The Democratic National Convention, a landmark event for the party, will take place in Chicago next week.
The convention will revert to a live format, featuring prominent figures such as President Joe Biden, former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, scheduled from August 19-22, this event will be highlighted by President Biden's first in-person address since his 2020 virtual speech. The opening night will particularly emphasize Biden’s political career and his administration's accomplishments.
In addition to President Biden, the convention will feature appearances from other key figures in the Democratic Party. Former President Barack Obama, who served from 2009 to 2017, and former President Bill Clinton, who held office from 1993 to 2001, are scheduled to speak. Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee will also address the delegates.
Although the exact speaking order remains unclear, Biden is expected to take the stage on the convention's opening night. His speech will likely center around his administration's accomplishments and his legacy as a leader of the Democratic Party.
Vice President Kamala Harris is set to formally accept the party’s nomination for the 2024 election on Thursday night. Harris, who made history as the first female vice president and the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, will conclude the convention with her acceptance speech.
The convention will also feature appearances by the families of all living Democratic presidents, adding a personal touch to the proceedings. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, will be represented by his grandson, who will speak on his behalf. Although Carter himself will not attend, his legacy and contributions to the party will be highlighted.
Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Harris, is also expected to deliver a speech during the convention. His presence underscores the importance of family and support systems within the political sphere, particularly as the Democratic Party emphasizes unity and continuity in leadership.
Another key figure at the convention will be Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who is Harris's running mate for the upcoming election. Walz is scheduled to speak on Wednesday, likely focusing on his vision for the future of the Democratic Party and the country.
The 2024 convention marks a return to the traditional in-person format, following the virtual event held in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For Biden, this will be his first in-person speech at a Democratic National Convention as the party’s leader, offering him a platform to rally support for his re-election campaign.
Monday night, the opening night of the convention, is expected to be dedicated to Biden, highlighting his administration's achievements and his role in guiding the country through challenging times. A source familiar with the DNC’s planning noted, “Monday night is Joe’s night, and then he’ll turn the keys over.”
As the convention progresses, the Democratic Party will likely seek to present a unified front, with speeches from both past and present leaders underscoring the party's values and future direction. The presence of multiple generations of Democratic leadership at the convention reflects the party's emphasis on continuity and shared vision.
President Joe Biden, former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago. The event will take place from August 19 to August 22, 2024, marking a significant gathering of prominent Democratic figures. The DNC will also feature a speech by his grandson on behalf of former President Jimmy Carter, emphasizing the presence of all living Democratic presidential families at the convention.
According to a report by Just the News, President Joe Biden addressed questions about his potential decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential race during an interview.
Biden mentioned that if he were to withdraw, it would likely be after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He praised Pelosi's leadership and influence, indicating that her opinion would be a significant factor in his decision.
Biden also used the interview to discuss the challenges he has faced in his presidency, particularly in navigating the complexities of the current political landscape. He acknowledged the difficulties but expressed his continued commitment to pursuing his administration's goals.
The president shared his concern that opposition from Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker, was a significant factor in his withdrawal. Biden noted that pressure from both House and Senate Democrats played a crucial role, with many fearing his campaign would be detrimental to their re-election efforts.
During the broadcast, Biden conveyed the immense pressure he faced from his party colleagues, who thought his presence in the race could harm their political future. He cited worries that Pelosi might oppose his campaign if he stayed on.
Biden stated, "[...] my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate thought that I was going to hurt them in the races." He added that Pelosi's potential opposition would become a major distraction.
The president acknowledged how such dissent within the party could create a tumultuous atmosphere, shifting the focus away from key election issues toward internal conflicts.
Biden also faced growing scrutiny over his mental fitness, exacerbated by his performance in a June debate. This performance intensified calls from Democrats for him to step away from his re-election bid.
In light of these pressures and critiques, Biden emphasized the significance of preserving democracy, which influenced his decision to leave the race.
In 2020, Biden had described himself as a "transition president," hinting that his role was to pave the way for future Democratic leaders. His recent statements seem to echo this sentiment, underscoring an intent to support rather than lead.
After announcing his withdrawal, Biden quickly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the 2024 presidential race. Harris has since seen a boost in the polls against former President Donald Trump.
Biden's endorsement comes amidst reports indicating Pelosi's significant role in convincing him to step down, though she has denied such claims. Interestingly, Biden chose not to delve into details about Pelosi's supposed involvement, maintaining a degree of ambiguity during his interview.
Biden addressed ongoing speculation about his potential withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. He highlighted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's role in his decision-making process, praising her leadership and indicating that her opinion would weigh heavily in his choice. Biden also reflected on the challenges of his presidency, reaffirming his commitment to his agenda while leaving the door open for consultation with trusted figures like Pelosi.
Law enforcement in Florida is scrutinizing a potential case of criminal election fraud due to the circulation of a counterfeit voter guide that misrepresented official endorsements ahead of the state’s primary election.
The fraudulent guide, which falsely claimed Republican Party support for certain candidates, has sparked confusion and concern regarding election interference among Florida voters, as Breitbart reports.
Authorities in Florida are currently investigating the suspected election fraud tied to the propagation of a fake voter guide. The deceptive guide purported to provide official endorsements by the St. John’s County Republican Party but instead featured candidates who had not received the party’s backing.
Denver Cook, Chair of the St. John’s County GOP, identified the fake guide as an exceptionally close imitation, stating, “When you talk about election interference and election fraud, I don’t know how it could be worse than this.”
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has announced plans to file charges against individuals responsible for the dissemination of the counterfeit guide.
The document misleadingly endorsed candidates such as State Rep. Tom Leek (R), who is seeking election to Florida’s Senate District 7, and Nick Primrose, a former deputy general counsel for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who is running for the State House District 18.
Jim Prister, a candidate for St. John’s County Sheriff, was also supported in the fraudulent guide. In contrast, the authentic voter guide promotes candidates like Mara Macie for the U.S. House of Representatives District 5, Gerry James for Florida’s Senate District 7, and Kim Kendall for Florida’s House District 18.
Chairman Denver Cook has been inundated with phone calls from voters confused about the legitimacy of the fake guide. Expressing his frustration, Cook remarked on the damage such actions pose to the integrity of the electoral process. “To do this, it’s angering, frustrating, and it concerns me about behavior when you talk voter intimidations, voter fraud, the level of anger that’s been produced,” Cook shared.
Evan Power, Chair of the Republican Party in Florida, emphasized that only the Florida Republican Party and the St. John’s County GOP are authorized to make official endorsements on behalf of their party. Power stressed the seriousness of the situation and reassured voters that the matter is under thorough investigation.
“The Republican Party of Florida and the St. John’s County Republican Party are the only organizations qualified to speak officially on behalf of our party in St. John’s County,” Power asserted. “We are taking this matter very seriously and are investigating. No Florida voter should be misled by anonymous, phony groups pretending to speak for the GOP.”
The release of the fake guide has raised significant concerns about potential voter intimidation and its possible impact on election outcomes. The misleading endorsements could have influenced voter decisions, thereby undermining the democratic process.
As investigation efforts continue, the incident has sparked broader discussions about election security and the mechanisms in place to prevent and address election fraud. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of vigilance and integrity in the electoral process.
The actions of those responsible for the dissemination of the misleading voter guide not only violate legal standards but also erode public confidence in the electoral system. The investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement will be crucial in determining the extent of the fraud and ensuring that justice is served.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has granted special counsel Jack Smith’s request to delay proceedings in the election interference case against former President Donald Trump.
This delay follows the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, which has added substantial uncertainty to the Trump case, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The hearing was initially set for next week but has now been postponed until Sept. 5. The deadline for court filings, which was also due on Friday, has been extended to the end of August.
The delay was requested by government prosecutors due to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in July on presidential immunity. Before this ruling, Smith had been pressing to expedite the case.
In his efforts, Smith had even asked the Supreme Court last year to rule on the immunity issue before a lower court had made its decision, but his request was rejected. Special counsel Smith and his team are now evaluating the implications of this Supreme Court decision.
Prosecutors stated they are consulting with other Department of Justice (DOJ) components. They also mentioned that these consultations are "well underway," but the DOJ hasn't decided on how to proceed with the case.
Trump’s defense team has agreed with the postponement request, showing mutual consent on the delay. Despite her assertive approach in the case, Judge Chutkan granted the delay request to better understand the evolving legal landscape.
Chutkan, appointed by former President Barack Obama, has maintained a brisk pace for deadlines and hearing dates. Within 48 hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling, she issued several decisions related to the case. The scheduling of the new hearing in early September indicates Chutkan’s intention to keep the case moving swiftly. The upcoming hearing aims to establish a pre-trial schedule.
The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling is seen as a major blow to Smith’s case, as it will likely require him to revise the indictment, especially concerning Trump's interactions with the DOJ. Smith now has additional time to formulate his strategy, given the extended deadlines.
Smith was expected to outline his strategy by Friday, but he now has three more weeks to finalize his approach. This delay introduces significant changes in the timeline of the prosecution's proceedings against Trump. Prosecutors are still processing the implications of the Supreme Court's decision. It is evident that the case’s complexity has increased, causing significant adjustments in the prosecution's strategy.
The recent developments underscore the complexities and significant delays in high-profile legal battles involving former presidents. Both the government prosecutors and Trump’s defense team appear to be navigating through the uncertainties introduced by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The intervention by the Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in legal precedents, now reshaping the approach towards election interference allegations. The outcome of the September hearing will be crucial in setting the tone for future proceedings.
As both sides prepare for the Sept. 5 hearing, all eyes will be on the unfolding steps of this intricate and precedent-setting case. The expected pre-trial schedule will further define the timeline and the scope of the charges.
Former President Donald Trump made headlines Thursday afternoon with his pointed criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris's nomination for the Democratic presidential ticket.
According to Breitbart News, Trump questioned the legitimacy of Harris's nomination, highlighting her lackluster performance in the primaries.
During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, Trump attacked Harris’s ascent to the Democratic presidential nominee. A reporter prompted Trump to elaborate on his comments on Truth Social regarding the constitutionality of Harris's nomination.
Trump expressed his astonishment that someone who received little voter support during the primaries could be selected to run for president. He claimed that Harris was the first to drop out of the Democratic primary race, describing her as the "first loser" in the process.
"She has no votes. And I’m very happy to run against her, I’m not complaining from that standpoint," Trump said. He characterized Harris's debate performances as subpar and criticized her political acumen.
Trump continued, "She had no votes, no support, and she was a bad debater, by the way. Very bad debater."
In his remarks, Trump suggested that Harris's nomination might be unconstitutional, although he acknowledged uncertainty on the matter. "But the fact that you can be, get no votes, lose in the primary system... and that you can then be picked to run for president? It seems, to me, actually unconstitutional. Perhaps it’s not," he stated.
Trump expressed that the Constitution is a critical document that must be upheld: "We have a Constitution. It’s a very important document. And we live by it."
The former president did not mince words about her selection to be Joe Biden's running mate, implying it was a choice that Biden regretted. "Then, for some reason, and I know he regrets it — you do, too — he picked her, and she turned on him, too," Trump remarked.
Trump also took the opportunity to contrast Harris with President Biden, suggesting she was “worse than Biden” but “not as smart.” He seemed eager to position himself as a superior alternative to the current president and his newly minted opponent.
"And I hate to be defending [Biden], but he did not want to leave. He wanted to see if he could win," Trump pointed out, suggesting there was internal Democratic maneuvering at play.
Vice President Harris has not held a press conference or engaged in an interview for 18 days following her nomination. This hiatus has added fuel to Trump's critiques about her suitability for the presidency.
Trump's criticism of Kamala Harris's nomination centers on her perceived lack of support during the primaries, her debate performance, and questions about the constitutional implications of her selection. These themes are likely to remain focal points in the discussions leading up to the election.
According to Daily Caller, a Los Angeles jury has found Freddie Lee Trone guilty of murder and other charges in connection with the 2022 death of prominent rapper PnB Rock.
Trone was convicted of orchestrating a robbery and subsequent murder involving his teenage son and an accomplice, Tremont Jones.
Freddie Lee Trone was convicted on one count of murder following the shooting death of rapper PnB Rock. The jury also found Trone guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery and two counts of second-degree robbery. These charges stem from an incident that took place inside a Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles restaurant in Los Angeles.
The tragic event, which led to the rapper's demise, took place while PnB Rock, aged 30, was having a meal with his girlfriend. Prosecutors argued that Trone played a pivotal role in the crime by sending his teenage son into the restaurant to confront and rob PnB Rock. During the heist, the rapper was fatally shot.
Police revealed that the teenage son acted on Trone's orders. Trone remained outside the establishment in a vehicle, ready to act as the getaway driver. According to law enforcement, this established Trone as the scheme's mastermind.
Although Trone's teenage son was charged with the murder, he was declared incompetent to stand trial due to his age and mental state. Consequently, he remains under the custody of the juvenile system. The involvement of Trone's son added a tragic dimension to the already catastrophic event, entangling a young life in a criminal enterprise.
The motive behind the robbery appeared to be PnB Rock's luxurious jewelry, reportedly valued at $500,000, which he was wearing at the time of the incident. The robbery highlighted the risks and dangers of flaunting expensive items in public spaces.
Investigations also revealed that a man named Tremont Jones tipped off Trone about PnB Rock's whereabouts that fateful evening. This information led Trone to devise and execute the robbery plan.
Tremont Jones faced his own set of legal consequences for his role in the event. Jones was convicted on charges of two counts of robbery and one count of conspiracy. Prosecutors presented a strong case against both Trone and Jones, showcasing the premeditated nature of the crimes.
Trone, labeled as the architect of the crime, was portrayed by prosecutors as having directed the actions of both his son and Jones. Defense arguments painted a different picture, suggesting Trone's involvement was more peripheral. Despite these claims, the jury delivered a decisive verdict.
As Trone awaits his sentencing on August 27, 2024, the community continues to grapple with the repercussions of the event, reflecting on the intersecting issues of crime, family impact, and social influence.
The expected sentencing of Freddie Lee Trone will likely bring closure to those grieving the demise of PnB Rock. This case highlights the wider implications of violent crimes, especially those involving young people.
Although justice appears to be on the horizon, the emotional wounds and broader societal concerns stirred by the murder of PnB Rock persist. His memory and contributions to music are continually celebrated by his fans, family, and colleagues. The complexities of this case, marked by conspiracy and family involvement, serve as a grim warning of the dangers associated with celebrity and fortune.
A Virginia man has been charged with making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris.
New York Times reported that a Virginia resident named Frank Lucio Carillo was charged with repeatedly threatening Vice President Kamala Harris on social media and was subsequently arrested and brought to court.
Frank Lucio Carillo of Winchester, Virginia, allegedly posted numerous threats against Vice President Harris, including promises of horrific violence, according to authorities. Carillo has been charged with making these threats on the social media platform GETTR.
The threats originated shortly after Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, escalating tensions and concerns among public officials. Carillo was apprehended on Friday and made his first court appearance on Monday in U.S. District Court in Roanoke, Virginia.
The charges against Carillo include a felony count of threatening the vice president of the United States, a charge which carries a potential maximum sentence of five years in prison. In addition to Vice President Harris, Carillo also targeted other notable public figures.
Investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) discovered nearly 20 threats directed at Harris from an account linked to Carillo on GETTR. The posts varied in violence and included plans to harm Harris and her family.
One specific post from Carillo on July 27 reads: “Kamala Harris needs to be put on fire alive I will do it personally if no one else does it I want her to suffer a slow agonizing death.” This post is among the many pieces of evidence presented by the FBI.
The threats did not stop with Kamala Harris; Carillo's aggressive behavior also extended toward other high-profile officials. These included threats aimed at President Biden, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer.
The FBI affidavit cited a total of 4,359 posts and replies made by the account “joemadarats1,” which investigators tied back to Mr. Carillo. This account had been active in disseminating threats and inflammatory comments over the past year.
Mr. Carillo’s dangerous rhetoric has spotlighted the increasing instances of threats toward public officials. U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Christopher R. Kavanaugh commented, “Open political discourse is a cornerstone of our American experience. However, when those disagreements cross the line to threats of violence, law enforcement must step in.”
The immediate response and subsequent arrest of Carillo highlight the severity with which authorities are treating these threats. Law enforcement agencies have reiterated the importance of distinguishing between robust political debate and threats of violence.
Despite the grave nature of the threats, as of now, Vice President Harris's office has yet to provide an official response to the events. The lack of comment leaves many questions about the impact these threats may have on her and her family's sense of security.
To summarize, Frank Lucio Carillo has been charged with issuing repeated death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other officials, facing possible severe legal repercussions. The FBI uncovered nearly 20 threats linked to Carillo's social media account, leading to his arrest and court appearance. This case underscores the critical issue of political threats in modern times.
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.
Kamala Harris’ campaign has launched a new initiative called “Republicans for Harris,” which has gained notable endorsements from several former Trump officials.
According to the Independent, the effort seeks to attract Republican voters disillusioned with Donald Trump’s agenda and support Harris' commitment to democracy and the Constitution.
“Republicans for Harris” is a grassroots organizing effort targeting Republican voters who are critical of Donald Trump and his Project 2025 platform. This new initiative by Kamala Harris’ campaign has garnered endorsements from a range of prominent conservative figures and former members of the Trump administration.
Noteworthy endorsements include Stephanie Grisham, former White House Press Secretary and Melania Trump's chief of staff, and Olivia Troye, a former homeland security and counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Mike Pence. Additionally, Chuck Hagel and Ray LaHood, both former secretaries in the Obama administration, have endorsed Harris.
The campaign gained support from former governors Jim Edgar, Bill Weld, and Christine Todd Whitman, as well as former Georgia lieutenant governor Geoff Duncan. Additionally, former GOP members of Congress, including Joe Walsh and Adam Kinzinger, endorsed Harris, showcasing bipartisan concern over Donald Trump’s influence and policies.
“Republicans for Harris” will commence its activities with launch events on Monday across key battleground states such as Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. These states are critical for any successful campaign, and the effort underscores Harris' determination to reach out to a diverse electorate.
In a statement, Harris’ campaign emphasized that the organizing program aims to reach “millions of Republican voters who continue to reject the chaos, division, and violence of Donald Trump and his Project 2025 agenda.” The effort is seen as a move to unify voters around democracy and the rule of law.
Olivia Troye, a national security official in the Trump White House, expressed her concerns about Trump's threat to the country. She underscored that “the stakes are too high” to let partisanship endanger freedoms and the Constitution.
Geoff Duncan issued a statement that reflected the sentiment of many disheartened conservatives. He remarked on how millions of Americans are “fed up” with Trump’s campaign, describing it as focused only on grievances.
He noted that it was a difficult decision to endorse Kamala Harris. Still, he stated his belief in her commitment to “fight for all Americans, right, left, or center, and will stand up for the Constitution.” This endorsement from a senior Republican figure highlights the significant crossover support Harris is garnering.
Adam Kinzinger, another prominent conservative, also lent his endorsement despite never expecting to support a Democrat for President. He emphasized his confidence that Harris would defend democracy and prevent Trump’s return to the White House.
Kamala Harris will announce her vice-presidential pick before Tuesday, with final contenders including Mark Kelly, Tim Walz, and Josh Shapiro. Speculation increased after Philadelphia’s mayor supported Shapiro, sparking widespread anticipation.
The forthcoming announcement of her vice-presidential pick, with Josh Shapiro among the top contenders, adds another layer of intrigue to Harris’ campaign strategy. These developments mark a crucial period for the candidate as she seeks to unite voters across the political spectrum.
The White House abruptly revoked plea deals with key individuals behind the 9/11 attacks on Friday, following significant bipartisan opposition.
The agreement, which proposed eliminating the death penalty as a potential sentence in the terrorists' cases, was rescinded by the Biden-Harris administration's defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, two days after the initial announcement, as Breitbart reports.
Initially, the administration had announced a plea deal to remove the death penalty for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-conspirators, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. This deal faced intense backlash from both parties, resulting in a rapid about-face by the administration.
The news of the proposed plea deal quickly garnered strong reactions from political figures and the public. Many viewed the idea of such an agreement as a betrayal to the memory of the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 attacks. The anger culminated in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s decision to revoke the deal.
Austin took full responsibility for the decision. “I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009,” he stated.
Sen. J.D. Vance, one of the White House's most vocal critics, lambasted the Biden-Harris administration during a recent rally. "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have weaponized the Department of Justice to go after their political opponents, but [their administration is] cutting a sweetheart deal with 9/11 terrorists,” he said vehemently.
Vance then emphasized the need for a more hardline approach against terrorists by stating, "We need a president who kills terrorists, not negotiates with them.” His comments echoed the sentiments of many Americans outraged by the prospect of leniency toward those who engineered the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil.
The original plea deal required the accused terrorists to plead guilty to all charges, which included the murder of 2,976 individuals in the 9/11 attacks. However, the condition of the plea deal to eliminate the death penalty was met with widespread disapproval, leading to its revocation.
All three accused terrorists, Mohammed, Bin ‘Attash, and Hawsawi, have been detained at the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay since 2003. The facility, known for holding terror suspects, has long been a subject of political contention regarding the treatment and legal process afforded to detainees.
The defendants had reportedly agreed to confess to all charges in exchange for the removal of capital punishment from their sentencing. The plea deal, initially aimed at concluding prolonged legal proceedings, was seen by many as undermining justice for the lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.
The bipartisan backlash against the plea deal reflects the sensitive nature of the 9/11 attacks within American consciousness. Politicians from both sides of the aisle condemned the administration's initial decision and demanded that the death penalty remain on the table for the accused terrorists.
While some saw the potential plea agreement as a pragmatic approach to expedite justice, the overwhelming public and political sentiment leaned heavily towards upholding the possibility of the death penalty. This reaction played a crucial role in the administration’s decision to annul the plea agreement.
The swift revocation highlights the intense scrutiny and pressure faced by the Biden-Harris administration in handling highly sensitive matters, especially ones involving national security and historical trauma.