A new report raises serious questions about the integrity of a high-profile FBI investigation that captured national attention.
According to Salon, a Senate Democratic report suggests that the FBI's investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation process was potentially compromised.
The report, spearheaded by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., alleges that the Trump White House exerted undue influence over the scope and depth of the investigation.
The report claims that despite former President Donald Trump's public statements asserting a thorough and unrestricted investigation, the reality was quite different. Senator Whitehouse's findings indicate that the Trump administration imposed significant limitations on the FBI's inquiry, effectively hampering its ability to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.
One of the most striking revelations is the allegation that the FBI received over 4,500 tips regarding Kavanaugh but failed to investigate any of them. The report suggests that these tips were simply forwarded to the White House without any further scrutiny or follow-up by the bureau. The White House counsel's office reportedly instructed the FBI to forward all tips to them without conducting any additional investigation, regardless of the potential credibility or corroborative nature of the information received.
These allegations, if substantiated, could cast a shadow over Kavanaugh's confirmation process and raise questions about the thoroughness of the vetting procedure for Supreme Court nominees. The report suggests that senators may have been deprived of crucial information needed to fulfill their constitutional duties during the confirmation hearings.
Senator Whitehouse has been particularly critical of the investigation's handling. He characterized the supplemental background investigation as a "sham" that was controlled by the Trump White House to provide political cover for Senate Republicans and ensure Kavanaugh's confirmation.
The timing of these revelations is significant, coming years after Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. It reignites debates about the fairness and transparency of the confirmation process for one of the nation's highest offices.
In response to the report's allegations, the FBI has maintained that it followed established procedures for supplemental background investigations. A spokesperson for the bureau stated that in such investigations, the FBI adheres to a long-standing process where the scope is limited to what is specifically requested.
However, critics argue that this approach may have allowed the White House to exert undue influence over the investigation's parameters, potentially compromising its integrity and thoroughness.
The report's findings have drawn sharp reactions from various quarters. Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer at the ACLU, expressed concern about the implications of the report, suggesting that such actions could be indicative of authoritarian tendencies in government.
Lawyers representing Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, issued a statement:
The congressional report published today confirms what we long suspected: the FBI supplemental investigation of then-nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh was, in fact, a sham effort directed by the Trump White House to silence brave victims and other witnesses who came forward and to hide the truth.
The Senate Democratic report on the FBI's investigation of Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation process has reignited controversy surrounding his appointment to the Supreme Court. It alleges that the Trump White House exerted undue influence over the investigation, potentially compromising its thoroughness and integrity. The report's findings raise significant questions about the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices and the independence of federal investigations in politically charged situations.
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge from Republican state lawmakers in Pennsylvania against President Biden's executive order aimed at increasing voter registration.
The Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal means that lower court dismissals of the lawsuit will stand. The Republican lawmakers had argued that the executive order was an unconstitutional attempt to interfere in the upcoming November election. However, their claims failed to gain traction in the lower courts.
This decision comes after the Supreme Court had previously declined to expedite the case in May. The rejection of the appeal signifies that the Biden administration's voter registration initiative can proceed without further legal obstacles from this particular challenge.
Nine Republican secretaries of state and eleven members of Congress had urged the Supreme Court to intervene in the case. Their involvement underscores the partisan divide surrounding voter registration efforts and the role of federal agencies in the process.
The Republican officials argued that the executive order overstepped presidential authority and encroached on states' rights to manage their own elections. They expressed concerns about potential federal interference in state-run election processes.
Despite these objections, the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means that the lower court rulings dismissing the lawsuit will remain in effect. This outcome represents a setback for those seeking to limit federal involvement in voter registration initiatives.
The Biden administration has consistently defended the executive order as a lawful exercise of presidential power. Officials argue that the order aligns with existing federal laws that require certain agencies to offer voter registration services.
Supporters of the order maintain that it is a necessary step to increase voter participation and make the registration process more accessible, particularly for underrepresented communities. They contend that the initiative simply aims to remove barriers to registration for those who are already qualified to vote.
The administration's stance is that the executive order does not infringe on state authority but rather complements state efforts by leveraging federal resources to reach eligible voters.
In addition to dismissing the challenge to Biden's executive order, the Supreme Court also rejected two separate appeals related to the 2020 presidential election. These cases stemmed from baseless claims made by Republicans regarding voting machines and software produced by Dominion Voting Systems.
One of the rejected appeals came from Fulton County, Pennsylvania, questioning a state high court ruling involving voting machines. The other appeal involved claims from individuals across the country alleging that Dominion had attempted to silence them.
These rejections further reinforce the Supreme Court's reluctance to entertain unfounded allegations of widespread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court's rejection of the Republican challenge to President Biden's voter registration executive order allows the initiative to proceed. The decision upholds lower court dismissals of the lawsuit, which claimed the order was an unconstitutional interference in elections. Additionally, the Court rejected related appeals concerning baseless claims about voting machines in the 2020 election, further distancing itself from unfounded election fraud allegations.
A federal indictment reveals shocking allegations of violent threats targeting a prominent judicial figure.
According to Breitbart, federal authorities have apprehended Eric James Rennert, an Illinois resident, on charges related to threats made against a federal judge in Florida.
The judge, while not explicitly named in the indictment, is believed to be U.S. Judge Aileen Cannon, who has been overseeing the high-profile "documents" case involving former President Donald Trump.
The indictment against Rennert includes six counts, all of which are connected to alleged actions that took place in St. Lucie County, Florida. The charges stem from a series of threats made in May and July, which included alleged plans to kidnap and harm the judge and her family members, as well as threats of murder in retaliation for the judge's performance of official duties.
Judge Cannon, who presides in the Fort Pierce Division of the Southern District of Florida, has been at the center of controversy due to her rulings in the Trump documents case. In July, she dismissed the case, citing the unconstitutional appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith. This decision is currently under appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The arrest of Rennert has brought attention to the increasing risks faced by federal judges, particularly those involved in high-profile cases. The indictment details multiple instances of alleged threats, highlighting a pattern of behavior that authorities deemed serious enough to warrant federal charges.
The nature of the threats, which allegedly targeted not only the judge but also her family members, underscores the personal danger that judicial officials may face as a result of their professional duties. This case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of heated political rhetoric and the importance of maintaining respect for the judicial process.
The location of the alleged threats in St. Lucie County, Florida, corresponds with the area where Judge Cannon presides, further supporting the belief that she was the intended target of these threats.
The case against Rennert comes amid a backdrop of political tension surrounding Judge Cannon's decisions in the Trump documents case. Her dismissal of the case against the former president in July was a significant legal development that has drawn both praise and criticism from various quarters.
Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, has faced intense scrutiny from Democrats who have expressed dissatisfaction with her rulings against Special Counsel Jack Smith. The political nature of the case has amplified the attention on her decisions and potentially contributed to the hostile environment that led to the alleged threats.
In June, it was revealed that an NBC and MSNBC analyst had initiated what was described as an "orchestrated campaign" to file ethics complaints against Judge Cannon.
These complaints were ultimately dismissed, but the incident highlighted the contentious atmosphere surrounding the case and the judge's role in it.
Federal authorities have arrested Eric James Rennert for allegedly threatening to kidnap and murder a federal judge in Florida, believed to be Judge Aileen Cannon. The indictment includes six counts related to threats made in May and July, targeting the judge and her family. This case highlights the risks faced by federal judges, particularly those involved in high-profile political cases, and raises concerns about judicial safety and independence.
A heartfelt gesture at a town hall event has highlighted the bravery and mutual admiration between a veteran and a former president.
Vietnam War veteran Dwight presented Donald Trump with his Purple Heart, moved by Trump's response to an attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania, as the New York Post reports.
The incident that prompted the gift occurred on July 13 during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where Donald Trump was wounded by a gunshot to the ear. The attacker, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was promptly neutralized by a Secret Service sniper.
Dwight, a Vietnam War veteran subsequently decided to present his Purple Heart to the former president during a Republican town hall meeting in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
At the Fayetteville event, Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna conveyed Dwight's sentiments through a public reading of his letter addressed to Trump. Dwight and his spouse expressed a deep sense of relief and emotion at learning of Trump's quick recovery after the attack. The veteran's letter invited Trump to accept his Purple Heart as a gesture of honor.
This medal, a symbol of bravery in the face of danger, was given by Dwight in recognition of Trump's courage during the assassination attempt. Trump accepted the medal, initially jesting about the envelope's appearance, saying it resembled a "check" or "cash."
Dwight's act was infused with praise, as he recalled Trump's immediate reaction to the shot and his resolve to "fight, fight, fight." The veteran expressed his view that Trump deserved the honor of a Purple Heart, underlining the courage he showed despite not having anything to "shoot back" with.
In a grateful response, Trump expressed how honored he was to receive such a significant token of respect. “I got very lucky,” he remarked, contemplating the possibility of there being "something else up there" that protected him during the attack. Trump acknowledged the minor nature of the wound yet recognized how close it was to being much worse.
Dwight was moved by the personal response from the former president, stating he never anticipated such an acknowledgment from Trump. This exchange of honors concluded with Trump presenting Dwight a letter of appreciation and a challenge coin in return.
Beyond the publicized gift, Trump seized the moment to critique the federal government's handling of recent disasters, particularly drawing comparisons between the responses to Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Katrina. He was particularly critical of Vice President Kamala Harris's oversight in North Carolina, expressing dissatisfaction with the federal services provided to storm victims.
During the town hall, Trump did not shy away from voicing his criticism of current federal leadership. He questioned the effectiveness of Harris's role in managing the hurricane response efforts, emphasizing the negative perception many in North Carolina held about the service they received.
His comments included a call for noticeable improvements in disaster response management, signaling a desire for better preparedness and execution in future scenarios. Trump's direct dialogue resonated with attendees, who were evidently dissatisfied with current federal relief measures.
The event in Fayetteville brought together themes of heroism and the importance of effective national leadership. Dwight's personal act of donating his Purple Heart to Trump stood as a testament to the admiration and respect he holds for Trump's bravery and service to the country.
Gov. Tim Walz has assured Muslim Americans that they will have a voice in a prospective Kamala Harris administration, reflecting the community's frustration with current U.S. policies in the Middle East.
Walz's remarks aim to ease concerns among Muslim voters, emphasizing the potential for significant involvement in a future Democratic White House, as Breitbart reports, and they come at a time when he is stepping aside from concerns about the controversial nature of such sentiments.
As the running mate of Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, Walz pledged during an online meeting that Muslim Americans would play a crucial role should the Democrats win the White House. The meeting was organized by Emgage Action, a Muslim-American advocacy group that recently endorsed Harris. The virtual event was also a platform for the formation of Arab Americans for Harris-Walz, a coalition showing support for the Democratic ticket.
Addressing the growing discontent within the Muslim-American community, Walz sought to reassure the group. Many in the community have felt alienated by President Joe Biden’s administration, particularly regarding its strong support for Israel in its ongoing conflict with Hamas. Walz acknowledged these concerns while reiterating that Harris's support for Israel would not waver, though he emphasized that the administration would also advocate for a ceasefire in the region.
Walz expressed empathy toward the devastation in Gaza, where thousands of civilians have lost their lives amidst the conflict. "The scale of death and destruction in Gaza is staggering," Walz said, calling for the end of the violence and expressing solidarity with Muslim and Arab voters.
The event was a key moment for the Harris-Walz campaign, as the endorsement from Emgage Action followed a rising favorability for former President Donald Trump among Muslim-American voters. A recent poll, highlighted by a New York Post article, noted that Trump's appeal has been growing among this demographic, making Walz's outreach even more significant.
During the meeting, Walz also took the opportunity to emphasize the administration’s commitment to condemning anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments, which he claimed have been perpetuated by Trump and his allies. He opened his remarks with the traditional greeting “As-Salaam-Alaikum,” signaling a cultural recognition of the group he was addressing.
Walz, who serves as governor of Minnesota, spoke candidly about the impact of the Middle East conflict on American Muslims and Arab communities. He acknowledged their pain, stating, "Our hearts are broken." His words reflected an attempt to bridge the gap between the Biden administration's policies and the sentiments of Muslim voters who have felt unheard.
Both Harris and Walz have maintained their stance in support of Israel, but the push for a ceasefire may be an effort to balance that stance with the demands of their Muslim voter base. Harris's team is navigating a challenging political landscape, attempting to appease a broad coalition of voters while maintaining a firm foreign policy stance.
The virtual meeting came at a time when Muslim-American voters are showing increasing support for Trump, according to recent reports. Walz's pledge to include Muslims in a Harris administration could be seen as an effort to counteract this trend. With the 2024 election drawing nearer, the Democratic campaign is keen to solidify support from all its voter bases, including Muslim Americans, who represent a significant portion of swing state populations.
Walz’s comments during the Emgage Action meeting underscored the Democratic ticket’s broader outreach efforts to marginalized communities. He emphasized that Muslim-Americans would not just be participants but active partners "side by side" in the decision-making process of a Harris White House.
His message was clear: a Harris administration would not only include Muslims in policy discussions but would also actively fight against any forms of discrimination targeting the community. Walz described the administration’s stance as one that will "condemn in all forms" the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions that have emerged in recent years.
With election day approaching, the Harris-Walz campaign is strategically making its case to Muslim Americans who feel disillusioned by the current administration. Walz’s pledge of inclusion may resonate with those who seek greater representation in Washington's halls of power.
A body language expert has provided insight into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz's nonverbal cues during a crucial moment in the recent vice presidential debate.
Scott Rouse, appearing on Dr. Phil's show, scrutinized Walz's reaction when confronted about a discrepancy in his claim of being present in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
According to Fox News, Rouse identified signs of panic and discomfort in Walz's demeanor as he attempted to respond to the moderator's question. The expert's analysis focused on specific facial expressions and gestures that he believed indicated the governor's internal struggle with the unexpected challenge.
Rouse pointed out several key indicators in Walz's body language that he interpreted as signs of distress. He noted the sideways turn of Walz's head and the widening of his eyes as potential markers of panic. These physical reactions, according to Rouse, suggested that Walz was caught off guard and was struggling to formulate an appropriate response.
The expert also drew attention to what he termed the "grief muscle" on Walz's face, describing it as an upside-down horseshoe shape. This facial expression, combined with other nonverbal cues, led Rouse to conclude that Walz was experiencing a moment of intense discomfort and uncertainty during the exchange.
Rouse further analyzed Walz's hand gestures, noting that one particular movement stood out as the most expansive of the night. He interpreted this as an attempt by Walz to emphasize his credibility and persuade the audience to believe his explanation.
Dr. Phil, hosting the segment, offered his perspective on Walz's verbal response to the challenge. He criticized the governor's approach of beginning his answer with unrelated biographical information rather than directly addressing the question at hand.
The host suggested that a more straightforward acknowledgment of the error followed by a brief explanation would have been a more effective strategy.
Rouse concurred with this assessment, explaining that Walz's tactic of providing extraneous information is a well-known diversionary technique. He referred to this strategy as "chaff and redirect," describing it as an attempt to overload the listener with irrelevant details in hopes of distracting from the original question.
The debate moment in question revolved around Walz's previous claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests.
CBS moderator Margaret Brennan confronted the governor with information indicating that his travel to Asia actually occurred in August of that year, several months after the events in question.
This discrepancy became a significant point of contention during the debate, putting Walz in a position where he needed to explain or correct his earlier statement. The governor's response to this challenge became the focus of Rouse's expert analysis, providing viewers with insights into the nonverbal aspects of political communication.
The body language expert's analysis of Governor Tim Walz's debate performance offers a unique perspective on a critical moment in the vice presidential debate. Rouse's observations highlight the importance of nonverbal communication in high-stakes political situations, revealing potential discrepancies between a speaker's words and their physical reactions. This incident underscores the scrutiny that political figures face and the multifaceted nature of public communication in the political arena.
A shocking allegation has emerged against Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris.
According to a New York Post report, Emhoff is accused of forcefully slapping his then-girlfriend at a ritzy gala in 2012. The incident allegedly occurred when Emhoff became jealous of his partner flirting with a valet worker at the Cannes Film Festival.
Three unnamed friends of the woman, described as a successful New York attorney, have come forward with the accusation. They claim that Emhoff struck her so hard that she spun around while waiting in a valet line after the event.
The sources, who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation, provided photos and documents to corroborate the couple's trip to the south of France during the time of the alleged incident. They claim the altercation took place around 3 a.m. when the couple was trying to leave the event.
According to one friend, the woman had approached a valet, offering money to get to the front of the taxi line. Emhoff allegedly perceived this as flirting and proceeded to slap her. The woman reportedly slapped him back in response.
Following the incident, the woman is said to have called one of her friends, sobbing, while in a cab with Emhoff. The friend stated that she was unsure whether to contact French police and expressed confusion about how to handle the situation.
The couple had reportedly been dating for about three months at the time of the alleged incident. Friends claim that the relationship had progressed quickly, with the woman having already met Emhoff's children and parents.
The sources state that Emhoff ended the trip early to return to Los Angeles for his daughter's birthday. According to their accounts, the couple never saw each other again after this incident.
One friend commented on Emhoff's reaction to the altercation:
All he said to her was, 'Don't worry about it, you got one across the court and down the line.'
This allegation comes at a time when Emhoff has positioned himself as an ally for women. Just recently, he was credited in an interview with reshaping "the perception of masculinity" in his role as Second Gentleman.
The accusation also follows recent admissions by Emhoff regarding infidelity in his first marriage. In August, he acknowledged past actions that led to "tough times" in his previous relationship.
The friends who have come forward with this story express concern about the discrepancy between Emhoff's public image and their knowledge of his past behavior. One source stated:
He's holding himself out to be something he absolutely is not. And that's bulls--t.
These allegations raise questions about Emhoff's character and the potential impact on his role as Second Gentleman. The accusation of physical violence against a former partner contradicts his public stance as a supporter of women's rights. The story highlights the complexities of public figures' private lives and the potential consequences when past behavior comes to light.
Ken Page, a beloved figure in theater and voice acting, has passed away, leaving behind a legacy that spans decades of memorable performances.
According to Parade, the acclaimed actor died peacefully at his home in St. Louis, Missouri, on Monday, September 30. He was 70 years old.
Page's representative, Lance Kirkland, confirmed the news to TMZ, stating that the actor "sat down in his chair and passed away in his sleep." Kirkland described Page as a "beautiful, talented man who was larger than life" and emphasized how much his many admirers would miss him.
Ken Page's career on Broadway was nothing short of illustrious, with performances that left an indelible mark on the theater world.
He starred in the original production of "Cats," taking on the role of Old Deuteronomy, a character he would later reprise in the filmed stage adaptation. Page also made his mark in "The Wiz," where he played the Lion as a replacement in the original production.
His Broadway credits extended to other notable productions, including "Guys and Dolls," "Ain't Misbehavin'," and "It Ain't Nothin' But the Blues," showcasing his versatility as a performer.
While Page's stage presence was formidable, his voice-acting work brought him recognition to an even wider audience.
Many fans will remember him as the voice of Oogie Boogie in Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas, a role that showcased his distinct vocal talents. This performance helped cement his status as a versatile entertainer capable of captivating audiences on stage and screen.
Page's on-screen work included appearances in films such as "Torch Song Trilogy" (1988) and "Dreamgirls" (2006). He also made his mark on television with roles in popular series like "Family Matters," "Adventures in Wonderland," and "Touched By an Angel."
The news of Ken Page's passing has prompted an outpouring of tributes from colleagues and fans alike.
Elaine Paige, who starred alongside Page in the 1998 filmed version of "Cats," shared her condolences on social media. She wrote:
My wonderful Old Deuteronomy, Ken Page, in the 1998 theatrical movie version of @CatsMusical, has gone to the heaviside layer. We certainly are having a sad September. He was a lovely, kind, talented man. RIP Ken.
Producer Dorian Hannaway, a friend of Page, expressed her grief on Facebook, simply stating, "Ken Page has passed onto the next show. My heart is broken."
Ken Page's passing marks the end of an era in Broadway and voice acting. His contributions to the world of theater and entertainment have left an enduring impact on audiences and fellow performers alike. Page's versatility as an actor, his distinctive voice, and his memorable performances in stage and screen productions have secured his place in entertainment history. As the industry mourns his loss, Page's legacy will continue to inspire future performers.
A New York appeals court hearing has cast doubt on the hefty civil fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump.
According to The Associated Press, some judges on the five-member panel of the state's intermediate appeals court in Manhattan expressed skepticism about the nearly $500 million penalty imposed on Trump.
The hearing, which took place on Thursday, saw the judges questioning lawyers from both sides about the merits of the case and the severity of the punishment.
The case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleges that Trump inflated his net worth on financial statements provided to banks, insurers, and other business partners. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in February that Trump had engaged in fraudulent practices, ordering him to pay $363.9 million in penalties, a sum that has since grown to over $489 million with interest.
During the hearing, some judges on the panel appeared to sympathize with Trump's legal team's arguments. Judge Peter H. Moulton raised concerns about potential "mission creep" by the Attorney General's office, questioning whether the law used to sue Trump had "morphed into something that it was not meant to do."
Similarly, Judge David Friedman drew comparisons to other cases brought under the same law, noting that Trump's case seemed to lack the widespread harm to large groups of people seen in those instances.
Judge Moulton also described the penalty as "troubling," prompting a defense of the judgment from the state's deputy solicitor general, Judith Vale. Vale argued that the law permitted the judge to essentially reclaim whatever Trump gained from transactions based on his inflated financial statements.
Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, presented arguments challenging the basis of the lawsuit. Sauer contended that the case stretched the state's consumer protection laws beyond their intended scope, involving the government in transactions where there were "no victims" and "no complaints."
He emphasized that Trump's business dealings were with "sophisticated counterparties" capable of conducting their own due diligence.
Furthermore, Sauer argued that if the verdict is allowed to stand, it could have a chilling effect on real estate businesses, potentially exposing them to similar scrutiny for routine transactions.
The timing of the appeals court's decision could have significant implications for the upcoming presidential election. The court typically issues rulings about a month after arguments, meaning a decision could come before Election Day on November 5. The outcome of this appeal could potentially uphold, reduce, or overturn the original verdict.
Trump, who did not attend the hearing, has previously criticized the lawsuit as "election interference" and accused Judge Engoron of unfairly punishing him for building a successful company. The former president has vowed to fight the verdict "all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary."
In conclusion, the New York appeals court hearing has raised questions about the $500 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Some judges expressed concerns about the scope of the lawsuit and the severity of the penalty. The court's decision, expected before the presidential election, could significantly impact both Trump's finances and his political future.
Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) was temporarily barred from entering a popular Pennsylvania restaurant before being welcomed inside and paying for everyone’s meals.
According to Breitbart News, Vance was initially denied entry due to concerns the visit would turn into a campaign event, but the confusion was later resolved, allowing the senator to engage with restaurant guests.
The incident occurred at Primanti Bros. Restaurant and Sports Bar in North Versailles, Pennsylvania. When Vance first arrived, staff members expressed concern that the presence of cameras would create a political event at the establishment. The restaurant had no prior warning of the visit, which led to the initial refusal.
A restaurant employee reportedly told members of the press that "cameras were not allowed" and that the business wanted to avoid hosting any sort of "campaign event." The restaurant's leadership, including Adam Golomb, CEO of Primanti Bros., later clarified that the situation stemmed from the lack of notice about the senator's arrival.
Golomb explained, "Without any advance notice, today’s campaign stop caused some momentary confusion for our staff. However, Senator Vance and his team were welcomed into our restaurant shortly after and engaged with our guests inside and on the property."
Once the confusion was sorted out, Vance, along with his team, entered the restaurant, interacted with diners, and paid for everyone's meal. He left a generous tip and encouraged support for the restaurant despite the brief misunderstanding.
Speaking to a crowd gathered outside the restaurant, Vance took the opportunity to address the situation and urged people to support Primanti Bros. and vote in the upcoming election. Vance downplayed the incident, referring to it as a minor misunderstanding and praising the restaurant as a great local business.
"We paid for everybody’s food, we gave them a nice tip," Vance said. "And, of course when I gave them a nice tip, I said, 'No taxes on tips.' Don’t hold it against her, she just got a little nervous. But, it’s a great local business, let’s keep on supporting it, and most importantly, November 5th, or before, go vote. Let’s go win this thing."
This incident at Primanti Bros. echoed a previous event at another location in Moon, Pennsylvania, where customers were reportedly asked to leave before Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz visited the restaurant.
The chain’s role as a local staple has made it a notable destination for both political figures and everyday customers. However, these visits sometimes bring unforeseen complications for the staff, particularly when campaign events are involved.
Primanti Bros., with its presence in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland, remains a beloved establishment in the region, but the unexpected nature of political stops can occasionally catch employees off guard, as seen in this recent event with Sen. Vance.
Senator JD Vance was denied entry at Primanti Bros. Restaurant and Sports Bar in North Versailles, Pennsylvania, due to a policy against campaign events and cameras. Despite the initial refusal, Vance praised the restaurant as a great local business and encouraged continued support for it. The restaurant later clarified that the confusion was due to a lack of advance notice, and Vance and his team were allowed to engage with guests inside shortly afterward.
As Vance continued his efforts to garner support, his remarks outside the restaurant focused on encouraging voters to head to the polls on or before November 5th. His lighthearted approach to the confusion seemed to resonate with the crowd, many of whom left with a free meal and a positive impression of the senator.