The Wisconsin Supreme Court is set to decide whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name should be removed from the fall presidential ballot, following the suspension of his campaign and endorsement of former President Donald Trump.
The state high court will determine if Kennedy’s name must stay on the ballot despite his efforts to withdraw in key states, including Wisconsin, as ABC News reports.
Kennedy, who suspended his bid for the White House in August, threw his support behind Donald Trump upon exiting the race. Since then, he has been working to have his name removed from ballots in several critical battleground states where he believes his presence could affect the election’s outcome. In other states, Kennedy has expressed willingness to let his supporters vote for him, as he expects those votes to have little impact on the broader election results.
In early September, Kennedy filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin to have his name removed from the ballot. This comes after he successfully petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to remove his name from ballots in that state. However, the Michigan Supreme Court and a federal judge in Detroit recently ruled that Kennedy's name would remain on their respective ballots.
In Wisconsin, a lower court ruling complicated Kennedy's efforts. A Dane County judge ruled that candidates are required to remain on the ballot unless they die, barring other extraordinary circumstances. This ruling placed Kennedy's legal team at odds with the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which oversees ballot-related disputes.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case directly, bypassing the appeals process. The decision is expected to be made quickly, particularly since absentee ballots -- bearing Kennedy's name -- have already started to be sent out to voters across the state.
Lawyers for the Wisconsin Elections Commission underscored the urgency of resolving the issue, noting that absentee ballots with Kennedy’s name have already been distributed. Delays in reaching a decision could lead to confusion among voters and potentially affect the election process, especially in Wisconsin, a key battleground state.
The state Supreme Court justices, acknowledging this urgency, will make their decision by reading briefs rather than holding formal arguments. The goal, according to court officials, is to come to a conclusion "as expeditiously as possible" given the time-sensitive nature of the case. Legal experts have indicated that similar cases across the country could be influenced by Wisconsin’s final ruling. With multiple courts ruling in different directions on Kennedy’s ballot status, the outcome in Wisconsin may set a precedent for how other states approach the issue.
Earlier this month, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kennedy, allowing his name to be removed from the ballot. This decision was seen as a win for the Kennedy campaign, which argued that his continued presence on state ballots could mislead voters following his endorsement of Trump.
In contrast, legal challenges in Michigan did not yield the same result. The Michigan Supreme Court and a federal judge in Detroit ruled that Kennedy’s name would remain on the ballot in Michigan, citing existing laws that make it difficult to remove a candidate once they have qualified for the ballot. These rulings reflected the legal complexities surrounding ballot removal after a candidate’s suspension of their campaign.
Should the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule against Kennedy, voters in the state will still see his name on the ballot, despite his suspension and endorsement of Trump. This could lead to further confusion, particularly for absentee voters who may have already submitted ballots.
On the other hand, if the court rules in Kennedy’s favor, election officials will face logistical challenges, particularly in recalling absentee ballots or informing voters of the change. With Wisconsin's status as a battleground state, any shifts in the ballot process could have an outsized effect on the presidential race.
Kennedy's actions reflect a larger trend of candidates trying to navigate state election laws and processes after they have suspended their campaigns. The ultimate outcome in Wisconsin will be a key moment not just for the Kennedy campaign, but for future candidates seeking to withdraw from a race mid-cycle.
Vice President Kamala Harris' recent speech at a Hispanic leadership conference has sparked a wave of criticism and mockery across social media platforms due to her repetitive phrasing.
According to Fox News, Vice President Kamala Harris's remarks at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's conference, where she repeatedly said "children of the community," gained attention online and were criticized as another example of her so-called "word salads."
Harris emphasized the importance of providing families with the necessary resources for raising children during her speech. She stated that she grew up understanding that "the children of the community are the children of the community" and that everyone should have a vested interest in ensuring children have the resources to achieve their potential.
The vice president's remarks quickly caught the attention of various political commentators and public figures on social media platforms. Many expressed bewilderment and criticism over Harris' choice of words and repetitive phrasing.
Riley Gaines, an OutKick contributor, questioned Harris's speaking style, asking, "Why is she like this?" Author David Harsanyi criticized the statement's lack of substance, noting that Harris didn't even use different words to express the same idea.
Other commentators took a more humorous approach. Carmine Sabia sarcastically referred to Harris as a "deep thinker," while podcaster Tim Young suggested that Harris' speaking style explains why she doesn't participate in more serious interviews.
While some focused on the comedic aspects of Harris' statement, others saw it as indicative of a broader political agenda. Brandon Morse, a senior editor at RedState, interpreted Harris' words as a reminder that Democrats view children as belonging to the community rather than to individual families.
Market analyst and political commentator Jeff Carlson drew parallels between Harris' statement and the famous "It takes a village" concept, suggesting that the vice president's words had Marxist undertones. These interpretations highlight the potential political ramifications of Harris' public statements.
This incident is not isolated but rather part of a pattern of similar verbal gaffes from the vice president. Harris has a history of making statements that have been criticized for their circular logic or lack of clarity, particularly when using the word "community."
In 2022, Harris made a similar statement at the Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C., where she said, "When we talk about the children of the community, they are the children of the community." The following year, she faced mockery for stating that "community banks are in the community."
The ongoing criticism of her speaking style and the viral nature of these "word salad" moments could potentially impact public perception of her competence and readiness for higher office. Political analysts suggest that these incidents may hinder Harris' ability to connect with voters and effectively convey her message.
However, supporters of the vice president argue that focusing on these verbal missteps detracts from the substance of her policies and her accomplishments in office. They contend that Harris' track record and policy positions should be the primary focus of public discourse.
Vice President Kamala Harris' recent speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's conference has reignited discussions about her public speaking style. Her repetitive use of the phrase "children of the community" has drawn criticism and mockery from various quarters, with some interpreting it as indicative of a broader political agenda. This incident adds to a history of similar verbal gaffes, potentially impacting public perception of Harris as she campaigns for the presidency.
A legal tug-of-war unfolds as Hunter Biden's attempt to postpone his sentencing in a gun-related case faces opposition from special counsel David Weiss.
According to the Washington Examiner, prosecutors are resisting Hunter Biden's effort to delay his sentencing in a case involving illegal gun possession.
The first son's legal team filed a motion on Tuesday, citing scheduling conflicts with his ongoing legal proceedings in California as the primary reason for seeking a postponement.
Hunter Biden, who recently pleaded guilty to nine tax charges in California, is scheduled to be sentenced on November 13 for lying on a gun purchase application and unlawfully possessing a firearm for 11 days. His lawyers have requested that the Delaware judge move the sentencing hearing to late November or early December, allowing more time to prepare pre-sentencing materials.
Special counsel David Weiss, through senior assistant special counsel Derek Hines, filed a response opposing the delay. While no specific reasons were provided for the opposition, it has sparked speculation about the prosecutors' stance on the timing of the sentencing.
Defense lawyer Abbe Lowell suggested that Weiss might believe the motion should have been filed sooner. However, Lowell argued that denying the request could potentially "jeopardize Mr. Biden's right to a fair sentencing hearing."
The motion filed by Biden's legal team emphasizes the need to accommodate both counsel and those assisting with presentencing tasks. They pointed to a pretrial conference for a civil case on November 12 and a December 16 sentencing hearing for the federal tax case, which complicates the availability of Biden's lead trial counsel.
Hunter Biden's gun-related charges carry significant potential penalties, with a maximum of 25 years in prison and $750,000 in fines. However, it's noted that first-time offenders typically receive less severe sentences.
The case has drawn attention not only for its legal implications but also for its political context. President Joe Biden has stated that he will not pardon or commute his son's sentence, maintaining a distance from the legal proceedings.
Interestingly, the article mentions that former President Donald Trump, who was previously running against President Biden, was recently granted a delay in his own sentencing hearing. Trump's sentencing for his New York hush money conviction is now scheduled for November 26, after the November 5 election between him and Vice President Kamala Harris.
The clash between Hunter Biden's legal team and the prosecutors highlights the delicate balance between ensuring a fair legal process and maintaining efficient court proceedings. While Biden's lawyers argue for more preparation time, the prosecution's opposition suggests a desire to adhere to the original timeline.
This situation underscores the complexities of high-profile legal cases, especially those involving individuals connected to prominent political figures. The court's decision on whether to grant the delay will likely consider both the legal rights of the defendant and the need for timely justice.
Hunter Biden's request to delay his sentencing in the gun possession case has been opposed by prosecutors led by special counsel David Weiss. The first son's legal team cited scheduling conflicts with his California tax case as the reason for seeking a postponement. The gun-related charges carry potential penalties of up to 25 years in prison and $750,000 in fines, though first-time offenders typically receive less severe sentences.
Federal prosecutor Matthew Graves has taken a firm stance against Steve Bannon's request for early release from prison, citing a lack of substantial grounds for the appeal.
According to Knewz.com, Graves strongly opposes Bannon's attempt to secure early release based on the delay in his appeal process. The prosecutor argues that the prolonged decision-making is likely due to the D.C. Circuit Court's heavy workload rather than any merit in Bannon's case.
Graves emphasized that the delay in the appeal decision does not necessarily indicate a "substantial question" in Bannon's favor. He dismissed Bannon's argument that the time taken by the court signifies the strength of his appeal, stating that such speculation does not justify early release.
In his response to Bannon's request, Graves addressed the core of the defendant's argument. He pointed out that the absence of a decision on Bannon's petition for a rehearing en banc does not establish the presence of a substantial question in the appeal.
Graves wrote:
The fact that the D.C. Circuit has not yet decided the defendant's petition for rehearing en banc does not establish that the defendant's appeal now presents a 'substantial question.'
The prosecutor further elaborated that Bannon's attempt to interpret the delay as favorable to his case lacks factual basis. He suggested that the court's workload, particularly after the summer recess, is a more plausible explanation for the extended timeline.
Graves' response highlights the complexity of the appeal process and the various factors that can influence its duration. He emphasized that the delay should not be misconstrued as an indicator of the appeal's merit or potential outcome.
The prosecutor added:
At bottom, the defendant's attempt to 'read tea leaves' does not establish any basis for the Court to release a defendant whom this Court, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court have ruled must be detained.
This statement underscores the prosecutor's position that multiple courts have already determined Bannon should remain in custody during the appeal process. Graves argues that speculation about the appeal's progress does not override these previous rulings.
Despite the prosecutor's firm stance, Bannon's defense team maintains that the appeal process shows promising signs for their client. Attorney Trent McCotter pointed out a specific action by the D.C. Circuit that he believes supports their case.
McCotter stated: "The D.C. Circuit promptly called for the government to submit a response on 'the meaning of 'willfully' and whether we should revisit Licavoli v. United States.'"
The defense attorney emphasized the rarity of such a request, noting that the D.C. Circuit has only made similar calls in seven other cases throughout 2024. This, according to McCotter, suggests that the court sees potential merit in Bannon's appeal.
Federal prosecutor Matthew Graves has strongly opposed Steve Bannon's request for early release from prison. Graves argues that the delay in the appeal decision is likely due to the court's workload rather than the merit of Bannon's case. The prosecutor dismisses Bannon's speculation about the appeal's progress as grounds for release. Meanwhile, Bannon's defense team interprets certain court actions as promising signs for their client's appeal. The case continues to unfold, with both sides presenting contrasting views on the significance of the appeal process's duration.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued a ruling that mail-in ballots without correct dates on envelopes will not be counted in elections.
This decision, reported by Fox News, could have significant implications for the upcoming presidential election in the battleground state, where 19 electoral college votes are at stake.
The high court's decision overturned a lower court's previous ruling that had halted the enforcement of the handwritten date requirement on exterior envelopes. The justices ruled 4-3, with two Democrats joining both Republicans on the Supreme Court to vacate the Commonwealth Court decision, citing procedural grounds for their ruling.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling was based on procedural grounds, stating that the lower Commonwealth Court should not have taken up the case because it did not involve election boards from all 67 counties in the state. The lawsuit, filed by left-leaning groups, only targeted two counties - Philadelphia and Allegheny.
In its decision, the high court emphasized that the Commonwealth Court "lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter." This technicality effectively reinstated the requirement for mail-in ballots to have correct dates on their envelopes to be counted in elections.
The ruling has sparked mixed reactions from various political entities and voting rights advocates, with some viewing it as a victory for election integrity and others expressing concern about potential disenfranchisement of voters.
The court's decision could prove crucial in the 2024 presidential election, given Pennsylvania's status as a key battleground state. In the 2020 election, President Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by a margin of more than 80,000 votes, underscoring the state's importance in determining the overall outcome.
Recent campaign activities in Pennsylvania by former President Trump and Vice-President Harris highlight the state's significance in the upcoming election. Both candidates have been actively engaging with voters in the Keystone State, recognizing its potential to sway the final results.
The ruling's impact may be particularly significant considering the high number of mail-in ballots used in recent elections. In the April primary election, over 800,000 people requested mail ballots, with officials disqualifying nearly 16,000 for irregularities, including missing signatures and incorrect dates on outer envelopes.
The decision has elicited strong reactions from both political parties and voting rights advocates. RNC Chairman Michael Whatley hailed the ruling as a significant victory for election integrity. He stated:
Following legal action from the RNC and @PAGOP [Republican Party of Pennsylvania], the PA Supreme Court REJECTED a Democrat attempt to count undated ballots. This makes mail voting in the Keystone State less susceptible to fraud. We will keep fighting and winning!
On the other hand, Steve Loney, the senior supervising attorney for the ACLU in Pennsylvania, expressed disappointment with the ruling, viewing it as a setback for Pennsylvania voters. Loney argued:
These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard. The fundamental right to vote is among the most precious rights we enjoy as Pennsylvanians, and it should take more than a trivial paperwork error to take it away.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in ballots without correct dates has significant implications for the upcoming presidential election. The decision, based on procedural grounds, overturned a lower court's ruling and reinstated the requirement for properly dated envelopes. This could impact the counting of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state with 19 electoral votes. The ruling has sparked contrasting reactions from political parties and voting rights advocates, highlighting the ongoing debate over election integrity and voter access.
India’s Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal after six months of imprisonment on corruption charges, with the decision emphasizing that his prolonged detention constituted an unjust denial of liberty.
Kejriwal, who has maintained his innocence throughout and is now free, claims that the charges against him are politically motivated, as UPI reports.
The ruling, delivered on Sept. 13, comes amid heightened political tension between Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Kejriwal, accused of involvement in a $1 billion bribery scandal related to a liquor licensing scheme in Delhi, has been a vocal critic of Modi's administration. Two senior AAP leaders, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, were also arrested in connection to the case.
Despite his incarceration, Kejriwal has continued to lead Delhi’s government from jail, refusing to step down from his role as chief minister. His decision to remain in office during the six-month detention has drawn widespread international attention, with critics questioning the fairness of the charges.
The United States has expressed concerns over the case, with the State Department closely monitoring Kejriwal’s arrest and its broader implications for political opposition in India. This marks another instance where actions against opposition figures have raised alarms internationally, particularly in the context of India's democratic reputation.
As part of the bail conditions, the Supreme Court ordered that Kejriwal would not be permitted to return to office, make any public statements, or sign official government documents while on bail. The ruling underscores the sensitivity of the case and the need to prevent further political fallout while the legal proceedings continue.
The corruption allegations stem from a large-scale liquor licensing scheme in Delhi. Kejriwal and his allies have consistently denied any wrongdoing, with the chief minister calling the case a clear example of political retribution. Kejriwal’s AAP has been gaining political traction, most notably with victories in regional elections in Delhi and Punjab, putting him at odds with Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Throughout the ordeal, Kejriwal has received significant support from his party and its voter base, who view the charges as an attempt to suppress a growing political force. His ability to maintain control of the Delhi government, even from prison, has bolstered his image as a determined leader unwilling to be silenced.
The court's decision to grant bail marks a critical juncture in the case, but Kejriwal’s future remains uncertain. His political career continues to face significant obstacles, as the accusations and ongoing investigation loom large over both his administration and his party's standing.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also comes with restrictions that limit Kejriwal’s political activities. While he is free from incarceration, the prohibition on office attendance and public statements effectively sidelines him from active political participation. However, the court’s acknowledgment that his incarceration had been unjust may provide some relief to Kejriwal and his supporters.
The broader political landscape in India is likely to feel the effects of this decision. As tensions between the AAP and the BJP continue to mount, the case against Kejriwal could become a focal point for discussions on political freedom and the treatment of opposition leaders in the country.
For now, Kejriwal remains a figure of defiance. His party’s regional success and growing influence have made him a target, yet his ability to navigate both legal and political challenges speaks to the resilience of his leadership.
As the case develops, attention will remain focused on how the judiciary, the Modi administration, and international observers respond. The intersection of law and politics in India’s democracy is under intense scrutiny, with Kejriwal’s case serving as a litmus test for the country’s commitment to upholding democratic principles.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that both a proposal to expand abortion rights and a measure to limit them can appear on the November ballot.
The decision allows Nebraskans to vote on two opposing abortion-related amendments during this year’s election after multiple lawsuits sought to prevent them from being included, as ABC News reports.
On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided to allow the competing initiatives after hearing legal challenges earlier in the week. Organizers of both measures had submitted over 200,000 signatures each, far surpassing the required 123,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The ruling came just in time to meet Friday's deadline for certifying the November ballot.
The first measure aims to expand abortion rights in Nebraska by enshrining the right to abortion until viability in the state constitution, with further protections for the pregnant woman’s health. The second initiative, on the other hand, seeks to make the state's existing 12-week abortion ban a permanent part of the constitution. The current law allows exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger.
Two lawsuits were filed challenging the abortion rights expansion initiative, arguing that it violated Nebraska's single-subject rule for ballot measures. A third lawsuit was filed against the 12-week ban initiative on similar grounds. After reviewing these arguments, the state Supreme Court ruled that neither measure violated the single-subject rule, clearing the way for both to appear on the ballot.
This marks the first time that a state will have two competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Other states, including Arizona, Florida, Colorado, and Maryland, are also set to have abortion-related measures on their ballots this year, with voters often favoring abortion rights in the wake of Roe's reversal.
The Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling was critical, given the tight deadline to finalize the ballot. In a written opinion, Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman emphasized that the specific provisions of the measures did not represent separate subjects, rejecting the lawsuits’ claims.
The ruling has sparked passionate reactions from both sides of the debate. Organizers of the abortion rights expansion celebrated the decision as a victory. Allie Berry, campaign manager for Protect Our Rights, said, “Anti-abortion politicians forced an abortion ban into law and then coordinated with activists to launch desperate lawsuits to silence over 200,000 Nebraskans by preventing them from voting on what happens to their bodies. They know Nebraskans want to end the harmful abortion ban and stop government overreach in their personal and private healthcare decisions. Today, their plans failed.”
Meanwhile, Matt Heffron, an attorney with the Thomas More Society, a conservative legal group that opposed the abortion rights initiative, expressed disappointment. He described the ruling as “deeply concerning” and warned that the passage of the abortion expansion measure could lead to more late-term abortions in Nebraska.
If both measures pass in November, the one with the higher number of votes will be the one that takes effect. This sets the stage for a contentious and highly watched election in Nebraska.
Nebraska joins a growing number of states where the future of abortion rights is being determined directly by voters. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many Republican-led states have implemented strict abortion bans, including 14 states with near-total bans and four states that restrict abortion after six weeks. Nebraska’s current ban is more moderate, starting at 12 weeks, but could be permanently enshrined if voters approve the ballot measure in November.
Public opinion on abortion has shifted toward stronger support for abortion rights in recent years. In states where abortion measures have been on the ballot since the reversal of Roe, voters have consistently favored protecting abortion access. Nebraska’s upcoming vote could either follow this trend or further solidify restrictions in the state.
This year, abortion-related ballot measures will be featured in nine states. Along with Nebraska, states like Arizona, Nevada, and Missouri are set to vote on the issue. New York is also considering a measure to protect abortion access, though it remains contested in court. Even in traditionally conservative states like Arkansas, efforts are underway to put abortion rights on the ballot.
New York City Police Commissioner Edward Caban has resigned from his position amid a federal corruption investigation targeting Mayor Eric Adams' inner circle.
According to Fox News, Caban's resignation comes days after federal agents raided his home and the homes of other city officials, seizing electronic devices.
The resignation marks a significant development in the ongoing federal probe, which has cast a shadow over the Adams administration. Caban, who served as commissioner for approximately 14 months, was appointed in July 2023 as the NYPD's first Hispanic commissioner.
The federal investigation has expanded beyond Caban, with raids also conducted on the homes of other high-ranking Adams aides. These include First Deputy Mayor Sheena Right, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Philip Banks III, and Timothy Pearson, a former NYPD official turned mayoral adviser.
Caban's twin brother, James, is also under investigation in connection with his nightlife consulting business. The scope of the probe suggests a broader examination of potential corruption within the city's leadership.
Mayor Eric Adams has acknowledged receiving a subpoena from federal prosecutors but denies any wrongdoing. The mayor stated that he and his team are cooperating with the investigation.
In his resignation letter, Caban emphasized the importance of leadership without distractions for the NYPD. He stated:
I have therefore decided it is in the best interest of the Department that I resign as Commissioner. After 30 years of service to this city, I hold immense respect and gratitude for its brave officers, and must put their interests before my own. I believe firmly in the vital role of leaders with integrity, who, by example, demonstrate the difference between right and wrong every day. I will continue to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
Mayor Adams accepted Caban's resignation during an early afternoon news briefing, describing it as "the best decision at this time." The mayor expressed respect for Caban's decision and wished him well.
Caban's attorneys, Russell Capone and Rebekah Donaleski, released a statement addressing their client's status in the investigation. They stated:
We have been informed by the government that he is not a target of any investigation being conducted by the Southern District of New York, and he expects to cooperate fully with the government.
This clarification suggests that while Caban is not a direct target of the probe, he may still be involved in some capacity or have information relevant to the ongoing investigation.
The resignation of Commissioner Caban and the ongoing federal investigation has raised questions about the stability of New York City's leadership. Mayor Adams has expressed confidence in the NYPD as a whole, emphasizing the importance of team functionality over individual roles.
Adams stated, "What's important to me, and the reason I keep saying NYPD, because Commissioner Caban is part of a team there, and an entire team has to function. One person does not determine the success of the New York City Police Department."
Edward Caban's resignation as NYPD Commissioner comes amid a federal corruption probe into Mayor Eric Adams' inner circle. The investigation has led to raids on the homes of several high-ranking city officials, including Caban and other Adams aides. Caban, who served for about 14 months, was the NYPD's first Hispanic commissioner. While Caban is not a direct target of the investigation, he has pledged to cooperate fully. The probe has raised concerns about potential corruption within city leadership and foreign influence in New York politics. Mayor Adams has denied any wrongdoing and expressed confidence in the NYPD as a whole.
The Manhattan district attorney's office has urged a judge to proceed with former President Donald Trump's hush money case, despite his recent bid to move it to federal court.
According to Blogging Big Blue, prosecutors argue that Trump's request should not halt the ongoing proceedings as his sentencing date approaches.
In a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, made public on Tuesday, state prosecutors recommended that the court ignore requests for delay due to Trump's removal bid. Instead, they suggested that the judge rule on the former president's outstanding motions regarding presidential immunity and the timing of his sentencing.
Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo argued against postponing the proceedings, citing federal law. The prosecutors maintain that the court should continue with the case despite Trump's attempt to move it to federal jurisdiction.
Trump's legal team filed a second request last week to transfer his New York state criminal case to federal court. They claim that continuing with the "purely political" state prosecution will cause "direct and irreparable harm" to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.
In response to this move, Trump's lawyers appealed to Judge Merchan not to rule on his presidential immunity motion. They asserted that the judge "may not" proceed with Trump's September 18 sentencing while the removal case is ongoing.
The Manhattan district attorney's office addressed Trump's concerns about timing as the November election approaches. They attributed these concerns to Trump's "own strategic and dilatory litigation tactics."
Prosecutors pointed out that the former president's second removal effort came nearly ten months after he dropped his first unsuccessful attempt. Moreover, it was filed three months after his conviction in the case.
Despite their opposition to delaying the proceedings, the district attorney's office stated that they would defer to Judge Merchan regarding whether Trump's sentencing should proceed as scheduled.
Trump was convicted in May on 34 charges of falsifying business documents. These charges are connected to a hush money payment made by his former fixer, Michael Cohen, to a porn performer.
The payment was allegedly made to conceal an affair between the performer and Trump before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has consistently denied both the affair and any misconduct related to the payment.
The case has garnered significant attention due to its potential impact on Trump's political future and the broader implications for presidential accountability. As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the American political landscape.
The Manhattan district attorney's office opposes Trump's bid to move his hush-money case to federal court. They argue that proceedings should continue despite this request. Trump's lawyers claim the state prosecution could harm his 2024 campaign. The case involves 34 charges of falsifying business documents related to a hush money payment. Trump denies all allegations of misconduct and the affair that prompted the payment.
House Speaker Mike Johnson's strategy to prevent a government shutdown is encountering significant obstacles, as reported by Axios.
Johnson's proposed two-step continuing resolution, designed to extend government funding, is meeting resistance from both sides of the political aisle, putting his leadership to the test early in his tenure as Speaker.
The plan, which aims to fund some government agencies until January 19 and others until February 2, is struggling to gain traction in both the House and the Senate. With the November 17 deadline for a potential government shutdown looming, Johnson finds himself in a precarious position as he attempts to navigate the complex political landscape.
Johnson's proposed continuing resolution has failed to garner widespread support, with both Democrats and conservative Republicans expressing concerns. The two-step approach, intended as a compromise solution, has instead become a point of contention among lawmakers.
Democrats have voiced their opposition to the split funding dates, arguing that it complicates the budget process and potentially sets the stage for future conflicts. On the other hand, conservative Republicans, particularly members of the House Freedom Caucus, are pushing for more substantial spending cuts and policy changes as conditions for their support.
The lack of consensus has left Johnson struggling to secure the necessary votes in the House, where his slim majority leaves little room for dissent within his own party. This internal division is compounding the challenge of passing a funding measure that can also gain approval in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The prospects for Johnson's plan in the Senate appear even more daunting. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has publicly criticized the proposal, stating:
Speaker Johnson's proposed ladder CR is a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns – full stop.
This strong opposition from Senate leadership suggests that even if Johnson manages to pass his measure in the House, it faces an uphill battle in the upper chamber. The divergence between the two houses of Congress further complicates efforts to reach a timely agreement on government funding.
Johnson's ability to navigate these challenges is being closely watched, as it represents a critical test of his leadership skills. Having recently assumed the role of Speaker following the ouster of Kevin McCarthy, Johnson is under pressure to demonstrate his capacity to build consensus and effectively govern.
In an attempt to salvage his plan and win over conservative support, Johnson is considering allowing amendment votes on the continuing resolution. This strategy aims to address some of the concerns raised by members of the House Freedom Caucus and other conservative Republicans who are demanding more aggressive measures to reduce government spending.
However, this approach carries its own risks. While it may help secure additional Republican votes, it could further alienate Democrats and make Senate passage even more unlikely. Johnson must carefully balance these competing interests to find a viable path forward.
The ongoing debate reflects broader disagreements within Congress about government spending priorities and fiscal policy. These long-standing issues have repeatedly brought the government to the brink of shutdown in recent years, highlighting the challenges of reaching bipartisan agreements on budget matters.
House Speaker Mike Johnson's plan to avoid a government shutdown through a two-step continuing resolution is facing significant challenges. The proposal has met opposition from both Democrats and conservative Republicans, making it difficult to secure passage in the House. Additionally, the plan faces strong resistance in the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has criticized it as a "recipe for more Republican chaos." With the November 17 deadline approaching, Johnson's leadership is being tested as he seeks to navigate these complex political dynamics and prevent a government shutdown.