Former high-profile attorney Tom Girardi has been found guilty of defrauding clients out of approximately $15 million in a legal Ponzi scheme.
The 85-year-old disgraced lawyer, once known for his successful personal injury cases and as the estranged husband of "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" star Erika Jayne, was convicted on four counts of wire fraud.
According to Daily Mail Online, the verdict was reached after just four and a half hours of jury deliberation. The trial, which lasted three weeks, revealed that between 2010 and 2020, Girardi misappropriated settlement funds intended for his clients, many of whom were victims of accidents or had lost loved ones. Prosecutors argued that Girardi used his law firm, Girardi & Keese, as a front for his fraudulent activities, describing it as a "den of thieves" with Girardi as the "thief-in-chief."
Girardi's career as a prominent attorney came to a crashing halt in 2020 when accusations surfaced that he had stolen millions from settlements won for victims of the 2018 Lion Air plane crash in Indonesia. This case, which resulted in 189 deaths, forms the basis of separate criminal charges still pending against Girardi in Chicago.
The once-celebrated lawyer, whose fight against a California utility giant inspired the Oscar-winning movie "Erin Brockovich," now faces up to 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud. Girardi's sentencing is scheduled for December 6, marking a stark contrast to his former status as a legal powerhouse.
During the trial, Girardi appeared a shadow of his former self, dressed in wrinkled khaki pants and a shabby gray jacket, far removed from the $2,000-plus designer suits that once placed him on best-dressed lists.
The trial brought to light several heartbreaking stories of Girardi's victims. One such client, Joe Ruigomez, who suffered terrible injuries in a 2020 gas explosion, was told by Girardi that his settlement was $5 million when it was actually $50 million.
Similarly, Judy Selberg, who hired Girardi for a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband's fatal boating accident, is still owed a large portion of her $500,000 settlement more than four years later.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ali Moghaddas stated:
Behind the curtain he was pilfering his clients' funds. It was just cruel to treat victims in this manner. He was buying two private jets while his clients weren't getting paid.... This case is a simple and sad story of trust violated and greed.
These cases exemplify Girardi's pattern of deceit, where he consistently lied to clients about why they weren't receiving their settlement money, citing false reasons such as liens, IRS issues, or pending judicial approval.
Girardi's defense team attempted to portray him as suffering from dementia, arguing that he had lost touch with reality due to cognitive decline. They also sought to shift blame onto Christopher Kamon, the former chief financial officer of Girardi & Keese, who faces similar charges in a separate trial.
Despite these efforts, the jury's swift decision indicates they found the prosecution's case compelling. The guilty verdict in this trial may have implications for Girardi's pending case in Chicago related to the Lion Air crash settlements.
In conclusion, Tom Girardi's conviction marks the end of a legal career that spanned decades and brought him fame and fortune. The $15 million fraud scheme has left numerous victims struggling financially and emotionally. Girardi now awaits sentencing, facing the possibility of spending his remaining years behind bars. This case serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences when legal professionals abuse their position of trust.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections faces a second lawsuit within five days as the Republican Party challenges the board's handling of voter registration procedures.
According to The Center Square, the lawsuit, filed on August 26, 2024, alleges that the board failed to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requirements.
The GOP claims that approximately 225,000 individuals registered to vote without providing the necessary information mandated by HAVA. The party argues that the State Board of Elections did not follow up with these registrants to rectify their incomplete applications, raising concerns about the integrity of the voter rolls.
The lawsuit, filed in Wake County Superior Court, targets the State Board of Elections as a whole, individual board members, and the executive director. Jason Simmons, chairman of the state GOP, expressed frustration with the board's handling of voter registration procedures.
Simmons stated, "This state board continually has problems ensuring voter rolls only have verified citizens. This lawsuit will remedy their ongoing refusal to collect the required information from those who want to take part in North Carolina elections."
Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee and former state chairman, echoed these concerns. He accused the board of failing to keep noncitizens off voter rolls, which he claims is "fueling distrust and jeopardizing our elections."
Patrick Gannon, communications director for the State Board of Elections, responded to the allegations, arguing that the lawsuit misinterprets the data and exaggerates potential issues with voter registrations. He explained that the absence of certain information in the voter registration database does not necessarily indicate improper registration.
Gannon stated:
Despite being aware of their alleged claims months ago, the plaintiffs have waited until two weeks before the start of voting to seek a court-ordered program to remove thousands of existing registered voters. Federal law itself prevents such removal programs if they take place after the 90th day before a federal election, which was August 7. So, the lawsuit is asking for a rapid-fire voter removal program that violates federal law.
The board maintains that it has acted in compliance with federal regulations and that the timing of the lawsuit conflicts with legal restrictions on voter roll maintenance close to an election.
This latest legal challenge comes at a crucial time in North Carolina's election calendar. Absentee-by-mail voting is set to begin on September 6, with early in-person voting starting 52 days later. The general Election Day is scheduled for 71 days from the filing of this lawsuit.
The State Board of Elections has faced multiple controversies in recent months. In July, the board was involved in two court cases, a congressional investigation and a General Assembly oversight inquiry. Initially, the board denied three petitions for party recognition but later approved two and was court-ordered to approve the third.
These legal challenges and controversies have put the State Board of Elections under increased scrutiny as North Carolina prepares for the upcoming election cycle. The outcome of this latest lawsuit could have significant implications for voter registration procedures and the management of voter rolls in the state.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections faces a second lawsuit from the Republican Party regarding voter registration practices. The GOP alleges noncompliance with the Help America Vote Act, claiming 225,000 incomplete registrations. The board defends its actions, citing federal law and questioning the lawsuit's timing. This legal challenge adds to the board's recent controversies as the state approaches critical election deadlines.
Vice President Kamala Harris briefly mentioned her father, Donald J. Harris, during her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago. This rare reference to her father has drawn attention to his background as a "combative Marxist economist," a description given by the Economist.
According to a Fox News report, Donald J. Harris is a retired Stanford University professor of economics with a career steeped in Marxist theory.
Born in Jamaica in 1938, Donald J. Harris immigrated to the United States to pursue his doctorate in economics at the University of California, Berkeley. It was there that he met Shyamala Gopalan, Kamala Harris' mother, who had immigrated from India. The couple married and had two daughters, Kamala and Maya, before divorcing when Kamala was 7 years old.
Donald Harris' academic journey took him through various prestigious institutions, including Northwestern University and the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. In 1972, he joined Stanford University as a professor of economics, where he notably became the first Black scholar to receive tenure within the university's economic school.
The Stanford Daily, the university's student newspaper, described Harris as teaching "radical political economics" and referred to him as a "Marxian economist" in 1974. His approach to economics was characterized by its foundation in Marxist theory, which has led to some controversy and criticism.
After retiring from teaching in 1998, Harris continued to pursue his interests in developing public policies to promote economic growth and social equity. He has since served as an expert on economic growth strategies for his home country of Jamaica.
Throughout her political career, Kamala Harris has rarely mentioned her father. In 2003, she stated, "My father is a good guy, but we are not close." However, in 2021, she told the Washington Post that she and her father were on "good terms."
In her 2019 memoir "The Truths We Hold," Harris only mentioned her father a handful of times, noting that "it was mostly my mother who raised us." During her DNC acceptance speech, she briefly touched on her early memories of her parents, saying:
Donald Harris, in a recent essay, addressed the challenges he faced in maintaining a relationship with his daughters following his divorce from their mother.
He wrote:
After a hard-fought custody battle in the family court of Oakland, California, the context of the relationship was placed within arbitrary limits imposed by a court-ordered divorce settlement based on the false assumption by the State of California that fathers cannot handle parenting. Nevertheless, I persisted, never giving up on my love for my children or reneging on my responsibilities as their father.
In 2019, Donald Harris made a rare public statement in response to his daughter's comments about smoking marijuana. Kamala Harris had joked about her Jamaican heritage when asked about marijuana use, saying, "Half my family's from Jamaica. Are you kidding me?"
Her father took issue with this comment, writing in an essay for a Jamaican media outlet that his parents would be "turning in their grave" over the remark. He stated:
My dear departed grandmothers... as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family's name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics.
Donald J. Harris, the father of Vice President Kamala Harris, is a retired Stanford University professor with a background in Marxist economic theory. While his relationship with his daughter has been described as complicated, he has maintained a low public profile throughout her political career. His academic contributions and occasional public statements have provided insight into the complex family dynamics of one of America's most prominent political figures.
China has expressed deep unease over reports suggesting that the United States is adjusting its nuclear strategy to focus on Beijing, a move it perceives as an excuse for Washington to expand its nuclear arsenal.
The "grave" concerns from Beijing come in response to a report by the New York Times revealing President Joe Biden's classified nuclear strategy, which aims to address the growing nuclear capabilities of China and other potential threats, as the Irish Star reports.
Speaking at a recent press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning conveyed Beijing's "grave concerns" regarding Washington's alleged shift in nuclear policy. Mao asserted that the U.S. is using the characterization of China as a "nuclear threat" as a pretext to evade its obligations under nuclear disarmament treaties and to justify an increase in its own nuclear capabilities.
Mao Ning further stated that China’s nuclear policy remains one of "no first use" and is strictly defensive, maintaining only the minimum nuclear capability necessary for national security. In contrast, Beijing accuses the U.S. of maintaining a first-strike nuclear stance, which it argues poses a significant threat to global stability.
The Times report disclosed that the Biden administration has growing concerns about China's expanding nuclear arsenal. The report highlighted that Biden's new strategic plan, known as "Nuclear Employment Guidance," was approved in March and emphasizes the perceived need to counter China's growing nuclear presence.
China's official position contrasts sharply with the U.S.'s stance. While Washington cites Beijing's nuclear expansion as a major concern, Mao Ning emphasized that China's nuclear arsenal is significantly smaller than that of the United States and Russia, with only about 500 warheads compared to the U.S.'s 5,044.
The Federation of American Scientists ranks Russia as having the largest nuclear arsenal globally, followed by the United States, with China in a distant third. Despite this, Beijing continues to accuse Washington of being the primary source of nuclear threats worldwide.
Chinese media outlets, including the state-run Global Times, have echoed these sentiments, arguing that the U.S. is using China as a scapegoat to justify its nuclear armament. The Global Times has called on the U.S. to engage in more constructive dialogue with China rather than resorting to what it describes as fear-mongering tactics.
The Biden administration, however, has defended its nuclear policy. White House spokesperson Sean Savett responded to the allegations by stating that the "Nuclear Employment Guidance" plan is not a secret and was not developed in response to any single threat. The White House insists that the plan is part of a routine review of U.S. nuclear strategy, which occurs every four years.
Since taking office, President Biden has reiterated his commitment to reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, even as concerns mount over China's rapid nuclear expansion. Pranay Vaddi, a senior director at the National Security Council, has expressed concerns that China, along with Russia and North Korea, is rapidly expanding and diversifying its nuclear arsenal without showing interest in arms control discussions.
The Pentagon has also raised alarms, reporting last year that China could potentially possess over 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. This projection has heightened fears within the U.S. government, leading to renewed calls for greater nuclear transparency and dialogue with Beijing.
In a rare move, U.S. officials held discussions with their Chinese counterparts in November last year, focusing on nuclear and non-proliferation issues. This meeting marked the first high-level dialogue between the two nations on these matters since 2019.
As the Biden administration continues to navigate the complex landscape of global nuclear threats, it faces the challenge of balancing its commitments to disarmament with the perceived need to counter China's growing capabilities. Beijing, meanwhile, remains adamant that its nuclear policy is purely defensive and warns against what it sees as U.S. provocations.
In conclusion, China has expressed serious concerns over the America's shift in nuclear strategy, accusing Washington of using Beijing as a pretext to expand its own nuclear arsenal. The Biden administration has defended its policy as a routine strategic review, despite growing concerns over China's nuclear expansion. Both nations emphasize the need for transparency and dialogue, but tensions continue to rise as each side accuses the other of escalating the nuclear threat.
The U.S. Secret Service has placed several agents on desk duty after a shocking assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally.
Multiple investigations are underway to understand the security breach that led to the shooting incident on July 13, with the employment action against a handful of agents deepening the controversy, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The assassination attempt occurred as Trump addressed supporters at an event in Butler, Pennsylvania. A gunman, identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds from a nearby building, striking Trump and several others. Trump was grazed by a bullet, while Corey Comperatore, a former firefighter, tragically lost his life. Two others, David Dutch and James Copenhaver, were also injured but have since been released from the hospital.
In response to the incident, the Secret Service has reassigned several agents to administrative duties. Initial reports suggested that the agents were placed on leave, but this was later clarified. Among those reassigned are one agent from Trump’s protective detail and four from the Pittsburgh field office. The exact number of personnel involved has not been disclosed, adding to the ongoing scrutiny of the agency.
Anthony Guglielmi, the chief of communications for the Secret Service, confirmed the reassignments and emphasized the agency’s commitment to thoroughly investigating the security lapse. “The U.S. Secret Service is committed to investigating the decisions and actions of personnel related to the event in Butler, Pennsylvania and the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump,” Guglielmi stated.
Guglielmi added that the agency is conducting a mission assurance review to examine the processes and procedures that failed during the rally. “The U.S. Secret Service’s mission assurance review is progressing, and we are examining the processes, procedures, and factors that led to this operational failure,” he said.
The Secret Service has come under intense scrutiny following the incident, with questions being raised about how such a significant breach of security could occur. The House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the matter, during which Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned from her position. Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe, who has since taken over, has been cautious in his approach to the situation.
During the hearing, Rowe resisted calls to make hasty judgments regarding the actions of his agents. In response to a question from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Rowe remarked, “You’re asking me, senator, to completely make a rush to judgment about somebody failing.” He acknowledged the failure in security but stressed the importance of a thorough investigation. “I will not rush to judgment, that people will be held accountable, and I will do so with integrity,” Rowe added.
As the investigations continue, a bipartisan task force has been established to look into the shooting. Additionally, a parallel investigation is being led by hardline Republicans who are particularly concerned about the implications of the security breach. Both investigations aim to uncover the factors that contributed to the incident and to recommend measures to prevent future occurrences.
Despite the severity of the incident, Trump has continued with his campaign activities. His first outdoor rally following the shooting took place last week in North Carolina, where heightened security measures were evident. Bulletproof glass was installed around the stage as a precautionary measure. However, Trump briefly stepped away from the protective barrier to assist a woman in the crowd who required medical attention, surrounded by his Secret Service detail.
The rally in North Carolina underscored the ongoing challenges the Secret Service faces in protecting high-profile figures like Trump, especially in the aftermath of the Butler incident. The agency’s internal and external reviews will be crucial in determining how to better secure such events in the future.
In the meantime, the Secret Service continues its internal review while the public and political pressure mounts. The outcome of these investigations will likely have significant implications for the agency and its leadership.
As the situation unfolds, the reassigned agents remain on desk duty, awaiting the results of the investigation. The Secret Service has made it clear that any identified violations of policy will be addressed by the Office of Professional Responsibility. “The U.S. Secret Service holds our personnel to the highest professional standards,” Guglielmi emphasized, “and any identified and substantiated violations of policy will be investigated for potential disciplinary action.”
Former President Donald Trump expressed frustration at a recent rally in North Carolina, claiming that attacks from Barack and Michelle Obama are making it difficult for him to focus on policy discussions.
According to Bloomberg, Trump's comments came in response to the Obamas' speeches at the Democratic National Convention, where they delivered sharp criticisms of the Republican nominee.
At the rally in Asheboro on Wednesday, Trump addressed the crowd, saying, "Did you see Barack Hussein Obama last night? He was taking shots at your president, and so was Michelle." He went on to explain that while his allies urge him to stick to policy, he finds it challenging when facing personal attacks from the Obamas.
The former president's remarks highlight the tension between focusing on policy issues and responding to personal critiques. Trump acknowledged that his advisers prefer him to concentrate on policy matters, particularly the economy, where polls show him having an advantage over his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
However, Trump seemed to struggle with this approach, asking the crowd whether he should get personal or not. When the audience enthusiastically supported the idea of personal attacks, Trump jokingly declared, "My advisers are fired."
The rally also showcased Trump's ongoing efforts to find an effective nickname for Harris. He announced his decision to call her "Comrade Kamala," emphasizing her economic policies on corporate taxes and price controls.
Trump's visit to North Carolina comes at a time when the state's political landscape appears to be in flux. Recent polls have shown a tightening race between Trump and Harris in the state, which was previously considered a more secure Republican stronghold.
According to a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll from late July, Trump held a narrow lead over Harris in North Carolina, with 48% support compared to Harris' 46%. This represents a significant shift from earlier in the year when Trump had a more substantial lead over President Biden in the state.
The changing dynamics in North Carolina reflect broader shifts in the electoral map following Harris' nomination as the Democratic candidate after Biden's departure from the race.
Trump said:
We'd rather keep it on policy, but sometimes it's hard when you're attacked from all ends. You know they always say, 'sir, please stick to policy. Don't get personal.' And yet they're getting personal all night long.
The rally in Asheboro marked Trump's first outdoor event since surviving an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania last month. In response to the security breach, Trump spoke from a new bullet-proof glass enclosure, demonstrating the campaign's heightened focus on safety measures.
Despite the security concerns, Trump's campaign continues to rely on large outdoor rallies as a key strategy. These events have been a hallmark of Trump's political approach since his first presidential run in 2015.
In conclusion, Trump's recent rally in North Carolina highlighted the challenges he faces in balancing policy discussions with responses to personal attacks. The event also underscored the changing political landscape in key swing states and the ongoing importance of security measures in the wake of recent threats. As the campaign progresses, it remains to be seen how Trump will navigate these competing pressures while attempting to maintain his support in crucial battleground states.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent presidential candidate, arrived too late on Tuesday to testify in a Pennsylvania court hearing.
According to The Independent, Kennedy's late arrival was due to a canceled flight from Boston to Philadelphia the previous evening. The hearing was part of a challenge by Democrats attempting to keep Kennedy off the state's ballot for the upcoming election.
The court challenge, filed by two Democratic activists, alleges that Kennedy's candidacy paperwork contains a fake home address and that he hasn't collected the required number of signatures to appear on the ballot. Similar challenges are being heard in other states, including Georgia and New York.
Commonwealth Court Judge Lori Dumas decided to proceed with the hearing despite Kennedy's absence. The presidential hopeful arrived at the Harrisburg courthouse an hour and 40 minutes late, by which time the hearing had already concluded. Judge Dumas adjourned the proceedings without indicating when she would rule on the matter.
Kennedy's attorney criticized the judge's decision to continue without his client's testimony. Outside the courthouse, Kennedy himself expressed his disappointment with the situation, stating:
To me, it's a sad devolution of this party that the only way that they can win elections is to keep its opponents off the debating stage, off the ballots, and use lawfare to try to win elections rather than campaigning. I'll be on the ballot in every state.
Kennedy's campaign has dismissed the challenge as "frivolous," arguing that states should not be in the business of banning candidates from ballots based on residency arguments.
With its 19 electoral votes, Pennsylvania is considered a critical battleground state in presidential elections. The outcome of this ballot challenge could have significant implications for the upcoming race. Some analysts suggest that Kennedy's presence on the ballot might draw votes away from either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump.
In the 2016 election, Donald Trump secured a victory in Pennsylvania. However, President Joe Biden managed to win the state back in 2020, further emphasizing its importance in the electoral landscape.
Tim Ford, one of the attorneys representing the activists challenging Kennedy's ballot presence, argued that the candidate's late arrival "shows a total disregard for our process here in Pennsylvania and a disrespect for the voters who have to make the decision of who they're going to vote for for president."
The Pennsylvania case is not an isolated incident for the Kennedy campaign. Similar legal challenges are unfolding in other states, including Georgia and New York. Last week, a New York judge rejected Kennedy's nominating petitions, citing a "sham" address. Kennedy is currently appealing this decision.
At the heart of these challenges is the question of Kennedy's residency. While he has listed an address in New York, challengers argue that he actually resides in Los Angeles, California. Kennedy's legal team contends that the New York address was partly chosen to comply with the 12th Amendment, which states that a president and vice president should not be from the same state. Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan, is a California resident.
Paul Rossi, Kennedy's lawyer, warned that removing candidates from ballots based on residency arguments could lead to a "patchwork" of state court rulings. He drew parallels to the March Supreme Court decision that reinstated Donald Trump on primary ballots following attempts by some states to remove him using the 14th Amendment.
Despite the ongoing legal challenges, the Kennedy campaign remains optimistic about its ballot access efforts. They claim to have collected the required signatures to appear on ballots in all 50 states. According to the campaign, Kennedy is currently officially on the ballot in 22 states, including key battlegrounds such as North Carolina and Michigan. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of these challenges could have far-reaching effects on the upcoming presidential election.
A spokeswoman for Senator John Fetterman is under fire for reportedly disagreeing with her boss's position on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
According to a report from Fox News, Fetterman's communications director, Carrie Adams, expressed her dissent after an interview between the senator and a reporter.
The Free Press reported that Adams told the reporter, "I don't agree with him," after Fetterman had concluded the call. She went on to suggest that the 55-year-old senator's views on global policy were "less nuanced" compared to those of her generation.
Adams' reported remarks have drawn criticism from political strategists and commentators. Republican communications strategist Erin Perrine described the situation as a "big deal," emphasizing the unprecedented nature of a staffer criticizing their employer.
Perrine stated on social media platform X, "But when the person whose job it is to speak for the boss, defend their decisions, and manage the press does it -- That's an unparalleled level of hubris. Always remember whose name is on the door."
Democratic strategist Symone Sanders-Townsend also weighed in on the controversy, questioning the appropriateness of Adams' actions.
Sanders-Townsend, who previously worked on Senator Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign, expressed surprise at a communications director openly disagreeing with their principal.
Senator Fetterman has notably diverged from his party's position on the Israel-Gaza conflict. In a statement on his official website, he expressed full support for Israel's efforts to neutralize terrorists responsible for attacks against Israeli civilians.
Fetterman stated:
We now know this was a wide-scale, premeditated, cowardly, terrorist campaign against Israeli civilians that also claimed the lives of American citizens. I unequivocally support any necessary military, intelligence, and humanitarian aid to Israel. The United States has a moral obligation to be in lockstep with our ally as they confront this threat.
The Pennsylvania senator has also welcomed the idea of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Congress and has criticized what he perceives as "unending capitulation and sandbagging of Israel" within political circles.
Fetterman's stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict has not been without controversy. His home in Braddock, a suburb of Pittsburgh, has been the site of protests. Additionally, demonstrators advocating for a ceasefire have been holding regular "Fridays at Fetterman's" protests outside his Philadelphia office.
During a visit to Jerusalem in June, Fetterman addressed what he sees as a need for the political left to confront antisemitism. His comments and positions have placed him at odds with some members of his own party who have called for a more balanced approach to the conflict.
In conclusion, the reported disagreement between Senator John Fetterman and his spokeswoman, Carrie Adams, over the Israel-Gaza conflict has sparked a political controversy. Adams' comments, suggesting a generational divide in perspectives on global policy, have been met with criticism from both Republican and Democratic strategists. Meanwhile, Fetterman continues to maintain his support for Israel despite facing protests and opposition from some within his own party.
Daily Mail reported that former President Donald Trump is facing a potential ban from El Paso, Texas, after failing to pay nearly $600,000 owed to the city for police and emergency services provided during a 2019 campaign rally.
The city of El Paso is considering legal action after multiple attempts to collect a $569,204.63 debt from Trump’s campaign have gone unanswered.
El Paso officials have expressed frustration over the unpaid debt, which has now accumulated a late fee of $98,787.58. The unpaid amount, covering expenses for police, ambulance, and firefighter services, has become one of the largest outstanding debts owed to the city, placing the burden on local taxpayers.
The debt stems from a rally Trump held on February 11, 2019, in El Paso. Despite numerous reminders and a warning that Trump could be banned from the city if the debt remains unpaid, the campaign has yet to settle the amount. This issue is not unique to El Paso; other cities have also reported unpaid debts from Trump’s rallies.
El Paso Mayor Dee Margo has publicly stated his hope that Trump’s campaign will eventually pay what is owed. “I’m hopeful they’ll do what’s right,” Margo said, adding that failure to pay reflects poorly on the campaign’s character and integrity.
City Attorney Karla Nieman highlighted the unprecedented nature of the situation, noting that it is highly unusual for a city to have to pursue payment from a sitting president. "We’re on unprecedented territory by having to collect an outstanding invoice from a sitting president,” Nieman stated.
El Paso is not alone in this struggle. Across the United States, nine cities have reported unpaid debts totaling $1,933,383 for police services provided during Trump rallies. In addition to El Paso’s outstanding bill, Dorchester County, South Carolina, is owed $26,071.22 for a September 25 rally, while Coastal Carolina University is seeking $37,410 for services provided during a February 10 rally.
Other cities with unpaid debts include Billings, Montana, which is owed $45,900 for a 2018 rally, and Green Bay, Wisconsin, where $9,380 remains unpaid from a 2016 rally, with an additional $33,000 owed from a March rally. Albuquerque, New Mexico, is also owed $211,175, and Minneapolis faced a dispute over a $530,000 bill, which was ultimately passed on to the venue hosting the rally.
Despite these significant amounts, Trump’s campaign has often claimed that the U.S. Secret Service should be responsible for the costs associated with local law enforcement at these events. A statement from the campaign emphasized that the campaign does not directly contract with local governments for police involvement, suggesting that all billing inquiries should be directed to the Secret Service.
Trump’s approach to debt has long been a subject of public discussion. In a 2016 interview, Trump referred to himself as “the king of debt,” asserting his expertise in handling financial obligations. He also expressed a willingness to renegotiate debts if circumstances change, stating, "I’ve made a fortune by using debt, and if things don’t work out, I renegotiate the debt."
The impact of these unpaid debts is not just financial. Former Wisconsin state Rep. Amanda Stuck pointed out that the money owed by Trump’s campaign could make a significant difference for local communities. "That kind of money could be the difference between hiring another police officer or not," Stuck said, emphasizing the broader implications of the unpaid bills.
As cities continue to struggle with collecting these debts, some have taken proactive steps to avoid similar issues in the future. Nashville, Tennessee, for instance, now requires pre-payment and contract signing before hosting any future Trump rallies. This move is seen as a precautionary measure to ensure that the city is not left with unpaid bills after the event.
In conclusion, Trump’s campaign faces growing pressure from El Paso and other cities to settle outstanding debts for police and emergency services. With legal actions being considered and the possibility of a ban from El Paso, the issue of unpaid rally expenses remains a contentious one, reflecting broader concerns about financial responsibility and the costs of political events on local communities.
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.