Donald Trump's legal team faces a pivotal moment as an appeals court in New York grapples with the legitimacy of a $454 million civil fraud judgment against the former president.
According to the Daily Mail, the appeals court judges raised challenging questions for New York prosecutors during a hearing on Thursday, signaling potential sympathy towards Trump's position as he fights the substantial fine.
The case, initially brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, resulted in Justice Arthur Engoron ordering Trump to pay $454.2 million in penalties and interest in February. The judgment stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his net worth to secure better terms from lenders and insurers.
The five-judge panel of the appeals court expressed skepticism about various aspects of the case against Trump, particularly focusing on the extent of Attorney General James's authority in pursuing the case, the apparent lack of victims resulting from the alleged fraudulent conduct, and the substantial size of the penalty imposed on Trump.
Justice Peter Moulton voiced concern over the magnitude of the fine, stating:
The immense penalty in this case is troubling. How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?
Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale defended the penalty, arguing that the large sum was justified due to the extent of fraud and illegality involved in the case. However, the judges continued to press for clarification on the rationale behind such a significant financial judgment.
The appeals court judges also probed the prosecutors about the precedent for such a case, given that neither party involved in the transactions had lost money. This line of questioning suggested that the court was struggling to reconcile the lack of apparent financial harm with the severity of the penalty imposed.
Justice David Friedman highlighted this issue, pointing out that previous cases cited by the prosecution typically involved damage to consumers or the marketplace, elements which seemed absent in Trump's case. This observation raised questions about the legal foundation for the substantial judgment against the former president.
The judges' focus on these aspects of the case indicates a potential shift in perspective that could benefit Trump's appeal efforts. Their apparent concern over the lack of direct financial harm to any parties involved may prove to be a significant factor in their final decision.
While Trump was not present in court for the hearing, his legal team, led by attorney John Sauer, presented a robust defense against the judgment. Sauer argued that the case was brought too late and that imposing a "crippling financial penalty" for decades-old financial statements would be unfair.
The defense strategy centered on emphasizing that testimony during the trial showed any discrepancies in Trump's net worth were irrelevant to his lenders. Sauer stated:
What is not disputed is the testimony that if the net worth had been as low as one million (dollars), the deal would've been exactly the same.
Furthermore, Trump's legal team continued to hammer home the point that none of the former president's lenders or business partners suffered harm due to the alleged discrepancies in financial statements. This argument aims to undermine the justification for the substantial penalty imposed by the lower court.
The appeals court hearing has introduced new uncertainty into the fraud case against Donald Trump. The judges' skepticism regarding the size of the penalty, the lack of apparent victims, and questions about legal precedent suggest that the $454 million judgment may face significant scrutiny. As the legal process continues, all eyes will be on the appeals court's decision, which could markedly alter the trajectory of this high-profile case and its implications for Trump's legal and financial standing.
The political landscape of New York City has been shaken by a stunning development involving its highest-ranking official.
According to HuffPost, New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted on federal charges, including conspiracy, wire fraud, and bribery.
The charges stem from allegations of accepting bribes and illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals in exchange for political favors over a decade-long period.
Unsealed on Thursday, the five-count indictment has cast a shadow over Adams' tenure as the chief executive of America's largest city. This development marks a significant turn of events for the moderate Democrat, who had previously positioned himself as the "future of the Democratic Party."
In anticipation of the indictment, Adams released a pre-recorded video on Wednesday addressing the allegations. He stated:
My fellow New Yorkers, it is now my belief that the federal government intends to charge me with crimes. If so, these charges will be entirely false, based on lies, but they would not be surprising.
Adams vowed to fight the charges, declaring his intention to combat what he termed as "injustices" with all his strength and spirit. The mayor's resolve comes as his administration faces mounting pressure and scrutiny.
The indictment is the culmination of several federal investigations that have plagued Adams' administration. These probes have led to a series of resignations among top city officials, including the school chancellor, health commissioner, police commissioner, and City Hall attorney in recent weeks.
The U.S. Department of Justice had been investigating whether Adams' 2021 mayoral campaign colluded with the Turkish government to receive illegal foreign donations.
This investigation became public in November when federal agents seized electronic devices from a campaign aide and subsequently, Adams' own phones.
The indictment has prompted calls for Adams' resignation from various quarters, including fellow Democrats. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez expressed her view on social media platform X, stating that she does not see how Adams can continue governing New York City given the flood of investigations and resignations.
Several potential mayoral candidates, including state Senators Zellnor Myrie and Jessica Ramos, city Comptroller Brad Lander, and former Comptroller Scott Stringer, have already emerged as challengers for the 2025 primary. Some of these candidates and other political figures have called for Adams to step down.
Notably, New York City Councilman Bob Holden, a conservative Democrat often aligned with Adams, also called for the mayor's resignation, saying:
While [the mayor] is presumed innocent until proven guilty, there is no way he can effectively lead with this cloud hanging over him.
The indictment of Mayor Eric Adams represents a significant crisis for New York City's government. As the first New York City mayor to be indicted while in office, Adams faces legal challenges and political pressure to resign. The charges against him include serious allegations of bribery and fraud, spanning a decade of his political career. The coming days and weeks will likely be crucial in determining the future of New York City's leadership and governance.
A 64-year-old Idaho resident has been indicted for making multiple threatening phone calls to former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.
According to the Daily Mail, Warren Jones Crazybull was arrested on August 1 and charged with threatening a former president after allegedly making nine calls to Trump's Florida home, stating his intention to kill the former commander-in-chief.
The threatening calls were made on July 31, just weeks after an assassination attempt on Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where he was shot in the ear. In one of the calls, Crazybull allegedly threatened to "find Trump" and said he was "coming down to Bedminster tomorrow," referring to the location of Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey.
Crazybull was indicted in Idaho federal court on August 20, with a trial scheduled for October 28. He has pleaded not guilty to the single charge of making threats against a former president.
The Department of Justice complaint quotes Crazybull as saying in one call, "I am going to down him personally, and kill him." The Mar-a-Lago security team informed the U.S. Secret Service about the nine threatening calls, which were all made from the same number with the caller ID "Warren Jones."
The Secret Service confirmed Crazybull's identity through phone records and by comparing the voice in the recorded calls with a video he had posted on Facebook.
The threatening calls came amid a series of concerning incidents targeting the former president. Just weeks after Crazybull's alleged threats and the first assassination attempt, Trump was targeted again by Ryan Wesley Routh during a round of golf at his West Palm Beach, Florida club on September 15.
In the earlier incident on July 13, Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, had grazed Trump's ear with a bullet, killed one rally attendee, and critically injured two others before being neutralized by the Secret Service.
These events have sparked multiple ongoing investigations by various agencies and congressional groups into the assassination attempts on the former president.
The Trump campaign has responded to the news of Crazybull's threats, with spokesperson Steven Cheung attributing the incident to the rhetoric of Vice President Kamala Harris and liberal Democrats.
Cheung stated:
Kamala Harris and liberal Democrats are the ones who are deranged. There have been two heinous assassination attempts on President Trump, and their violent rhetoric are directly to blame.
The campaign called on Harris to apologize for what they termed "hateful rhetoric" and to tone down their attacks, warning that failure to do so could be seen as "explicitly advocating for and inciting more bloodshed" against Trump and his supporters.
In conclusion, Warren Jones Crazybull faces federal charges for making death threats against former President Donald Trump. The incident occurred weeks before a second assassination attempt on Trump, highlighting the ongoing security concerns surrounding the former president. The case has sparked political debate, with Trump's campaign attributing such threats to inflammatory rhetoric from their opponents.
Former President Donald Trump is making a renewed attempt to pursue a racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton over alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election.
According to Newsweek, Trump has been granted an extension to file a brief of up to 10,000 words explaining why his case should be heard. The lawsuit, originally filed in March 2022, accuses Clinton and other defendants of conspiring to undermine Trump's 2016 campaign.
The case, filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, seeks over $70 million in damages. Trump claims he spent more than $24 million defending himself against what he alleges were false accusations of Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Florida Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Kevin Newsom has granted Trump's legal team permission to file a longer court document than normally allowed. The team's request to extend the word limit and filing deadline was approved without opposition.
The new deadline for submitting the brief is now September 27, 2024, extended from the original date of August 30. The word limit has also been increased from 6,500 to 10,000.
Trump's lawyers attributed the need for the extension to conflicts with other ongoing hearings. This decision shows that Trump remains intent on continuing the case, even after facing a prior legal challenge.
The lawsuit was initially dismissed in September 2022 by Florida federal judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. In his ruling, Middlebrooks strongly criticized Trump's claims: "Such pleadings waste judicial resources and are an unacceptable form of establishing a claim for relief."
The judge also accused Trump of attempting to use the court as a platform for airing political grievances, describing the lawsuit as a "two-hundred-page political manifesto."
Trump's lawsuit targets Hillary Clinton and several other high-profile individuals and organizations. The list of defendants includes the Democratic National Committee, Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and former FBI director James Comey.
The inclusion of these parties underscores the broad scope of Trump's allegations, which center on what he claims was a coordinated effort to discredit his 2016 presidential campaign.
If Trump's appeal is successful and the case proceeds, it could have significant ramifications for political discourse and legal precedent. The lawsuit alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy involving multiple actors in the political and law enforcement spheres.
However, the case faces substantial hurdles, given the previous dismissal and the strong language used by Judge Middlebrooks in rejecting Trump's claims. The appeal process will likely scrutinize whether Trump's legal team can present a more compelling argument that meets the court's standards for a valid RICO claim.
Donald Trump is seeking to revive his racketeering lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others, alleging interference in the 2016 election. The case, which seeks over $70 million in damages, was previously dismissed but has been granted an extension for appeal. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for political and legal landscapes.
Recent events at the White House suggest a significant shift in leadership dynamics, with First Lady Jill Biden taking on a more prominent role in administrative affairs.
According to the Washington Examiner, the First Lady's increased involvement was particularly evident during a recent Cabinet meeting. President Joe Biden handed over the reins to his wife, who spoke extensively about maternal health initiatives, while the President's contribution was notably brief.
The report highlights a Rose Garden event hosted solely by Jill Biden, further emphasizing her growing prominence in White House activities. This shift comes as President Biden has reportedly stepped back from the limelight following his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, with the Democratic Party favoring Vice President Kamala Harris as their candidate.
During the Cabinet meeting, President Biden introduced his wife with the casual remark, "It's all yours, kid," before she took charge. The First Lady then proceeded to discuss maternal health initiatives for nearly five minutes, significantly longer than the President's two-minute introduction.
This incident is not isolated but appears to be part of a larger trend. Jill Biden's solo hosting of a Rose Garden event further underscores her increasing involvement in high-profile White House activities. These developments suggest a potential shift in the traditional roles within the administration.
The timing of this change coincides with President Biden's reduced public presence following his exit from the presidential race. This transition has raised questions about the internal dynamics of the White House and the distribution of responsibilities among key figures.
The report also touches on broader political issues, including challenges faced by the Biden-Harris administration. Conservative commentator Jed Babbin highlighted the administration's struggles in Middle East peace negotiations and their proposed regulations on household appliances, which he argues could lead to significant price increases for consumers.
Vice President Harris's campaign efforts have also come under scrutiny. The report mentions her failure to secure an endorsement from the Teamsters Union, which is typically considered a reliable supporter in presidential elections. This development may signal potential challenges for the Democratic campaign as it moves forward.
Additionally, the article references ongoing debates about foreign policy, particularly regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict. Harris's statements on the issue, including support for blocking certain weapons shipments to Israel, have drawn attention and criticism from various quarters.
The Biden-Harris administration's domestic policy initiatives, particularly in environmental regulations, have come under focus. The report mentions upcoming regulations on various household appliances, which critics argue may substantially increase consumer costs without achieving significant environmental benefits.
On the international front, the administration's approach to the Middle East continues to be a point of discussion. The report notes the ongoing efforts to broker peace deals and manage complex relationships with countries in the region, including Egypt's role in the Israel-Gaza conflict.
These policy decisions and diplomatic efforts are occurring against the backdrop of a shifting political landscape, with both major parties preparing for the upcoming presidential election. The dynamics within the White House, including the First Lady's expanded role, are likely to influence both domestic and foreign policy approaches in the coming months.
The White House dynamics are evolving, with First Lady Jill Biden taking on a more prominent role in administrative affairs. This shift coincides with President Biden's reduced public presence following his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. Meanwhile, the administration continues to navigate complex domestic and international challenges, from proposed environmental regulations to ongoing Middle East peace efforts, all of which are likely to shape the political landscape in the lead-up to the next presidential election.
Local prosecutors have dropped a weapons charge against U.S. Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) after she accidentally brought a firearm to Dulles International Airport earlier this year. The case was dismissed following Spartz’s completion of a gun safety course.
Spartz, a supporter of former President Donald Trump, was initially charged with carrying a weapon in an airport terminal, a misdemeanor which has now been dropped, after an unloaded firearm was found in her carry-on bag by airport security, as The Hill reports.
On June 28, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials detected a .380 caliber handgun in Spartz’s luggage during routine screening at Dulles Airport in Virginia. The weapon was not loaded, and Spartz continued with her scheduled travel to Europe after the incident, according to her office.
The incident led to Spartz being charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a potential penalty of up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The misdemeanor stems from Virginia law, which makes it illegal to carry firearms inside airport terminals.
Despite the legal ramifications, Spartz’s office stressed that it was an honest mistake. After completing a mandatory gun safety course, local prosecutors opted to drop the charge, entering a nolle prosequi on the case docket ahead of her scheduled court appearance. "It’s an automatic charge under Virginia law regardless of the circumstance," Spartz’s office explained, noting that prosecutors chose not to proceed with the case after reviewing the facts.
Following the discovery of the firearm, Spartz acknowledged the mistake and expressed her cooperation with authorities. She maintained that the gun had been left in her bag accidentally and emphasized her commitment to addressing the situation responsibly.
The congresswoman did not face any delays in her travel plans and departed for Europe as scheduled after the June 28 screening. The TSA's handling of the matter remained consistent with its broader efforts to ensure airport security, particularly in cases where firearms are discovered during screenings.
Spartz, who was first elected to Congress in 2020, represents Indiana’s 5th Congressional District. Her office did not indicate whether the incident would affect her future political plans or upcoming re-election campaign.
According to the TSA, firearm discoveries in airport screenings are not uncommon. During the first half of this year, the agency found 3,269 firearms in travelers’ luggage across the country. This figure is nearly identical to the number of firearms discovered during the same period in the previous year, despite an increase in overall passenger traffic.
The TSA requires that firearms be packed in checked luggage, unloaded, and properly declared to airline personnel. Carrying a firearm in a carry-on bag is a violation of federal regulations and can result in civil penalties, in addition to criminal charges under state or local laws. Spartz’s case serves as a reminder of the strict enforcement of firearm regulations at airports and the potential legal consequences for violations, even when the firearm is unloaded.
Prosecutors chose not to pursue the case further after Spartz completed a gun safety training program. The successful completion of the course allowed her to avoid potential jail time and fines associated with the misdemeanor charge.
The decision to drop the charge was made before Spartz’s scheduled arraignment, providing a resolution to the legal issue. Her office expressed relief at the outcome and reiterated that the incident was a mistake.
The congresswoman continues to serve her district, with the issue behind her. No further legal actions are expected in connection with the incident.
The U.S. Supreme Court has effectively blocked Green Party candidate Jill Stein from appearing on Nevada’s 2024 presidential ballot, marking a significant development in the state’s highly contested race.
The ruling had the effect of upholding a Nevada Supreme Court decision, which found that Stein failed to meet access requirements and must leave the ballot, potentially boosting Vice President Kamala Harris in her narrow race against Donald Trump, as USA Today reports.
On Friday, the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to allow Stein on Nevada’s ballot, filed by Jay Sekulow, a prominent attorney who once represented former President Donald Trump. Stein’s removal has sparked concerns from some that voters are being deprived of choice, while others see it as an important move to preserve the integrity of the ballot process.
The legal battle over Stein’s eligibility began when Nevada Democrats challenged her spot on the ballot, asserting that the Green Party had failed to follow proper ballot procedures. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with the Democrats, stating that the Green Party's paperwork lacked a crucial sworn statement, thus violating state laws aimed at preventing fraudulent signatures.
Sekulow, who represented the Green Party in this case, argued that removing Stein from the ballot not only harmed Nevada voters but could also have implications beyond the state. He claimed the decision robbed Nevadans of their right to choose and that there was still time to “correct this injustice.” However, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and state Democrats opposed the move, arguing that any changes to the ballots would risk confusing voters and could erode their trust in the electoral process.
The stakes in this legal battle are particularly high due to the close nature of the race in Nevada. According to opinion polls, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are running neck and neck, with analysts predicting that the state’s outcome could be decided by mere tenths of a percentage point.
Kyle Kondik, a well-known polling expert, emphasized the importance of the ballot’s composition in such a tight race, noting that even a small percentage of third-party support could shift the final outcome. Stein, polling at roughly 1%, was not expected to gain much traction by election day, but the removal of even minor candidates could impact voter choices. Additionally, Nevada offers a “None of These Candidates” option on the ballot, further complicating the dynamics of voter preferences. Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party candidate, remains on the ballot, offering another alternative for disillusioned voters.
Political analysts like Dan Lee have pointed out that support for third-party candidates often dwindles as election day nears. Many voters who initially back such candidates may ultimately shift their support to one of the major party contenders, depending on which they perceive as the lesser of two evils. However, Lee also noted that it is not guaranteed that Stein’s supporters would have gravitated toward Harris. Some third-party voters, he explained, are less concerned with any particular ideology and more motivated by a desire to protest the political system as a whole.
The Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling that kept Stein off the ballot was not without dissent. Two justices argued that the Green Party had “substantially complied” with the legal requirements and that the Secretary of State’s office had committed a significant error, resulting in an injustice.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to reject the emergency petition came without an explanation, as is common with emergency orders. This effectively affirmed the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, leaving Stein without recourse to remain on the ballot.
Nevada Democrats and election officials defended the ruling, pointing to the potential for voter confusion if ballots were altered at this stage. They argued that the state’s ballot access rules were designed to maintain confidence in the election process and prevent fraud. Meanwhile, Sekulow continued to argue that the removal of Stein had larger national consequences, insisting that Nevada voters should have the chance to cast their ballots for her. Despite this, the Supreme Court’s silence on the matter has left little room for further legal challenges.
As the 2024 election draws nearer, Nevada voters will head to the polls with fewer third-party options. Though Stein was not expected to have a large impact, her absence may sway undecided voters toward the major party candidates.
Chase Oliver, polling behind Stein, remains on the ballot, though analysts suggest his influence will also likely diminish as the election approaches. As Dan Lee remarked, many third-party supporters tend to return to major parties by election day, driven either by pragmatism or protest. Ultimately, the removal of Jill Stein from Nevada’s ballot highlights the challenges third-party candidates face in navigating state election laws. Whether her absence will impact the final result in Nevada’s tight race remains to be seen.
In an extraordinary turn of events, former President Donald Trump was presented with a chilling memento from a recent attempt on his life.
According to Newsmax, Martin County, Florida sheriff's deputies met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Tuesday, presenting him with the handcuffs used in the arrest of Ryan Wesley Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate the former president on Sunday.
At the meeting, which included Sheriff William Snyder and Chief Deputy John Budensiek, Trump shook hands with the officers and made a poignant statement: "I'm still here." This encounter underscores the gravity of the recent assassination attempt and highlights the ongoing security concerns surrounding the former president.
The attempted assassination occurred on Sunday when Secret Service agents spotted a rifle protruding through a fence at Trump's West Palm Beach golf course while he was playing golf. This alarming discovery led to the swift arrest of Ryan Wesley Routh.
Investigators believe Routh had been in the area for nearly 12 hours before his detection, raising questions about security protocols. The FBI's involvement in the case underscores the seriousness of the threat.
Routh, described as a convicted felon with ties to Hawaii and North Carolina, reportedly had a history of criticizing Trump on social media. Interestingly, he was also known to be a vocal supporter of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and had even visited the country at one point.
Currently, Routh is being held on two federal gun charges. However, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has suggested that attempted murder charges may be forthcoming, indicating the potential severity of the legal consequences Routh may face.
The state of Florida has launched its own investigation into the incident, demonstrating the multi-jurisdictional approach to addressing this serious security breach. This state-level inquiry will likely complement the federal investigation already underway.
The involvement of both state and federal authorities highlights the complexity of cases involving threats to former presidents and the need for coordinated efforts to ensure their safety.
Alarmingly, this recent incident marks the second assassination attempt against Trump in just two months. In July, a tragic shooting at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania resulted in one fatality and two injuries among rallygoers, with Trump himself sustaining a minor ear injury from a bullet.
These consecutive attempts have raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the Secret Service in protecting the former president. The ability of potential assassins to get close enough to pose a real threat twice in such a short period has sparked debates about necessary improvements in security measures.
The recurring nature of these threats underscores the volatile political climate and the ongoing risks faced by high-profile political figures, particularly those as polarizing as Trump.
Former President Donald Trump was presented with the handcuffs used to arrest Ryan Wesley Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate him at his West Palm Beach golf course on Sunday. This incident marks the second assassination attempt against Trump in two months, raising serious concerns about his security and the effectiveness of the Secret Service. The case involves both federal and state investigations, with Routh currently facing federal gun charges and the possibility of attempted murder charges being considered.
A false bomb threat at a Trump rally site on Long Island caused a stir among high-profile figures and conservative media outlets.
Axios reported that Elon Musk and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) both shared information about the rumored explosive device on X.
The rumor, which originated on Wednesday morning, claimed that an explosive device had been discovered in a vehicle near the perimeter of the Trump rally location. This false information quickly spread through conservative media channels and social media platforms.
Elon Musk, the owner of X, responded to the rumor by reposting a story about the alleged bomb threat with a single-word comment: "Wow." This brief reaction from the influential tech mogul helped amplify the unverified information to his massive follower base.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene took a more dramatic approach in her response to the rumored threat. She posted on X: THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THEY KILL TRUMP!
Greene's statement, accompanied by a screenshot of a Daily Mail article about the bomb threat, further fueled concerns among Trump supporters about potential dangers facing the former president.
The rapid spread of the rumor and the reactions from prominent figures underscore the volatile nature of information dissemination in the current political climate, especially when it concerns high-profile events and individuals.
Nassau County Police Department Commissioner Patrick Ryder addressed the situation, putting an end to the spreading rumors. In an official statement, Ryder confirmed that the reports of explosives being found at the Trump rally site were unfounded.
The commissioner explained that the false alarm was likely caused by an individual who may have been training a bomb detection dog at the site. This person reportedly "falsely reported explosives being found," leading to the spread of misinformation.
Ryder also stated that the police had detained the individual responsible for the false report for questioning. This swift action by local law enforcement helped to quell fears and prevent the further spread of the unfounded rumor.
The false bomb threat incident comes on the heels of a reported assassination attempt on Trump just days prior. This sequence of events has heightened awareness of security issues surrounding presidential candidates and their public appearances.
Several media outlets and social media accounts picked up and spread the false bomb threat story before it was debunked. The Daily Mail, a British tabloid known for its quick reporting on breaking news, was among the publications that shared the unverified information.
James Lalino, a reporter, contributed to the spread of the rumor by posting details on X about an explosive device allegedly found in a vehicle and a driver fleeing into the woods. This information, though later proved false, was quickly picked up and shared by other accounts and media outlets.
The false bomb threat at the Trump rally site in Long Island sparked widespread concern and controversy. High-profile figures like Elon Musk and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene shared the unverified information on social media. Nassau County Police quickly debunked the rumor, attributing it to a misunderstanding involving a bomb detection dog training exercise. This incident highlights the ongoing security concerns in the 2024 presidential race and the challenges of managing information flow in the digital age.
A contentious decision by the Ohio Supreme Court has allowed ballot language to stand that describes an anti-gerrymandering measure as requiring the opposite.
According to The Associated Press, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, has largely upheld the ballot language for Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at reforming the state's political map-making system.
The court ordered revisions to two of eight disputed sections while maintaining the other six that were contested by the measure's backers. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Citizens Not Politicians, the group behind the November 5 amendment. The organization argued that the approved ballot language was potentially "the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive, and unconstitutional" ever seen in the state.
The ballot language, approved by the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board, includes a description stating that the commission created by Issue 1 is "required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties." This description has been a point of major contention, as the proposed amendment actually aims to prevent gerrymandering.
Citizens Not Politicians brought the legal challenge, asserting that the language could mislead voters about the true intent of the measure. The group's proposal seeks to establish a 15-member, citizen-led commission comprised of Republicans, Democrats, and independents to replace the current map-making system.
The Ohio Supreme Court's majority opinion noted that it can only invalidate language approved by the ballot board if it is found to "mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters." The court determined that most of the contested language did not meet this threshold.
In the 4-3 decision, the court's three Democratic justices dissented from the majority opinion. The majority, consisting of Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer, Patrick DeWine, and Joseph Deters, found that much of the disputed language merely described the extensive amendment in detail rather than being misleading.
Justice Patrick Fischer wrote a separate concurring opinion defending the use of the term "gerrymander" in the ballot description. He argued that the language accurately reflects the proposed commission's mandate to create maps ensuring certain political outcomes.
The court ordered revisions to two sections of the ballot language. These revisions pertain to when lawsuits challenging the new commission's redistricting plan can be filed and the public's ability to provide input on the map-making process.
Citizens Not Politicians expressed disagreement with much of the court's decision but acknowledged the ruling that portions of the language were "inaccurate," "defective," and amounted to "argumentation" against Issue 1. The group stated:
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled seven times that politicians broke the law with unconstitutional gerrymanders, and the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today that politicians broke the law with lies about our Issue 1 amendment to end the gerrymandering they hold dear.
Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who chairs the ballot board, praised the ruling as a win for Ohio voters, stating that it would help voters understand the proposed measure amidst expected campaign advertising.
LaRose has reconvened the ballot board for Wednesday to rewrite the two sections ruled unconstitutional. This process is similar to what occurred last year with an amendment concerning abortion access in Ohio's constitution.
The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to largely uphold the controversial ballot language for Issue 1 has significant implications for the upcoming November 5 vote. While the court ordered revisions to two sections, it allowed the description of the anti-gerrymandering measure as requiring gerrymandering to stand. This ruling has drawn criticism from the measure's backers, who argue it misrepresents their proposal to create a citizen-led redistricting commission.