Jenna Ellis, a former attorney for Donald Trump's campaign, has reached an agreement to assist Arizona prosecutors in a high-profile case.
According to Daily Mail, Ellis has struck a deal to aid the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, resulting in nine charges being dropped against her.
Former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis has agreed to cooperate with Arizona prosecutors regarding a scheme involving 'fake electors.' This development comes as the state pursues charges against 18 Republicans for attempting to alter the 2020 election results in favor of Donald Trump.
The Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced that Ellis's collaboration would be crucial in their case against the accused. Eighteen Republicans, including prominent figures like Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, have been charged with trying to misrepresent Arizona's 11 electoral votes for Trump during the 2020 Presidential election. Ellis had previously accompanied Giuliani in promoting unsubstantiated claims of election fraud in several states.
In exchange for her help, Ellis will provide the necessary documents and evidence to strengthen the prosecutor's case. Despite initially pleading not guilty to charges of fraud, forgery, and conspiracy in Arizona, her agreement stems from a similar case in Georgia, where she also pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and writings. This plea has led to a three-year suspension from practicing law in Colorado.
Jenna Ellis's plea deal means she will not face incarceration despite initially facing multiple serious charges. Her insights and evidence are expected to play a significant role in the prosecution of the 17 other accused individuals.
Her attorneys, Matt Brown and Matt Melito expressed gratitude towards the Arizona Attorney General's Office for fully dismissing the indictment against her, clarifying that Ellis was not involved in the 'fake elector' scheme.
The charges against the 18 Republicans, including those against Giuliani and Meadows, are severe. They allegedly tried to certify Arizona's 11 electoral votes for Trump despite Joe Biden's official victory in the state. The alleged false certification took place in Phoenix on December 14, 2020. The Congress and the National Archives subsequently ignored this fraudulent electoral document.
Ellis has become a key figure in the unraveling of these legal proceedings. Her readiness to assist prosecutors highlights her continued willingness to disclose the truth about the events following the 2020 election. Attorney General Kris Mayes emphasized the importance of safeguarding American democracy and declared Ellis's cooperation a victory for the rule of law.
Former President Donald Trump has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Arizona case, underscoring his connection to the accused plotters.
The developments in Arizona provide insight into the extensive efforts to overturn the 2020 election results across multiple battleground states. These legal battles lay the groundwork for holding those responsible for fraudulent actions accountable.
Ellis and Giuliani's December 1, 2020, meeting with Arizona Legislature members failed to produce evidence of alleged election fraud. This event further solidified the prosecutorial narrative that the 2020 election fraud claims lacked substantive proof. The ongoing legal scrutiny continues to shed light on the activities of Trump's allies post-election.
Jenna Ellis's cooperation with Arizona prosecutors is pivotal to proving the state's case against 18 Republicans accused of manipulating the 2020 election results. The dropping of charges against Ellis, coupled with her provision of evidence, underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of American democracy. The continuing legal actions across various states emphasize a unified effort to hold those accountable for actions that threaten the electoral process.
According to Fox News, a recent House report indicates that nearly 100 illegal immigrants on the terror watch list have been released into the United States during the Biden administration, raising significant concerns about national security.
The report underscores the increasing number of migrants from high-risk countries being encountered at the southwest border and the potential threat they pose.
Prepared by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, the report details that more than 250 individuals on the terrorist watchlist were stopped at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023. Out of these, at least 99 were released into various American communities. Meanwhile, 34 remain in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody but have not yet been removed from the country.
Additionally, the report highlights that immigration judges granted bonds to at least 27 of these individuals who entered illegally. Border Patrol has also encountered tens of thousands of migrants hailing from nations deemed high-risk, including Afghan, Chinese, Iranian, Syrian, and Uzbek nationals among others. Specifically, there were 2,134 Afghan, 33,347 Chinese, 541 Iranian, 520 Syrian, and 3,104 Uzbek nationals.
The situation is further complicated by nearly 2 million 'gotaways'—migrants who have evaded Border Patrol—since the beginning of the Biden administration. These individuals' origins span 36 different countries, some of which are known for active terror presences, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, and Yemen.
According to the House report, the Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) encompasses both known or suspected terrorists and others considered a "potential threat." The number of encounters involving persons on the watchlist has surged by over 3,000% since President Biden took office in 2021.
The Biden administration attributes the crisis to inadequate funding and lack of comprehensive reforms, blaming Republicans for failing to address a “broken” immigration system. Conversely, Republicans pin the rising numbers on the current administration's rollback of Trump-era policies, which they claim has exacerbated the problem.
Adding a layer of severity to the situation, DHS reported that an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network facilitated the entry of over 400 individuals from Eastern European and Central Asian countries into the U.S. Among them, eight Tajik nationals with connections to ISIS were arrested in urban centers like New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia after crossing the southern border. Three of these individuals made use of the CBP One phone application to arrange an appointment, while Border Patrol encountered four others.
The House report states, "Under the Biden-Harris Administration, of the more than 250 illegal aliens on the terrorist watchlist who were encountered by Border Patrol at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023, DHS has released into American communities at least 99, with at least 34 others in DHS custody but not yet removed from the United States.”
The report further emphasizes the potential danger posed by the nearly 2 million migrants who have evaded capture. It contends, "That does not include the untold numbers of potential terrorists that evaded Border Patrol to enter the United States as part of nearly 2 million ‘gotaways’ since the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration."
One segment of the document warns that the current impact on national security could be dwarfed by future threats. "Although American communities already feel the disastrous effects of the Biden-Harris Administration’s immigration policies, the worst could still be yet to come," the report claims.
Echoing a growing sentiment among national security experts and immigration officials, the report urges immediate action:
With national security experts and immigration officials increasingly concerned about the threat of terrorism originating from the border, it is clear that policymakers must take all necessary steps to secure the border and stop the flow of illegal aliens. However, the Biden-Harris Administration has refused to address the national security nightmare created by its radical, open-borders agenda.
The public debate over immigration policies is likely to intensify as both sides of the political spectrum seek solutions to these pressing concerns. Whether through policy reform or increased funding, it remains to be seen how, or if, the reported issues will be effectively addressed moving forward.
Knewz.com reported that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has definitively denied former President Donald Trump's attempt to dismiss the case, accusing him of interfering in the 2020 election.
Judge Chutkan's decision means that allegations of Trump's efforts to overturn the election results will continue to be heard in federal court.
The ruling came after the Supreme Court granted Trump partial immunity from prosecution for official acts during his presidency. Despite this, Judge Chutkan concluded that Trump’s legal team had failed to present convincing evidence of political bias or prosecutorial misconduct.
The case, based in Washington, DC, focuses on accusations that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, which he lost to Joe Biden. Federal prosecutors have accused Trump of attempting to pressure officials, disseminating false claims about election fraud, and leveraging the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, to retain power.
Trump's legal team argued that the case was a "political witch hunt" purportedly orchestrated by the Biden administration to influence the 2024 election. However, Judge Chutkan highlighted the lack of substantial evidence supporting this claim.
The former president's defense additionally contended that he was specifically targeted and that the charges were intended to obstruct his potential re-election campaign. Judge Chutkan dismissed these assertions, pointing out that Trump’s actions were not merely in challenging the election results but involved knowingly making false statements to further criminal conspiracies and obstructing the electoral certification process.
Chief Justice John Roberts, addressing the scope of presidential immunity, clarified that the president cannot be prosecuted for exercising essential constitutional functions but does not enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The president, according to Roberts, is not above the law.
By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court granted Trump partial immunity, sparing him from prosecution for specific official actions taken during his tenure. However, Chief Justice Roberts emphatically stated that the president does not possess immunity for actions outside the trajectory of his official duties.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent emphasized that the ruling undermines a core constitutional principle — that no individual, including the president, is above the law. Her argument underscores ongoing concerns about accountability within the executive branch.
As federal prosecutors continue to build their case, Trump faces four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against the rights of citizens. The resilience of this case reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law.
Judge Chutkan has scheduled a follow-up hearing on August 16 to discuss the next steps in the trial. This hearing is crucial for setting timelines and addressing procedural issues as the case moves forward.
In his defense, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the case is a politically motivated attempt to prevent him from running for president in 2024. These assertions, despite being robustly dismissed by the court, continue to shape public perception and media discourse.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed former President Donald Trump's attempt to have the 2020 election interference case thrown out. The case involves accusations of Trump leading efforts to overturn the election results, pressuring officials, spreading misinformation, and attempting to use the Capitol riot chaos to stay in power. Judge Chutkan found no evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness and stated that Trump was charged with making false statements and obstructing election certification proceedings. The next court hearing is scheduled for August 16.
According to the Washington Examiner, Maryland’s Republican Senate nominee, Larry Hogan, reaffirms his refusal to support either of the major party's presidential candidates, taking issue with Vice President Kamala Harris’s policy stances.
Hogan positions himself as a centrist, setting the stage for a challenging Senate race against Democrat Angela Alsobrooks, a close ally of Harris.
Hogan, former two-term governor of Maryland, has consistently criticized both ends of the political spectrum. His stance aligns him against Harris, who recently replaced President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, labeling her policies too extreme.
Hogan's political approach remains firmly rooted in the center, a stance that he believes sets him apart in the upcoming Senate race. "I don't plan to vote for either of the two major party candidates, and that hasn't changed at all," Hogan asserted, calling Harris's policies "disastrous, far-left policies." This perspective originates from his tenure as a centrist governor determined to distance Maryland from any semblance of "the California of the East."
Angela Alsobrooks, Hogan’s Democratic opponent, has been a significant figure in Maryland politics, closely aligning with Harris. Alsobrooks’s policies, according to Hogan, lean decidedly far-left – a stance he plans to challenge in the election for retiring Senator Ben Cardin’s seat.
Harris's record, particularly her time as San Francisco's district attorney, provides Hogan with ample material for criticism. He is a counterweight to these policies, emphasizing, "I still don't want to follow San Francisco policies, and I think that some of the policies are wrong for America."
Interestingly, Hogan had words of praise for Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, whom he described as a centrist much like himself. Shapiro, a potential vice-presidential candidate alongside Harris, received acknowledgment from Hogan for his moderate political stance and governance style.
"Gov. Shapiro happens to have a lot of politics a lot like me," Hogan remarked. "He's a moderate who tries to govern from the middle." This perspective stands in stark contrast to his view of Harris and Alsobrooks, whom he considers far-left.
Despite his critique of Alsobrooks’s policies, Hogan reiterated his personal respect for her, acknowledging, "I like and respect Alsobrooks, but there's no question that her policies are far-left." He expressed concerns that Alsobrooks' policies, akin to those of Harris, do not represent the average Marylander.
Hogan's campaign faces robust attacks from Democrats, who seek to portray him as a potential enabler of Trumpism in the Senate. These allegations, however, do not align with Hogan's clear disdain for former President Donald Trump, a stance he has made no effort to conceal.
Voicing his intention to act as a “maverick” in Washington, Hogan vowed to stand up to both parties. "I think [Alsobrooks] wants the race to be about red vs. blue and just Democrat vs. Republican," he stated. "I think it's about issues that people care about, and I think it's about our records and what we say we're going to do when we get to Washington."
Amidst this partisan clamoring, Democrats have experienced a surge of excitement following Biden's exit, a period Hogan downplays as a temporary "sugar high" or "honeymoon period." He believes voter focus will sharpen after Labor Day, expressing confidence that his campaign will not waver.
Larry Hogan remains steadfast in his refusal to support major party candidates, focusing his critique on Vice President Kamala Harris’s policies. He identifies Angela Alsobrooks as a significant opponent, criticizing her alignment with Harris while operating from a self-described centrist position. Hogan’s campaign emphasizes independence and moderate politics, positioning himself as a maverick willing to challenge both political parties in Washington.
A Texas woman was apprehended in Washington, DC, for alleged threats against former President Donald Trump and possession of an unregistered firearm.
According to Breitbart News, Christina Montoya was detained by police and faces multiple charges, including threats against Trump.
Christina Montoya, 32, was arrested near Capitol Hill on Friday, a mere three miles from the White House. Authorities discovered a firearm and a magazine in her possession. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) confirmed that the weapon was unlicensed.
The exact nature and timing of Montoya's threats to Trump remain unclear; however, police documents note the offense start date as July 20, 2024. At the time of her arrest, Donald Trump was in the Hamptons, engaging with donors.
This incident comes on the heels of an assassination attempt on Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. The 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, was killed on site by Secret Service officers.
During this Pennsylvania rally, Crooks managed to fatally wound one bystander and seriously injure two others before being neutralized. The attack is described as the gravest threat to a former president since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981.
Montoya now faces serious legal charges, including possessing an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and making threats against a former president. Donald Trump is listed as a victim in the case concerning the threats made against him.
Authorities arrested Montoya within close proximity to key government landmarks, raising concerns about her intentions and the potential risk involved. An MPD report quotes, "Montoya was arrested less than a mile from Capitol Hill and about three miles from the White House. She had the gun and a magazine on her at the time, authorities say."
Following the Pennsylvania rally shooting, Trump commended the Secret Service, describing the agents as “brave.” His sense of gratitude was palpable as he reflected on the attempt, stating, “The first one was not a good situation, not a good situation. That was really something incredible. That was from God. That was from God. Because the chances … that was from God. For all of you non-believers, that one was from God, right?”
Public attention will now focus on the continuing investigation to uncover more details about Montoya's alleged motivations and threats. The seriousness of the charges underscores the heightened security concerns surrounding former presidents.
The MPD’s swift response and apprehension of Montoya highlight the ongoing vigilance and preparedness of law enforcement in safeguarding public figures. This incident, paired with the recent assassination attempt, brings to light the persistent risks faced by individuals who have held the nation’s highest office.
In conclusion, Christina Montoya's arrest for threats against Donald Trump and the possession of an unlicensed firearm has generated widespread concern. As legal proceedings unfold, authorities will work to put together a clearer picture of her intent and the potential danger she posed.
Meanwhile, the memory of the assassination attempt on July 13, 2024, lingers, marking a significant moment in recent American history. With Trump safely meeting donors during Montoya's arrest and his commendation of the Secret Service, the broader narrative of risk and protection surrounding former presidents continues to be a pressing issue.
A celebrated Chicago Bears player, Steve McMichael, was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame during an emotional ceremony.
Fox News reported that McMichael, who is battling ALS, participated in the event through a video feed from his hospital bed, where his family and close friends joined him.
Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bears star, played a pivotal role in welcoming McMichael to the Hall. Dent's words resonated deeply as he addressed McMichael: "You are on a team that you can never be cut from and never be released from. When you die, you’ll always be on this team. Welcome home, Steve. You’re in football heaven forever."
The somber yet celebratory event was a testament to McMichael's enduring spirit despite his debilitating battle with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The illness has left him bedridden, which prevented his physical presence at the induction festivities.
His wife, Misty McMichael, provided unwavering support throughout the event. She turned Steve towards his bronze bust, softly saying, "That’s you, baby, forever." Her presence symbolized the strength of their relationship during the challenging times.
McMichael's NFL career spanned 15 years, with the majority spent as a defensive tackle for the Chicago Bears from 1981 to 1993. In addition to his tenure with the Bears, his professional journey included stints with the New England Patriots and the Green Bay Packers.
During his impressive career, McMichael achieved numerous milestones. He amassed 847 total tackles and played a franchise-record 191 consecutive games for the Bears. His defensive prowess was further highlighted by his 92.5 sacks, placing him second in Chicago's all-time rankings.
Steve's sister, Kathy McMichael, delivered a heartfelt speech during the ceremony. She expressed her gratitude, saying, "I want to thank the Chicago Bears and the fans, the best city to play football in. I played 15 years in the NFL and loved every minute of every down. I played with the greatest players and the greatest defense to this day."
The ceremony not only celebrated McMichael's contributions to the NFL but also underscored the tight-knit community and support system surrounding him. This was particularly poignant given his announcement in 2021 that he had been diagnosed with ALS.
The outpouring of support for McMichael was evident as friends and family gathered around him during the virtual broadcast. His courageous battle with ALS has garnered widespread admiration and respect, making his induction a moment of profound significance.
As McMichael continues to fight against this debilitating illness, his legacy on the field remains a source of inspiration. His career highlights and the admiration he received from peers and fans alike are a testament to his impact on the game of football.
The induction event served as both a celebration of McMichael's achievements and a poignant reminder of the challenges he faces. Yet, his inclusion in the Pro Football Hall of Fame cements his place among the game's legends, ensuring that his contributions will be remembered for generations to come.
Steve McMichael's induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame was a heart-wrenching yet inspiring event. Surrounded by loved ones, he appeared via video from his hospital bed in Canton, Ohio. The ceremony highlighted his courageous battle with ALS and celebrated his storied NFL career, especially with the Chicago Bears. Richard Dent welcomed McMichael to the Hall, while Misty McMichael turned him toward his bronze bust, signifying his lasting legacy.
George Clooney recently placed himself at the center of political intrigue by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidential race.
According to Daily Mail, Clooney's move is widely seen as a strategic action to pave the way for a future political run of his own, perhaps aiming for the Senate or even the presidency.
After writing a hard-hitting op-ed urging President Joe Biden to step down, Clooney shifted his support to Harris. This change came just two weeks after Clooney's op-ed appeared in the New York Times, where he thanked Biden for "saving democracy." He lauded Harris' "historic quest" and expressed excitement for her presidential bid.
Within Democratic Party circles, Clooney's actions are seen as a deliberate attempt to carve out his future in politics. A government insider said, "His endorsement of Kamala was definitely calculated." Barack Obama's backing further bolsters rumors of Clooney's ambition for higher office.
An adviser revealed that Obama's support is evidence of Clooney being prepared for a potential political future. Clooney's op-ed cemented his position by pushing Biden to exit the 2024 race. Biden announced his decision to step back in a one-page letter, facing significant intra-party pressure.
Clooney's critical stance on Biden's declining health and leadership played a crucial role. He emphasized the importance of ousting Donald Trump, even if it meant Biden had to step down.
Notably, Clooney's relationship with Biden runs deep. They have known each other since Biden's tenure as Senate Foreign Services Committee chairman. Clooney's humanitarian work and philanthropy date back to 2006, including addressing the U.N. and launching the Satellite Sentinel Project in 2010.
He and his wife Amal established the Clooney Foundation for Justice in 2016. A close connection with the Obamas has kept Clooney in the political spotlight. Sources noted Clooney's king-making influence, attributed to significant fundraising efforts, including a record-breaking $28 million for Biden on June 16.
An insider explained that Biden might not have been pressured out without Clooney. The op-ed, combined with Obama's support, underscored the coordinated effort within the party.
Clooney remains a polarizing figure. He is seen as a potential formidable candidate, despite lacking experience in public office. An insider noted, "George is not battle tested and has never run for office. But what he does have is money and lots of pull." The comparison to Donald Trump, who also entered politics without prior office experience, is noteworthy.
Clooney's previous endorsement of Biden was grounded in admiration and deep personal respect. In a speech, Clooney reflected on Biden's character and leadership, acknowledging the impacts of age on Biden's capabilities.
Further stress on Harris' candidacy by Clooney exhibits his strategic positioning. An insider revealed that Harris benefits significantly from Clooney's support, setting up a potentially seamless transition for Clooney if she succeeds.
Summing up the drama, George Clooney's calculated endorsement of Kamala Harris and his op-ed urging Biden to step down are seen as strategic moves to pave the way for his future political ambitions. His backing from Barack Obama and efforts to galvanize democratic support underscore his newfound influence in the political arena. Despite lacking office experience, Clooney's financial clout and visible humanitarian efforts bolster his potential political future.
When questioned about President Biden's Supreme Court reform proposals, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch voiced a stern warning about maintaining judicial independence.
During an interview with Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream, Gorsuch discussed the importance of an independent judiciary and the complex U.S. legal system.
President Biden recently proposed several reforms, including implementing term limits, a code of conduct for justices, and restrictions on presidential immunity. These suggestions, revealed by a White House official in late July, aim to enhance accountability and transparency within the highest court.
Gorsuch refrained from delving deeply into Biden's proposals. He remarked, "I did not want to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year," emphasizing the need to avoid politicizing the judiciary. He cautioned about the delicate balance required to protect judicial independence, especially during periods of heightened political scrutiny.
Addressing the essence of judicial impartiality, Gorsuch highlighted its significance for all citizens, especially those facing government scrutiny.
He stated, "It's there for the moments when the spotlight's on you, when the government's coming after you. And don't you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions? Isn't that your right as an American? And so I just say, be careful."
Furthermore, Gorsuch's comments extended beyond the courtroom to discuss the broader implications of an independent judiciary. He referenced the need for Americans to trust one another and resolve differences outside of government intervention, echoing sentiments for a more community-focused approach to problem-solving.
Gorsuch turned the discussion to the overwhelming number of laws in the United States. He articulated that both citizens and government officials struggle to keep up with the extensive legal code. "We need laws to keep us free and safe, but having too many has resulted in people committing violations without even meaning to do something wrong," he explained.
In his book "Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law," co-authored by Gorsuch, he elaborates on how the intricate web of legal requirements often ensnares ordinary Americans unintentionally. His critique underlined an ongoing concern where citizens inadvertently breach laws while attempting to lead regular lives.
To illustrate his point, Gorsuch cited issues with the IRS hotline, revealing, "It turns out for a period of time they were giving wrong answers about a third of the time." This example underscores the complexities within the tax code, highlighting a broader issue of accessibility and comprehensibility within U.S. laws.
In discussing potential conflicts with other branches of government, Gorsuch emphasized that his guiding principle remains the Constitution. "The answer is the Constitution," he stated unequivocally. His dedication to constitutional adherence anchors his judicial philosophy and approach to legal interpretations.
Gorsuch referenced a philosophy shared by his colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, to bridge ideological divides. Gorsuch recalled, "My good friend [retired Justice] Stephen Breyer says, ‘If I listen to almost anyone talk for long enough, I’m gonna find something they say that we can agree on.' Maybe we should start there." This sentiment advocates for dialogues and finding common ground through conversation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch's comments on the proposed Supreme Court reforms come at a critical juncture. President Biden's suggestions aim to enhance accountability, but Gorsuch warns against politicizing the judiciary. He underscores the importance of judicial independence, the complexity of U.S. laws, and adherence to the Constitution in navigating conflicts. His reflections call for a balance between governmental oversight and community-driven problem-solving.
A tragic incident unfolded in Lansing, Michigan, when a 15-year-old boy admitted to shooting a political activist during a robbery.
Lamar Kemp, 15, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the fatal shooting of Theodore “Ted” Lawson during a robbery attempt on October 8, 2023.
According to the Independent, Theodore Lawson, a 63-year-old dedicated political activist, was canvassing for Lansing City Council candidate Trini Lopez Pehlivanoglu when he encountered Kemp. The incident took place around 3 pm on North Jenison Avenue.
Surveillance cameras recorded Lawson leaving a driveway while Kemp and two other boys were on the opposite side of the street. The footage shows Kemp crossing the road towards Lawson while the other boys walk out of the camera’s view.
Kemp attempted to rob Lawson, asking him for a dollar. During this encounter, Kemp shot Lawson with a .22-caliber handgun. Witness statements corroborated the details of the tragic event.
Ingham County prosecutor John Dewane charged Kemp as an adult, citing the severity of the crime and Kemp’s prior juvenile record. Dewane emphasized the importance of accountability given the nature of the offense.
Former Lansing Police Chief Ellery Sosebee commented on the case, saying, “Too often, these acts of violence are by youthful offenders with no value of consequence or accountability.” His statement highlights the ongoing issue of juvenile crime and the tragic consequences that often follow.
Local resident Dudley Pete, who knew Lawson, expressed disbelief and sorrow. “I’ve seen him before in the neighborhood, nice man. He knocked on my door before, being a delegate for the Democratic Party,” Pete said. He questioned the motive, adding, “Why would you shoot somebody for a dollar.”
The killing was not connected to Lawson’s political activities. It was a random act of violence during a robbery attempt, leaving the community in shock and mourning the loss of a respected figure.
Kemp agreed to a prison sentence ranging from 35 to 60 years as part of his plea deal. He will be officially sentenced by Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk on September 11. This sentencing aims to bring some closure to Lawson’s family and the community affected by his death.
Lawson's commitment to political activism and community service was well-known in Lansing. His dedication to canvassing and engaging with residents made him a familiar and respected figure in the area.
The three boys involved in the incident were seen at a dollar store minutes before the shooting, captured by surveillance footage. This footage played a crucial role in piecing together the events leading to the tragedy.
The community of Lansing is left grappling with the senseless violence that claimed Lawson’s life. His death serves as a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who engage with the public, even in seemingly safe neighborhoods. The case has sparked discussions about juvenile crime, the importance of accountability, and the impact of violence on communities. It also underscores the need for preventive measures to protect citizens and reduce crime rates.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has reaffirmed the 2011 death of Ellen Greenberg as a suicide.
According to CBS News, a comprehensive review by the state's Attorney General’s Office concluded that Ellen's death, despite new evidence from her family, remains a self-inflicted act.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, led by Josh Shapiro, is closing Ellen Greenberg's case, reaffirming the death as a suicide after a review between December 2021 and January this year. This decision was communicated to Greenberg's parents' attorney in a recent letter.
Ellen Greenberg, a teacher in Philadelphia, was discovered deceased, with nearly 20 stab wounds, in her Manayunk apartment in 2011. Her tragic death was initially classified as a suicide by the medical examiner. The family, however, has consistently contested this characterization, believing it to be a homicide.
The Attorney General's Office conducted another review of the case between December 2021 and January of this year. This was in response to new findings from Joseph Podraza, the family's attorney.
The new evidence included a detailed deposition from Lyndsey Emery, a neuropathologist, who reexamined Ellen's spinal tissue and found no signs of hemorrhage.
Despite these new findings, the state's top prosecutor has maintained the original ruling and closed the case once more. The decision has not been well-received by Ellen’s parents, Sandra and Josh Greenberg, who have vocally disputed the conclusion. "I'm completely disgusted," said Sandra Greenberg. Her husband, Josh, added, "I think this is a vicious homicide."
Podraza, representing the Greenberg family, has been adamant in his opposition to the suicide ruling. He argued, "This cannot be suicide," pointing to Emery's findings that a lack of hemorrhage is significant. He further emphasized his disbelief by noting, "You don't stab yourself when you're dead." The family's persistent belief in a different manner of death has fueled their ongoing legal battle.
The Greenbergs are pursuing a lawsuit against Philadelphia. Their goal is to have Ellen's death reclassified from suicide to either homicide or undetermined. This legal avenue represents their last hope of seeking justice for their daughter.
Behind the clinical details and legal language lies a family's heartache and unwavering quest for what they deem the truth. The Greenbergs' sustained efforts underline the emotional weight they carry. "These people disappointed me," Josh Greenberg said, reflecting the deep sense of betrayal felt by the family.
Sandra Greenberg expressed her disbelief over the Attorney General’s decision-making process. "I just can't believe what's coming out of the office of a person that's trying to run for governor," she stated, highlighting the political dimension that she feels is implicated in this case.
Ellen’s case continues to generate discussions and raise questions about investigative processes and the ability of new evidence to influence legal outcomes. While the Attorney General’s Office stands firm on its findings, the Greenbergs' fight is far from over.
In conclusion, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office has reaffirmed its ruling of Ellen Greenberg's 2011 death as a suicide after a thorough review. New evidence from the Greenberg family's attorney was insufficient to alter this determination. Ellen’s parents, Sandra and Josh Greenberg, remain steadfast in their belief that their daughter was a victim of a homicide and are pursuing legal actions to challenge the current ruling.