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.
Recently released photos of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump, have prompted a surge of speculation about the July 13 incident in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Eerie images showing Crooks just minutes before the attack have fueled conspiracy theories despite the FBI’s ongoing insistence that he acted alone, as the Daily Mail reports.
Crooks, 20, attempted to kill Trump during a rally, but was ultimately shot and killed by a Secret Service sniper. The attack, which left Trump with a minor injury and resulted in the death of one rally attendee, continues to generate questions.
Among the photos now circulating, one shows Crooks standing on a wall in a grassy area near the rally. He is holding a cell phone, seemingly observing the surroundings. In another image, he is seen looking over his shoulder, a posture that some have interpreted as suspicious.
The FBI’s report on Crooks maintains that he acted alone, but these images have reignited a wave of conspiracy theories. Some speculate that Crooks may have been working with others, despite the lack of evidence to support this claim.
Documents released to the watchdog group Judicial Watch include pictures and local law enforcement plans for the rally. These documents have become a focal point for those questioning the official narrative.
One viral video showing a woman shouting at Crooks before the shooting has been a key driver of speculation. The woman’s words, "Crooks. What are you doing? Get over here. Get down," have led some to believe she may have been an accomplice. This theory was later debunked, with authorities confirming she had no involvement in the plot.
Another theory gaining attention was propagated by conservative podcaster Alex Jones. He suggested that the attack was part of a “Deep State” coup attempt, an accusation that has found a receptive audience among his followers.
Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) also weighed in, claiming without evidence that President Joe Biden ordered the attack on Trump. This unfounded assertion has further polarized public opinion.
Security measures at the rally have come under intense scrutiny. Despite the Secret Service's presence, Crooks managed to bring a firearm and explosive materials into the event. A remote detonator was also found in his car, raising concerns about how these items evaded detection.
Crooks’ suspicious behavior before the attack included lingering around metal detectors and using a range finder. He fired his weapon at 6:11 p.m., just eight minutes after Trump took the stage, further intensifying scrutiny of the event's security protocols.
While the FBI continues to assert that Crooks acted alone, the release of these images and the ongoing discussions they have sparked suggest that the public remains divided over the true nature of the incident. As the investigation continues, the debate over what really happened at the Butler rally is unlikely to subside anytime soon.
These new images, combined with the complex array of conspiracy theories and unanswered questions, ensure that this story will remain a focal point of public interest for the foreseeable future.
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing an uphill battle in his campaign, with dwindling support and a lack of ballot access in several key states.
Kennedy is reportedly exploring potential alliances with former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris as a way to remain relevant in the political landscape, as Just the News reports, and his decision could prove devastating to one of the major party's prospects.
Kennedy, whose campaign has encountered several setbacks, has seen his support plummet since President Joe Biden withdrew from the Democratic ticket in favor of Harris.
Initially polling at 8.7% with Biden in the race, Kennedy’s numbers have since dropped to an average of 5.5% with Harris as the Democratic frontrunner. In comparison, Harris and Trump are locked in a tight race, with Harris leading at 45.6% and Trump close behind at 44.6%.
The Kennedy campaign’s struggles are compounded by difficulties in securing ballot access. While he is on the ballot in key states such as Texas, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, Kennedy will not appear on the ballot in a majority of states, including electoral heavyweights like New York and California. A recent ruling by a New York state court judge has further hindered his chances by blocking his name from appearing on the New York ballot.
Kennedy’s campaign has been dogged by rumors of a potential deal with either the Trump or Harris campaigns in exchange for a role in their administration. Reports suggest that Kennedy is seeking a cabinet position to maintain influence in policymaking, but neither campaign has shown interest in such a partnership. Despite these rumors, Kennedy’s running mate Nicole Shanahan has denied any ongoing negotiations with the Harris campaign, referring to them as a “lost cause.”
On the other hand, Democratic National Committee spokesperson Matt Corridoni dismissed any potential talks with Kennedy, labeling him a “MAGA-funded fringe candidate” and criticizing his perceived willingness to collaborate with Trump.
Amid the swirling rumors, Kennedy has publicly denied any plans to endorse Harris. In a post on X, he criticized the Democratic leadership, stating, “I have no plans to endorse Kamala Harris for President. I do have a plan to defeat her.” He emphasized his long-standing efforts to fight government corruption, contrasting his record with Harris’s tenure as Vice President.
The Kennedy campaign’s strategy appears to be focused on portraying him as a unifying figure capable of bridging the gap between opposing political factions. Following a recent meeting with Trump, Kennedy’s spokesperson Stefanie Spear confirmed the discussion centered on national unity and reiterated that Kennedy is not dropping out of the race. However, leaked footage of the meeting has fueled speculation that Kennedy might be seeking a role in a potential Trump administration.
Despite these overtures, Trump’s campaign has not shied away from criticizing Kennedy. Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung equated Kennedy’s policy platform to that of Harris, calling him a “radical leftist” and disparaging his environmental policies as extreme.
The future of Kennedy’s campaign remains uncertain as he continues to struggle with low polling numbers and limited ballot access. His attempts to position himself as a viable alternative to the major party candidates have so far failed to gain traction. The lack of support from both Trump and Harris further complicates his efforts to secure a meaningful role in the 2024 election.
As Kennedy seeks to stay relevant, his campaign is emphasizing his pro-environment, pro-choice, and anti-war stance, arguing that these positions make him the only candidate capable of defeating Trump in a head-to-head contest. However, without broader support and a clear path to victory, his prospects look increasingly bleak.
In conclusion, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign is facing significant challenges, from dropping poll numbers to limited ballot access in key states. Reports of potential alliances with either the Trump or Harris campaigns have been met with skepticism, and Kennedy’s attempts to secure a role in a future administration have so far been unsuccessful. As the election approaches, Kennedy’s path forward remains uncertain, with his campaign struggling to maintain its relevance on the national stage.
The release of a previously unseen photo related to an alleged assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump has ignited new controversy, drawing comparisons to historical tragedies and prompting renewed scrutiny of government actions.
Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida shared the image on Thursday, showing Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old suspect, carrying an AR-15 near the site of Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania on July 13.
According to The Western Journal, the photograph, which had not been publicly disclosed before, was reportedly taken by an attendee at the rally. Rep. Luna claimed the image had been submitted to law enforcement officials in Pennsylvania but was not released until now. The photo shows Crooks walking near a building close to the rally, armed with what appears to be an AR-15 rifle.
The release of the image has sparked an intense reaction on social media, particularly among Trump supporters, who are voicing suspicions of a possible inside job. Prominent figures like Brenden Dilley were quick to weigh in, with Dilley commenting, “He’s open carrying an AR15 a few hundred feet from a presidential candidate and former president speaking. Zero chance this wasn’t an inside job.”
Others echoed this sentiment, with some going as far as to suggest a deeper conspiracy at play. Social media user Gunther Eagleman simply stated, “Inside job,” while another unnamed user argued that Crooks was merely a “patsy, not the shooter.” These reactions underscore the growing mistrust among certain segments of the public toward federal agencies and their handling of high-profile events.
The photograph and the surrounding discourse have reignited a long-standing debate about the effectiveness and intentions of government security measures. Many have pointed to this incident as evidence of either gross incompetence or, more alarmingly, a deliberate act by some within the government.
Theories of a deliberate inside job have drawn comparisons to historical events such as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. For some, this incident recalls the forewarnings of political commentators like Tucker Carlson, who had predicted a potential attempt on Trump’s life. These comparisons have fueled the belief that the attack on Trump was not merely an isolated act of violence but possibly part of a larger and more sinister plot.
Rep. Luna’s release of the photograph appears to have intensified these concerns. The image, showing Crooks openly carrying a firearm in close proximity to the rally site, raises questions about how such a situation could have been allowed to occur without immediate intervention by security forces. This has led to further speculation about the possible involvement of individuals within the government who might have had a vested interest in ensuring the attack’s success.
The timing of the photo's release, coming weeks after the event itself, has also drawn criticism. Some have questioned why the photo was not made public sooner, especially given the gravity of the situation. This delay has only added to the suspicion that there may have been efforts to cover up or downplay the incident.
The mainstream media’s response to the photo and the alleged assassination attempt has also been a point of contention. Critics argue that the establishment has largely ignored the incident, focusing instead on other political narratives, such as the Capitol insurrection. This perceived lack of coverage has further fueled the belief among some that the media is complicit in obscuring the truth.
For many Trump supporters, the image serves as confirmation of their worst fears about the lengths to which some might go to undermine the former president. On the other hand, critics of Trump and his supporters might see this as another example of baseless conspiracy theories being propagated to sow distrust in government institutions.
The debate over the photograph and its implications is likely to continue in the weeks and months ahead. As more details emerge, questions about the security measures in place at the rally and the role of federal agencies will remain at the forefront of public discourse.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s release of a previously unseen photograph has sparked widespread controversy, prompting renewed scrutiny of the events surrounding an alleged assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The image has led to speculation about government involvement, comparisons to historical assassinations, and criticism of media coverage. As the public continues to grapple with the implications of this new evidence, the debate over what truly happened on July 13 is far from over.
Fox News reported that Occidental College in Los Angeles faces mounting criticism after it decided not to renew the contract of Daron Djerdjian, a conservative economics professor.
Daron Djerdjian, who had been teaching at Occidental since 2010, was a well-regarded figure among students. His courses, focusing on free-market economics, were popular, and he was recognized as the sole professor on campus to offer this perspective.
Despite his popularity, the college chose not to renew his contract for the 2023-2024 academic year, which has left many in the college community questioning its motives.
The situation has led to a petition signed by approximately 400 students and alumni, calling for the college to reconsider its decision. The petition highlights the significant loss to the academic environment at Occidental if Djerdjian were to depart, particularly noting his unique position in the economics department. The students argue that his departure would deprive them of a vital viewpoint in their education that challenges prevailing ideas and stimulates robust debate.
One student, Rayna Singh, remarked on the absence of other faculty members who teach from a free-market perspective, emphasizing Djerdjian’s critical role in the department. The petitioners have expressed their belief that the ideological diversity Occidental claims to uphold without his presence will be severely compromised.
Two anonymous faculty members have also come forward in Djerdjian’s defense, suggesting that his dismissal was not due to academic reasons but rather because of his political stance. They argue that this move could have long-term consequences for students, who will now be exposed to a more homogenous set of ideas within the economics curriculum.
In recent years, Occidental’s economics department has shifted its focus toward topics such as fair trade and market failures, aligning more closely with progressive economic theories. This transition has led some to speculate that Djerdjian’s conservative approach was increasingly at odds with the department’s direction.
Mark Skousen, a prominent economist and critic of the decision, has pointed out the irony of a college that champions diversity, equity, and inclusion while seemingly sidelining a faculty member who offered a different perspective.
Skousen highlighted the growing tendency within the department to prioritize viewpoints aligned with Keynesian economics over those associated with figures like Milton Friedman.
For its part, Occidental College has maintained that its decision was based on standard academic considerations, including curricular needs and student demand. A spokesperson for the college stated that non-tenure track faculty appointments, such as Djerdjian’s, are subject to change depending on these factors and that the college remains committed to providing students with a variety of perspectives in their education.
Despite the college’s assurances, the decision has left many in the academic community uneasy. The concern is not just about Djerdjian’s departure but about what it might signify for Occidental's broader climate of academic freedom. Critics fear that the college’s actions could dissuade other faculty members from expressing viewpoints that deviate from the majority, leading to a narrowing of discourse on campus.
The situation at Occidental College is ongoing, with no clear resolution in sight. As the academic year progresses, the college community will be watching closely to see how the administration addresses these concerns and whether any steps will be taken to ensure that diverse viewpoints continue to be represented on campus.
In summary, Occidental College is facing criticism for not renewing Daron Djerdjian’s contract, with accusations that the decision was politically motivated. Students and faculty members argue that this move threatens the ideological diversity that is vital to the academic environment, while the college insists that the decision was based on academic factors. The outcome of this controversy could have significant implications for the future of free discourse at Occidental and beyond.
A report from The Daily Beast details the 1995 DUI arrest of Tim Walz, now a potential vice presidential candidate, and the subsequent handling of this incident by his campaign team.
Nebraska State Trooper Stephen Rasgorshek arrested Walz for drunk driving in September 1995. Walz initially responded responsibly, admitting fault and using the incident as a teachable moment for his students. However, when Walz ran for Congress in 2006, his campaign manager Kerry Greely claimed Walz wasn't drunk during the arrest, attributing his behavior to ear damage affecting his balance and hearing.
Following the arrest, Walz displayed immediate remorse, reporting the incident to his principal and offering his resignation. The principal, however, urged him to stay, although Walz chose to step down from his extracurricular duties. This early response to the arrest was seen by many as a genuine attempt to take responsibility for his actions.
The legal proceedings culminated in a March 13, 1996, hearing at Danes County Court, where Walz pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving. He was fined $200 plus court costs. Despite this setback, Walz continued his career in education, moving to Minnesota, where he taught and coached. His team’s success, including a state championship win, marked a significant recovery in his professional life.
Walz entered politics in 2006 when he ran for Congress as a Democrat. During his campaign, the 1995 DUI arrest resurfaced, prompting his campaign staff to address the issue. Kerry Greely, his campaign manager, and Meredith Salsbery, his spokesperson, attributed the arrest to a hearing issue that they claimed affected Walz's balance and comprehension during the sobriety tests.
Rasgorshek strongly disputes these claims. According to the trooper, Walz was given the sobriety tests in the patrol car, and both the breathalyzer and hospital tests confirmed that Walz was over the legal blood alcohol limit, registering at .128. Rasgorshek expressed disbelief at the campaign’s narrative, noting that his loud voice is well-known among his friends and family, making it unlikely that Walz couldn't hear him.
The trooper recalled his initial impression of Walz, suggesting that if Walz had maintained his early stance of taking responsibility and quitting alcohol, it would have been commendable. Rasgorshek believes that Walz’s later attempts to downplay the arrest through explanations about ear damage undermined the honesty he initially demonstrated.
The contrast between Walz’s early response to the DUI arrest and the narrative presented by his campaign years later has fueled ongoing debate. While the initial handling of the incident was marked by transparency and accountability, the later shift in messaging has cast a shadow over the event.
As Walz’s vice-presidential bid brings renewed scrutiny to his past, the 1995 arrest is once again a topic of discussion. Supporters and critics alike are revisiting the details of the arrest and the conflicting stories that have emerged over time.
Rasgorshek's perspective on the incident has remained consistent. He emphasizes that anyone can get a DUI, but what matters most is how they handle the aftermath. In his view, Walz’s decision to attribute his arrest to a medical issue rather than continue with the narrative of personal growth is regrettable.
Reflecting on the situation, Russell Harford, a colleague of Walz, noted that Walz took his role as a teacher and coach seriously, understanding the impact his actions had on the students. Harford mentioned that Walz began using his experience to educate students on the dangers of drinking and driving, finding a way to turn the negative experience into a teachable moment.
Judge Hansen, who presided over the 1996 hearing, also commented on the potential for positive outcomes from the incident. He urged Walz to share his experience with students, highlighting the idea that every adversity contains the seed of greater benefit.
The 1995 DUI arrest of Tim Walz, now a vice-presidential candidate, continues to be a topic of discussion, particularly in light of the conflicting narratives that have emerged over the years. While Walz initially responded with accountability, the subsequent explanations from his campaign have muddied the waters.
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.