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.
Restaurant Staff Caught Off Guard
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.
Vance’s Response to the Incident
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."
Similar Incident with Kamala Harris
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.
Conclusion
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.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently revealed a shocking statistic to Congress: more than 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide are currently living freely in the United States.
The immigrants, who are classified as "non-detained," have pending immigration cases, raising concerns about public safety and the effectiveness of enforcement efforts under the Biden-Harris administration, as the Daily Mail reports.
The exact number of convicted murderers residing in the U.S. stands at 13,099, according to data that was provided to Congress earlier this week. Many of these individuals have either slipped through ICE’s grasp or were never prioritized for detention, despite their criminal histories.
ICE has explained that these immigrants remain outside of detention for various reasons. Some have evaded capture, while others simply do not fall under current enforcement priorities. This revelation has led to mounting fears about the potential dangers posed by such individuals living freely among the public.
ICE Faces Difficulties Tracking Migrants
The disclosure of this alarming number came after a request by Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales. His request, made earlier this year, sought clarity on the issue of how many convicted criminals remain within U.S. borders after having committed serious offenses. The White House reportedly expressed surprise at the total but has so far remained silent on the matter publicly. ICE officials have pointed out that the data, which was collected up until July 21, underscores a significant challenge for law enforcement agencies across the country.
ICE Acting Director P.J. Lechleitner noted a recent uptick in cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and immigration authorities due to the increase in crimes allegedly committed by illegal immigrants. Lechleitner’s comments suggest that some local agencies are beginning to realize the urgency of addressing this ongoing issue.
Sanctuary Policies Hinder Enforcement
Law enforcement officials have also raised concerns about soft-on-crime policies in certain sanctuary cities. These policies often prevent local authorities from notifying ICE when an undocumented immigrant is released from custody. As a result, many immigrants with criminal backgrounds are able to re-enter communities without immigration authorities ever being alerted.
ICE’s non-detained docket, which includes these convicted individuals, currently holds over 7.5 million migrants whose immigration cases are still pending. While ICE has been attempting to track and detain those with serious criminal records, the sheer volume of cases and limited resources make this a daunting task. Among the most tragic cases recently tied to this issue was the murder of University of Georgia student Laken Riley. In February, 26-year-old Jose Ibarra, an undocumented immigrant, was charged with her murder. Security footage captured Ibarra lurking near her dorm before her body was found on a nearby running trail.
Criminal Histories Slip Through the Cracks
Many of the immigrants included in the 13,099 total have never come into contact with ICE or were released because their criminal histories were not properly documented at the time of their arrival in the U.S. For law enforcement, tracking down individuals in this position has proven to be a time-consuming and difficult process.
Some critics argue that ICE's current policies prioritize certain types of offenders over others, leaving dangerous individuals free to roam the streets. These concerns have been echoed by former President Donald Trump, who described these immigrants as “hard, tough, vicious criminals” that present a serious threat to the safety of the American public.
Additionally, ICE’s ability to deport these individuals is often hindered by local and state-level policies. Many of these jurisdictions have refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, further complicating ICE's efforts to apprehend convicted criminals. While ICE has sought to address these concerns through increased collaboration with local law enforcement, the lack of consistent cooperation and outdated information continue to hamper their efforts.
Immigration Policy Faces Scrutiny
Despite these challenges, ICE officials remain committed to tracking down and detaining immigrants with criminal convictions, but the task ahead is monumental. With over 13,000 convicted killers currently living in the U.S., many believe that more immediate action is necessary to ensure public safety.
The issue has drawn increased scrutiny in recent months, particularly from Republican lawmakers and law enforcement officials who are calling for stronger immigration enforcement and more cooperation from sanctuary cities. The lack of comment from the White House and Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign has not gone unnoticed by critics of the administration and of the Democratic Party presidential nominee.
A recent YouGov poll conducted in August 2024 reveals that a significant portion of American voters, particularly Democrats, base their voting decisions solely on a candidate's position on abortion, a trend that is juxtaposed with differing priorities among independents and Republicans and is contextualized by the political maneuvers of liberal leaders like Vice President Kamala Harris.
Nearly 6 in 10 Democrats (58%) reported they would vote solely based on abortion, as Breitbart reports.
The YouGov poll uncovered disparities between Democrats, Republicans, and independents regarding abortion as a single-issue vote. While 58% of Democrats prioritize a candidate's stance on abortion above all else, 43% of independents and 58% of Republicans oppose such a single-issue voting approach.
Women, in comparison to men, exhibit a stronger inclination toward single-issue voting on abortion. According to the poll, 42% of women would vote solely based on the issue of abortion, opposed to 32% of men. Conversely, 49% of men said they wouldn't, compared to 36% of women. An approximate fifth of both genders remains uncertain.
Changing Priorities Since Roe v. Wade Reversal
Interestingly, the overall percentage of Americans who identify as single-issue voters on abortion has decreased since previous years. In July 2022, the figure was 47%, while the latest poll shows a drop to 37%. This decrease occurred after the Supreme Court's June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
Contrasts emerge when comparing data with a November 2023 NBC News poll. That survey reported that only 24% of Democrats would vote solely based on abortion. The question posed was whether any "one issue so important" could drive a sole-issue vote.
Focus on Abortion in Democratic Campaigns
Amid these diverging perspectives, Harris has maintained a strong stance on abortion as a central issue for the Democratic campaign. She has promised to sign legislation to federalize abortion and suggested ending the Senate filibuster to pass such laws. These pledges come as ten states prepare to put abortion on their November ballots, a strategy designed to increase support and voter turnout.
The poll included responses from 1,134 U.S. adult citizens and was conducted online from Aug. 14 to 17, 2024. It carries a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. The data illustrated varied perspectives not only among political affiliations but also between genders. Women are more likely to vote solely based on the abortion issue compared to men. The difference underscores the nuanced views within the electorate on abortion as a deciding factor.
Poll Contrasts with Previous Data
Additionally, 26% of Democrats said they wouldn't vote solely based on abortion, with 17% undecided. Similarly, 31% of independents and 26% of Republicans indicated uncertainty about whether they would become single-issue voters on abortion.
This recent data suggests a notable shift when contrasted with previous years’ results and differing poll methodologies, reflecting the evolving public opinion landscape on abortion. The reduction from 47% in 2022 to 37% now indicates declining singular attention to the issue, despite significant legal and social changes.
Harris’s continued focus on abortion rights highlights its importance within the Democratic platform, aiming to galvanize a key segment of the electorate. Her efforts are aimed at preserving and expanding abortion access, likely a core issue for many voters.
Conclusion
The YouGov poll reveals a complex patchwork of perspectives among American voters. While a substantial portion of Democrats view abortion as a critical issue for their vote, independents and Republicans demonstrate varied priorities. Gender distinctions further illustrate the complexities in single-issue voting trends related to abortion.
Vice President Kamala Harris continues to foreground abortion in her campaign, reflective of broader Democratic strategies to mobilize voters. The juxtaposition of various polls and the changing priorities since the overturning of Roe v. Wade indicate that public sentiment remains dynamic. Ultimately, the poll elucidates the diverse factors influencing American electoral behavior, framed prominently around the ongoing debate over abortion rights.
A New York appeals court hearing on former President Donald Trump's $454 million civil fraud judgment raised questions about the case's scope and penalties.
According to Just The News, the five-judge panel expressed skepticism about the attorney general's jurisdiction and the size of the penalty imposed on Trump and his business associates.
The hearing, which began at noon on Thursday, September 26, 2024, focused on Trump's appeal of the February judgment by state Judge Arthur Engoron.
The panel's inquiries centered on the statute used by New York Attorney General Letitia James to bring action against Trump and his organization. Judges questioned the lack of alleged victims and the rationale behind the substantial penalty, given that involved parties reported no financial losses.
Judges Question Attorney General's Authority
Justice David Friedman challenged the attorney general's authority in the case, particularly noting that Deutsche Bank, a key player in the allegations, had not claimed any harm from Trump's actions.
"It hardly seems to justify bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump which is what you have here," Friedman remarked. "You have two really sophisticated players in which no one lost any money."
Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale defended the attorney general's position, arguing that the statute does not require proof of harm and that Deutsche Bank was indeed affected by the financial statements in question.
Scope Of Prosecution And Penalties Examined
Justice John Higgitt sought clarification on the boundaries of the attorney general's jurisdiction in such cases. Vale justified the substantial penalty, stating it reflected the extent of fraud and illegal activities uncovered in the case.
The size of the penalty imposed by Judge Engoron was a particular point of contention during the hearing. Vale explained that the large amount was due to "a lot of fraud and illegality" found in the case.
Trump's Legal Team Seeks Judgment Reversal
Trump's attorneys are working to overturn the judgment, which found Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and his business liable for fraud, issuing false financial statements, and false business records.
The appeals court's skepticism regarding the case's scope and the imposed penalties suggests a thorough examination of the original judgment's merits. The judges' questions indicate a concern about potential overreach by the attorney general's office and the justification for such a significant financial penalty.
The former president is expected to hold a news conference in New York following the hearing to address the proceedings and their potential outcomes. This event will likely provide Trump's perspective on the appeals process and its implications for his business and political future.
Conclusion
The appeals hearing marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battles facing Trump. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for Trump's business empire and his political aspirations. The judges' focus on the attorney general's jurisdiction and the size of the penalty highlights the complex legal questions at the heart of this case.
A nonprofit organization has taken an unprecedented step by filing criminal charges against former President Donald Trump and Senator J.D. Vance over controversial statements made about Haitian immigrants in Ohio.
According to Rolling Stone, the Haitian Bridge Alliance, a San Diego-based nonprofit, has utilized an Ohio law that permits private citizens to file criminal charges. The organization accuses Trump and Vance of spreading false information about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, which they claim has led to violent threats and harassment.
The charges filed include disrupting public services, telecommunications harassment, and aggravated menacing. The nonprofit's action comes in response to recent claims made by Trump and Vance about Haitian residents in Springfield, which have been widely disputed and criticized for their inflammatory nature.
Legal Basis And Accusations Outlined
The Haitian Bridge Alliance's filing takes advantage of an Ohio statute that allows private citizens to initiate criminal proceedings.
The nonprofit's legal action states:
If anyone else had done what they have done, to the devastating effect experienced in Springfield, police and prosecutors would have filed charges by now. Trump and Vance have knowingly spread a false and dangerous narrative by claiming that Springfield, Ohio's Haitian community is criminally killing and eating neighbors' dogs and cats, and killing and eating geese. They accused Springfield's Haitians of bearing deadly disease. They repeated such lies during the presidential debate, at campaign rallies, during interviews on national television, and on social media.
The nonprofit's action also underscores the responsibility of public figures in disseminating information, especially when it pertains to vulnerable populations. By pursuing criminal charges, the organization aims to hold Trump and Vance accountable for their statements.
Impact On Springfield Community
The allegations made by Trump and Vance have reportedly resulted in significant distress for the Haitian community in Springfield. Local organizations assisting Haitian families have encountered harassment and threats. Casey Rollins, the Springfield District Council executive director of St. Vincent de Paul, voiced concerns about the tense environment.
Given the current circumstances and rhetoric, Rollins questioned how anyone could avoid worrying that someone with harmful motives might act on their intentions. The city has also experienced a series of bomb threats targeting public buildings and schools, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among residents. These incidents highlight the potential real-world consequences of inflammatory political rhetoric.
Despite the fact that many Haitian residents in Springfield are living there legally, the controversy has led to calls for mass deportations. This situation demonstrates the complex interplay between political discourse and community dynamics, especially in diverse neighborhoods.
Political Responses And Implications
The ongoing controversy has become a focal point in political discussions, particularly regarding immigration policies. At a recent rally in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Trump addressed the Springfield situation, eliciting chants of "send them back" from his supporters. This rhetoric has further intensified the debate surrounding immigration and community integration.
Senator Vance's involvement in the controversy has also drawn attention. During a national television appearance, he admitted that some of the claims he had been spreading about Springfield might be false, stating that he is willing to "create stories" to generate media attention. This admission raises questions about the responsibility of political figures to verify information before disseminating it to the public.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance's legal filing expresses hope for equal treatment under the law:
It is our hope and expectation that neither the judiciary nor prosecutors in Springfield view or will treat Trump and Vance as being above the law. We know that if anyone else had wreaked the kind of havoc Trump and Vance have wreaked in Springfield, they would have been prosecuted by now.
Conclusion
The Haitian Bridge Alliance has filed criminal charges against former President Donald Trump and Senator J.D. Vance for allegedly spreading false information about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. The nonprofit accuses the politicians of inciting harassment and threats against the Haitian community through their statements. This legal action highlights the tension between political rhetoric and its impact on immigrant communities, raising questions about accountability for public figures.
A spontaneous act of generosity by former President Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania grocery store has sparked widespread admiration.
According to The Western Journal, during a visit to Sprankle's Market in Kittanning, Pennsylvania, Trump gave $100 to help a mother of three pay for her groceries. The event was recorded on video and quickly went viral on social media.
The former president's interaction with the mother and her children was marked by warmth and humor. After handing over the $100 bill, Trump jokingly remarked that the grocery bill "just went down 100 bucks" and added that they would "do that for you from the White House."
Heartwarming Interactions With Local Residents
Trump's visit to the grocery store was filled with genuine moments of connection with local residents.
In addition to helping the mother with her groceries, Trump also had a touching encounter with an elderly woman, who was revealed to be the grandmother of a store employee. The former president affectionately hugged her and posed for a photograph, much to the delight of onlookers.
The grandmother expressed her admiration for Trump, stating that she frequently sees him on television and finds him "wonderful." This interaction further highlighted Trump's ability to connect with everyday Americans on a personal level.
Social Media Reaction And Public Perception
The video of Trump's gesture quickly gained traction on social media platforms, garnering praise from supporters and observers alike.
Many users on X (formerly Twitter) commended the former president for his act of kindness. Some contrasted this behavior with that of other political figures, suggesting that Trump's actions demonstrated a more genuine connection with everyday Americans.
Comedian Tim Young commented on the incident, stating: "This is more than Kamala has ever done to help any American."
This comment, along with others, highlighted a perception among some that Trump's actions were more relatable and impactful than those of current administration officials.
Economic Context And Campaign Messaging
Trump's grocery store visit occurs against the backdrop of ongoing economic concerns in the United States. The former president has been vocal about addressing inflation and economic hardships faced by American families. His campaign has emphasized the contrast between current economic conditions and those during his previous term in office.
During the store visit, Trump reiterated his commitment to tackling inflation, suggesting that his potential return to the White House would bring economic relief to struggling families. This message resonates with many voters who are grappling with rising costs of living and economic uncertainty.
Conclusion
Former President Donald Trump's $100 contribution to a mother's grocery bill in Pennsylvania has captured public attention and admiration. The incident, which occurred during a visit to Sprankle's Market in Kittanning, showcased Trump's personal interactions with local residents. This gesture, along with his other encounters at the store, has reinforced his image as a candidate who connects with everyday Americans and understands their economic concerns.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s presidential campaign takes an unexpected turn as he appeals to the nation's highest court.
According to The Hill, Kennedy has requested emergency intervention from the Supreme Court to reinstate his name on the New York presidential ballot. This appeal comes after lower courts excluded him from the ballot due to a residency dispute.
The former independent candidate's removal from the New York ballot stems from a controversy surrounding his claimed residence in Katonah, N.Y. Lower courts determined that this address was not his fixed and permanent residency, leading to his disqualification.
Legal Battle Over Residency Claims
Kennedy's legal team argues that the lower court's decision to remove him from the ballot unfairly deprives his New York supporters of their right to vote for him. They contend that the address issue is immaterial to voters and the state of New York.
In court filings, Kennedy's attorneys stated that the "address on Kennedy's petition was and is entirely immaterial — both to voters and to New York."
The emergency request was filed jointly by Kennedy's campaign, American Values 2024 (a super PAC supporting Kennedy), and a voter who signed Kennedy's petition for ballot inclusion. This collective action underscores the perceived importance of the case to Kennedy's supporters.
Supreme Court Involvement And Next Steps
The emergency appeal has been directed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees emergency appeals from New York. In response to the request, Justice Sotomayor has asked New York Attorney General Letitia James and other involved parties to submit written responses by Wednesday afternoon.
This development marks a critical juncture in Kennedy's campaign strategy. It's worth noting that Kennedy has recently suspended his campaign and endorsed former President Trump, leading to efforts to remove his name from ballots in key swing states while maintaining his presence in others.
The New York case represents the first instance of Kennedy's ballot challenges reaching the Supreme Court. However, it's not unprecedented for presidential candidates to seek intervention from the highest court in ballot-related matters.
Recent Precedent And Broader Context
Just last week, the Supreme Court denied a similar emergency request from the Green Party. The party had sought to reinstate its presidential candidate, Jill Stein, on Nevada's ballot, but the court declined to intervene.
This recent decision may provide some insight into how the court might approach Kennedy's case. However, each case has unique circumstances, and the court's decision on Kennedy's appeal remains uncertain.
Kennedy's situation is particularly complex due to his recent campaign suspension and endorsement of Trump. His selective approach to ballot presence – seeking removal in some states while fighting for inclusion in others – adds another layer of intricacy to the legal challenges.
Conclusion
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate his name on the New York presidential ballot after lower courts removed him due to residency issues. The case, now before Justice Sonia Sotomayor, challenges the materiality of Kennedy's address discrepancy and argues for preserving voter rights. This appeal marks the first time Kennedy's ballot challenges have reached the Supreme Court, coming amidst his complex campaign strategy of selective ballot presence following his campaign suspension and endorsement of former President Trump.
A recent interview with Vice President Kamala Harris took an unexpected turn when host Oprah Winfrey intervened to clarify a question about border security.
According to Breitbart News, the incident occurred during a two-hour "Unite for America" livestream event hosted by Winfrey. The event, which featured Harris as the main guest, aimed to address various issues facing the country.
During the event, a young man posed a straightforward question to the Vice President, asking about her specific steps for strengthening the border. Harris's response, however, seemed to meander without directly addressing the query, prompting Winfrey to step in and rephrase the question.
Harris's Background And Border Experience
In her initial response, Harris highlighted her background as a prosecutor and her tenure as Attorney General of California, a border state. She emphasized her experience in prosecuting transnational criminal organizations involved in trafficking guns, drugs, and human beings.
The Vice President also stressed the importance of having a secure border and ensuring the safety of the American people. She attempted to establish her credibility on the issue by referencing her past work and familiarity with border-related challenges.
However, rather than outlining specific steps for strengthening the border, Harris shifted focus to a recent border security bill that failed to pass in Congress. She argued that the bill would have provided additional resources and support for border agents.
Political Blame And Failed Legislation
Harris's response took a political turn as she placed blame on former President Donald Trump for the failure of the border security bill. She accused Trump of instructing lawmakers not to bring the bill to a vote, suggesting that he preferred to campaign on the issue rather than solve it.
The Vice President characterized this move as putting personal political interests ahead of national security concerns. She contrasted this approach with her own, stating that her career has always been focused on fixing problems rather than running on them.
Throughout her response, Harris touched on various aspects of the border issue, including the need for more border agents, the fentanyl crisis, and the prosecution of transnational criminal organizations. However, she did not provide specific steps or plans for addressing these concerns.
Oprah's Intervention And Question Clarification
As Harris's response continued without directly answering the original question, Oprah Winfrey intervened. Recognizing that the Vice President had not provided the specific steps requested, Winfrey rephrased the question to bring the conversation back on track.
Winfrey asked:
So to answer Justin's question, now that that bill is gone and hasn't passed, will you introduce that?
Winfrey's question aimed to get a clearer response from Harris about her border security plans, to which Harris replied affirmatively with "Absolutely."
Conclusion
The "Unite for America" livestream event, intended to showcase Harris and address important national issues, became notable for this particular exchange on border security. The incident demonstrated the complexities of political communication and the role that interviewers can play in steering conversations towards more direct answers. Harris initially provided a lengthy response touching on her background and failed legislation, but did not offer specific steps for strengthening the border. Winfrey's rephrasing of the question ultimately elicited a brief affirmative response from the Vice President.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has signaled the next phase in the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump, with the Department of Justice preparing a detailed opening brief on the issue of presidential immunity.
The Justice Department's filing, due by Sept. 26, will address whether the government believes Trump is shielded by presidential immunity in the case that accuses him of trying to overturn the 2020 election results, as Newsweek reports.
The upcoming brief will not exceed 180 pages, according to court documents submitted by Smith. The filing will be presented to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and include a detailed factual proffer, as well as extensive footnote citations. The government has also proposed making a redacted version of the document available to the public, citing the inclusion of sensitive material.
Filing to Address Presidential Immunity
The charges against Trump stem from his alleged attempts to interfere with the certification of the 2020 election results. He faces four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges, maintaining that the case is a politically motivated attack aimed at preventing him from returning to office.
The charges are part of a larger investigation by Smith, who is leading the DOJ’s prosecution into Trump’s efforts to reverse his loss to President Joe Biden. The case is centered in Washington, D.C., where Trump was indicted on the four counts. Smith's team has already submitted multiple filings to clarify their legal position, as they prepare to contest Trump's claims of immunity from prosecution.
The concept of presidential immunity has come under scrutiny in recent months. In a July ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that presidents have broad immunity for official acts, but significantly less protection when it comes to actions outside their official duties. This ruling prompted Smith’s team to reassess their case and request additional time for a thorough review.
Trump Claims Case is Politically Motivated
Trump has been vocal in his criticism of the case, calling it a "witch hunt" aimed at silencing him. His legal team has filed several motions, including one requesting the case's dismissal on the grounds that Trump’s actions were protected under presidential immunity. Trump argues that his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results were part of his official duties as president, thus shielding him from criminal charges.
Despite these claims, Smith’s team has maintained that Trump's actions went beyond the scope of his official role. In a recent superseding indictment, Smith emphasized that Trump's alleged conduct was tied to his status as a candidate, rather than as the sitting president. This distinction could play a crucial role in the upcoming proceedings as both sides prepare to argue their interpretations of the law.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, has been firm in her management of the court’s schedule. She recently granted Trump’s legal team an extension for a missed filing deadline but stressed the importance of timely requests in the future. "Going forward, the parties should seek any needed extensions of time before the deadline," Chutkan stated.
Upcoming Filing to Play Key Role
The DOJ’s upcoming filing could prove pivotal in the case, particularly as it pertains to the issue of immunity. The brief will lay out the government’s argument in detail, offering a comprehensive view of the case against Trump. It is expected to include significant legal analysis and evidence to support the charges, though portions may be redacted for public release.
Trump’s legal team is expected to challenge the filing vigorously, with additional motions likely to follow. Both sides are bracing for a lengthy legal battle that could stretch well into 2024, potentially overlapping with Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination in the upcoming presidential election.
This case is just one of several legal challenges facing the former president. In May, a New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts in a separate case related to hush money payments made during the 2016 election. Although Trump awaits sentencing in that case, it is not expected to occur before November's election.
The intersection of Trump’s legal troubles and his political aspirations continues to draw widespread attention. As the legal process unfolds, questions surrounding presidential immunity and accountability remain at the forefront of the national conversation. Smith's detailed brief is expected to shed light on these complex legal issues, particularly in how they apply to a former president. The document will likely be heavily scrutinized by both legal experts and the general public as it becomes available for review.
The Georgia State Election Board has enacted a rule related to the tallying of ballots on election night, sparking concerns among some over potential delays and legality.
The Georgia board voted 3-2 to require hand-counts on election night, though the rule will not apply to ballots cast during the early voting period, as Just the News reports.
On Friday, the board passed the controversial rule in a narrow vote, leading to significant backlash from election officials and the state's attorney general. Critics argue that this last-minute change could cause serious delays in reporting results and may run afoul of state law.
Hand-Count Rule Draws Immediate Backlash
The new rule, which applies only to precincts on election night, requires that hand-count tallies align with the machine count before certification. It does not extend to ballots cast during early voting, after the board opted to table that proposal in a separate 4-1 vote.
The Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials strongly opposed the measure. In a letter sent to the board earlier in the week, they warned that the rule could overburden election workers and increase the likelihood of mistakes. The group stated the rule could "delay results, set fatigued employees up for failure, and undermine the very confidence" it was supposedly meant to promote. The letter highlighted concerns about the increased stress on precincts and the potential for confusion.
Georgia Officials Raise Legal and Logistical Concerns
State leaders, including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have also voiced their objections. Raffensperger criticized the decision to implement such a significant change so close to the election. "Ninety days before an election, you should not institute major changes to the election process," he said, noting that the rule would likely cause delays in results from Georgia’s 2,400 precincts.
Raffensperger also cautioned that the more complicated the process, the greater the risk of failure. "The more moving parts you have, the more chance you have to fail," he stated. His office's opposition is shared by the Georgia attorney general, who has argued that the rule is likely illegal. In a memo, the attorney general’s office noted that current statutes do not provide for hand-counting ballots at precincts before they are sent to election superintendents for tabulation.
Concerns Over Legal Basis for Hand-Counts
The memo from the attorney general's office further clarified that the new rule lacks legal grounding, stating, "There are thus no provisions in the statutes cited in support of these proposed rules that permit counting the number of ballots by hand at the precinct level prior to delivery to the election superintendent for tabulation."
The memo concluded that this type of action would likely be viewed as "impermissible legislation that agencies cannot do" and might lead to legal challenges. Despite these warnings, the rule was pushed forward, adding to the contentious debate over how elections should be managed.
Critics fear that this decision may erode trust in the election process. While the rule's supporters argue that it will enhance transparency, opponents claim it risks further complicating an already challenging system.
Potential Election Night Delays Expected
With only weeks remaining before the November election, local election officials are now scrambling to adjust to the new rule. Many worry that the additional burden of hand-counting ballots could lead to significant delays in reporting results.
Raffensperger has warned that voters may have to wait longer to hear the final outcomes of key races. The hand-count process, which must be completed before the results are certified, could stretch the timeline for finalizing results, especially in closely contested areas.
Election officials across the state are bracing for these delays, while continuing to express concerns about the rule's impact on the overall efficiency and reliability of the election process. The rule's opponents argue that implementing such a significant change so close to the election increases the risk of errors and confusion, both among election workers and the general public. Whether these concerns will come to fruition remains to be seen.
