly accepting unemployment benefits.
Santos has previously pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. The specific charges to which he is expected to plead guilty and the potential sentence remain unclear at this time.
The criminal charges primarily involve financial misconduct, although Santos has also been accused of misrepresenting elements of his background and biography during his campaign to represent parts of Queens and Nassau County.
Two associates of Santos, including his former campaign treasurer, have already entered guilty pleas for their roles in the alleged fraud scheme. This development adds weight to the case against the former congressman.
The legal proceedings have garnered significant attention due to Santos' high-profile expulsion from the House of Representatives and the nature of the allegations against him.
If Santos does indeed plead guilty, it would mark a significant shift in his legal strategy. The move would effectively cancel the trial scheduled for next month, altering the course of the legal proceedings that have been closely watched by the public and political observers.
The potential guilty plea raises questions about the strength of the prosecution's case and what information may have come to light that could have influenced Santos' decision.
It also sparks curiosity about any potential plea deal that may have been negotiated between Santos' legal team and federal prosecutors.
The case has drawn attention to the vetting process for political candidates, the importance of transparency in campaign finances, and the personal backgrounds of those seeking public office.
George Santos is expected to plead guilty in his fraud case during a hearing on Monday, potentially avoiding a trial set for next month. The former congressman faces 23 felony charges related to financial misconduct and misrepresentation. If the guilty plea proceeds, it will mark a significant development in the high-profile case that led to Santos' expulsion from the House of Representatives.
On Saturday, X, the social media company, announced that it would suspend its operations in Brazil, citing threats from Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The company claims de Moraes threatened to arrest their legal representative if they did not comply with his orders.
According to Breitbart News, the company is taking this step in response to what it describes as censorship orders from Justice de Moraes following several confrontations over issues such as free speech and misinformation.
X revealed that it is immediately removing all remaining staff from Brazil, although the platform will continue to be available to Brazilian users. The specifics of how the company intends to suspend operations while maintaining the service are unclear.
In a statement posted on X, the company accused de Moraes of ignoring legal procedures and instead opting to "threaten our staff in Brazil" with arrest. The company shared the legal document that triggered the dispute, which they argue constitutes censorship.
The clash between X and the Brazilian Supreme Court is not new. Earlier this year, the company found itself at odds with de Moraes over its handling of far-right accounts and the spread of misinformation. These disputes have now escalated to the point where X feels it can no longer safely operate within the country.
Elon Musk, CEO of X, also weighed in on the matter, taking to the platform to voice his disapproval. In a tweet posted on Saturday morning, Musk described de Moraes as "an utter disgrace to justice."
The tension between X and Justice de Moraes has been simmering for months. The social media company has been under scrutiny for its role in the dissemination of misinformation, particularly related to far-right groups in Brazil. Justice de Moraes has been a vocal critic of the platform, arguing that it has allowed harmful content to spread unchecked.
In April, these tensions came to a head when de Moraes ordered investigations into Musk himself. The Supreme Court justice accused the tech billionaire of allowing the spread of defamatory fake news and potentially engaging in other criminal activities.
De Moraes has been a central figure in Brazil's efforts to clamp down on what he views as threats to the country's democratic institutions.
This has included investigations into former President Jair Bolsonaro and the arrest of individuals involved in the January 8, 2023, storming of government buildings in Brasília.
De Moraes' actions have sparked significant political controversy in Brazil. The country’s political right has accused the justice of overstepping his authority and using his position to stifle free speech. Critics argue that his aggressive stance amounts to political persecution, particularly against those with far-right views.
Despite these accusations, de Moraes has remained resolute in his efforts to maintain what he describes as the integrity of Brazil's democracy. His actions have been praised by some as necessary to counteract the rising tide of extremism, while others see them as an overreach of judicial power.
The recent move by X to suspend its operations in Brazil is a clear indication of the company’s stance on these issues. By pulling its staff out of the country, the company is making a strong statement about what it perceives as an untenable situation.
According to a Democratic source speaking to Axios, former First Lady Michelle Obama is scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) on Tuesday night.
Her name was initially absent from the DNC lineup announced on Sunday, despite her regular appearances at party conventions since 2008.
Although Obama has repeatedly expressed her disinterest in pursuing a political career, her involvement is noteworthy due to her enduring popularity in American politics, which could have a significant impact on the upcoming election.
Michelle Obama has addressed every Democratic National Convention since her husband's nomination in 2008. Her speeches have traditionally been given prime speaking slots, reflecting her importance to the party and her ability to connect with voters.
In the 2020 convention, Obama's speech garnered more online engagement than any other speaker, according to data from NewsWhip. Her address, which included a pointed critique of then-President Trump, went viral on social media platforms.
The former First Lady's 2020 convention speech included a memorable line where she described Trump as "in over his head," a statement that resonated with many viewers and became a widely shared moment from the event.
The Democratic National Convention is set to begin on Monday, with a night-by-night schedule of themes and speakers released by organizers on Sunday morning. Monday's theme is "For the People," featuring speeches from President Joe Biden, Dr. Jill Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson will deliver the welcome address.
Tuesday's theme is "A Bold Vision for America's Future." In addition to Michelle Obama, former President Barack Obama will make a primetime address. Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is also scheduled to speak, with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker providing the welcome.
Wednesday's convention theme is "A Fight for Our Freedoms." Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz will deliver his acceptance speech tonight. Other speakers include former President Bill Clinton, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
The convention will conclude on Thursday with the theme "For Our Future." Vice President Kamala Harris will accept the convention's nomination for president during this final night of the event.
Despite her stated disinterest in politics, Michelle Obama's decision to speak at the convention underscores her ongoing influence within the Democratic Party. Her popularity and ability to engage voters make her a valuable asset as the party looks to energize its base ahead of the upcoming election.
In conclusion, Michelle Obama's upcoming address at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night adds a powerful voice to the event's lineup. Her consistent presence at party conventions since 2008 and her popularity among voters make her participation significant.
The convention's schedule includes speeches from other prominent Democrats, culminating in Vice President Harris's acceptance of the presidential nomination on Thursday. As the event unfolds in Chicago, Obama's hometown, her address is expected to be a highlight of the convention.
Former President Donald Trump has recruited former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to assist him in preparing for his upcoming debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump's choice of Gabbard, a former presidential candidate herself, has sparked widespread interest -- and perhaps trepidation on the part of the VP -- due to her past confrontations with Harris during the 2020 Democratic primary debates, as the Western Journal reports.
Gabbard, a former lawmaker from Hawaii, gained notoriety during the 2020 Democratic primary for her sharp criticism of Harris's record as a prosecutor, particularly regarding the case of Kevin Cooper.
The former lawmaker's participation in Trump's debate preparation has been confirmed by Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who stated that Trump is meeting with "respected policy advisers and effective communicators" as part of his preparation.
Gabbard's involvement in Trump's debate strategy is seen as an effort to capitalize on her previous experience in debating Harris. Gabbard is expected to offer informal advice to Trump and may also take on the role of Harris in practice sessions.
This is particularly noteworthy given the contentious exchanges between Gabbard and Harris during the Democratic primaries, where Gabbard's criticisms of Harris's prosecutorial record became a focal point.
Trump, who is known for his unconventional approach to debate preparation, reportedly does not engage in traditional methods. Instead, he prefers to discuss potential topics and strategies with advisers in a more informal setting. Gabbard's inclusion in these discussions is indicative of Trump's desire to address Harris's strengths and weaknesses directly, drawing on Gabbard's firsthand experience.
While Trump has expressed a desire for additional debates, including one hosted by Fox News, Harris has only agreed to participate in the September 10 debate. This has added another layer of strategic importance to Gabbard's role in Trump's preparation, as it may be his only opportunity to face off against Harris directly before the election.
Gabbard's political trajectory has been unconventional, much like Trump's. After serving as a Democratic representative from Hawaii, she left the Democratic Party in 2022 to become an independent. Her decision to assist Trump, a figure who represents a stark contrast to her former party, highlights the shifting allegiances and complex dynamics within the current political landscape.
Leavitt emphasized Gabbard's effectiveness in previous debates, particularly against Harris, as a key reason for her involvement. "Trump has proven to be one of the best debaters in political history as evidenced by his knockout blow to Joe Biden," Leavitt stated. "He does not need traditional debate prep but will continue to meet with respected policy advisers and effective communicators like Tulsi Gabbard, who successfully dominated Kamala Harris on the debate stage in 2020."
This collaboration between Trump and Gabbard is particularly intriguing given their respective political histories. Gabbard's willingness to work with Trump, despite their ideological differences, suggests a pragmatic approach to the upcoming debate, where the focus is less on party loyalty and more on strategic advantage.
The upcoming ABC debate on Sept. 10 is shaping up to be a pivotal moment in the 2024 presidential race. With Harris only committing to one debate so far, the stakes are high for both candidates. Trump's decision to involve Gabbard in his preparation reflects his recognition of the significance of this event.
As the debate date approaches, the political world will be watching closely to see how Trump and Harris perform on stage. Gabbard's past interactions with Harris will undoubtedly play a role in shaping the strategies employed by the Trump campaign.
As Vice President Kamala Harris prepares to unveil a new economic agenda, high school students are voicing concerns about the potential consequences of her proposed ban on alleged price gouging by corporations.
Harris's plan, which includes a federal ban on "corporate price gouging" for essential goods, has drawn criticism from various quarters, including high school students who are questioning its likely economic impact, as the Western Journal reports.
On Friday, Harris is set to announce a comprehensive economic agenda that includes a controversial proposal to impose federal bans on corporate price gouging, particularly targeting the food and grocery sectors. The proposal aims to address the issue of rising costs that many Americans have faced in recent years.
However, students participating in John Stossel's educational program, "Stossel in the Classroom," have raised concerns about the efficacy of such measures. Through educational videos provided by the program, students have been exposed to the historical failures of price controls, leading them to question the viability of Harris's plan.
In a recent video released by Stossel, students discussed their research on price controls and their potential drawbacks. One student pointed to the economic crisis in Venezuela as a cautionary tale, noting that the country's persistent use of price controls has led to widespread shortages and economic instability.
Criticism of Harris's proposal extends beyond the classroom. A recent Washington Post op-ed took aim at the plan, arguing that it could have severe repercussions for the U.S. economy. The Op-Ed described the proposal as "hard to exaggerate" in terms of its potential negative impact, suggesting that it may do more harm than good.
The piece also highlighted the political risks associated with Harris's plan, pointing out that opponents have already begun labeling her as a "communist" due to the nature of the proposal. The article cautioned that such labels could further polarize the political landscape and undermine Harris's broader economic agenda.
Stossel's program has played a significant role in shaping students' views on this issue. By providing access to educational resources that explore the complexities of economic policies, the program has empowered students to critically assess the potential outcomes of government intervention in the marketplace.
As students delved deeper into the topic, many found themselves reconsidering their initial opinions on price gouging. One student admitted that after researching the issue further, they began to see price gouging as a necessary mechanism for ensuring that goods are distributed efficiently during times of crisis.
Another student, who won an essay contest through Stossel's program, emphasized the importance of keeping government intervention to a minimum. The student argued that economic freedom allows the market to function more effectively, benefiting the greatest number of people in the long run.
The students' perspectives highlight a broader debate over the role of government in regulating the economy. While Harris's proposal aims to protect consumers from excessive prices, critics argue that such measures could backfire, leading to unintended consequences such as shortages and reduced market efficiency.
As Harris prepares to officially announce her economic agenda, the debate over her proposed price gouging ban is likely to intensify. The opposition from both political commentators and young students suggests that the proposal may face significant hurdles in gaining widespread support.
In conclusion, Harris's upcoming announcement of a federal ban on corporate price gouging has sparked a wave of criticism, particularly from students who have studied the issue in depth, albeit at the high school level. With concerns about potential economic fallout and political backlash, the proposal is set to become a major point of contention in the ongoing discussion about government regulation and market dynamics.
Authorities in California have charged the son of a legendary rock band drummer with murder after a drone led to the discovery of a woman’s body in a remote area.
The body of Patricia Portella-Wright, 48, was found by a drone operated by the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, leading to the arrest of Brent Chandler Clifford, 55, the son of Creedence Clearwater Revival drummer Doug Clifford, as the Western Journal reports.
Portella-Wright, a resident of Kings Beach, California, was reported missing after last being seen with her boyfriend, Brent Clifford, on Aug. 4. Authorities located her body on a steep embankment near Mt. Rose Highway in Nevada, approximately 26 miles from where another victim, 68-year-old William Andrews, was discovered shot to death in Reno.
The Placer County Sheriff’s Office, utilizing a drone to navigate the challenging terrain of the mountainous Lake Tahoe region, located the remains of Portella-Wright. The use of the drone was critical, given the steep and difficult-to-access location where the body was found. The discovery was announced via the Sheriff’s Office Facebook page, which also noted the temporary closure of the highway during the recovery process.
Brent Chandler Clifford, son of rock legend Doug Clifford, was taken into custody on Wednesday and is currently being held at South Placer County Jail without bail. Clifford had traveled to Reno, Nevada, on August 9, the same day Portella-Wright was reported missing, to visit a friend, William Andrews. Just two days later, Andrews was found dead from a gunshot wound.
According to Lt. Dave Smith, spokesperson for the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, detectives are now focusing on gathering more information about the circumstances leading to these deaths. "Right now, detectives are working to interview anybody that might have information on what occurred: friends, family members, acquaintances," Smith said.
After the discovery of Andrews' body, authorities learned that Clifford had fled Reno in Andrews’ red 2003 Chevrolet Blazer. This vehicle, along with Clifford’s sudden departure, played a significant role in the unfolding investigation that eventually led back to Portella-Wright’s disappearance and death.
The relationship between Clifford and Portella-Wright, which ended tragically, was further complicated by his connection to the second victim, Andrews. Investigators are now piecing together the events that transpired between August 4 and the discovery of the two bodies.
Clifford’s arrest marks a significant development in the case, particularly given his connection to the iconic rock band, Creedence Clearwater Revival. Despite his lineage, Clifford is now facing serious charges, with the legal process just beginning to unfold.
Portella-Wright’s death has been officially deemed the result of "apparent foul play" by the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, a conclusion that has only deepened the mystery surrounding this case. The use of advanced technology, such as drones, has proven crucial in navigating the rugged terrain and bringing some measure of resolution to a complex investigation.
The Sheriff’s Office continues to seek out anyone who may have additional information about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of both Portella-Wright and Andrews. Friends, family members, and acquaintances are being interviewed to shed light on what might have led to this tragic sequence of events.
The case is ongoing, with authorities working diligently to uncover the full story behind these deaths. Clifford, who remains in custody without bail, will likely face a lengthy legal battle as more details emerge.
As investigators delve deeper into the lives of both the suspect and the victims, the broader implications of this case continue to resonate, highlighting the tragic outcomes of personal relationships gone wrong.