-
-
Angela Alsobrooks wins contentious Democratic Senate primary in Maryland
BY JULIA MUELLER 05/14/24 9:40 PM ET
Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D) has won the Democratic primary for Maryland’s open Senate seat, according to a projection from Decision Desk HQ.
Alsobrooks beat out fellow Democrat Rep. David Trone (Md.) in what had become a tumultuous race. Just days earlier, an Emerson College Polling/The Hill/DC News Now found the two in a dead heat.
She will make history if she wins in November, becoming the first Black woman to represent the Old Line State in the Senate.
“My name is Angela Alsobrooks, and I am officially your Democratic nominee in Maryland’s Senate race,” she said in a statement posted to X following her victory.
“On November 5, 2024, we are going to defeat Larry Hogan, keep Maryland blue, and keep our Senate under Democratic control—spread the word.”
Alsobrooks had the backing of Trone’s fellow Maryland congressman, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D), and other top Democrats, including Sens. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Chris Murphy (Conn.). The Washington Post editorial board also endorsed her over Trone.
The race had been tense for months, especially after Trone accidentally used a racial slur during a committee hearing earlier this year. The co-owner of Total Wine, Trone had spent tens of millions of dollars in the primary and argued that his wealth was a key reason why he would be a stronger candidate in November.
Alsobrooks is set to face off against popular former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) in the fall.
“Electing Angela Alsobrooks will stop Republicans from taking control of the Senate and ensure that Republican Larry Hogan’s party cannot pursue their dangerous agenda like passing a national ban on abortion,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, said in a statement.
“In the Senate, Angela will stand up for Marylanders and be a voice for all of her state, just like she has throughout her time in public service. Marylanders know the Senate majority is on the line, and that’s why they are unified behind Angela and ready to defeat Republican Larry Hogan in November.”
Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin announced plans last year to retire after three terms in the role, opening up a competitive primary to replace him. Hogan’s entry on the Republican side threw a wrench into the race with signs that the popular GOP governor could put up a formidable fight in the blue-leaning state.
The nonpartisan election handicapper Cook Political Report shifted the Maryland seat from “solid” to “likely Democrat” after Hogan jumped in–but the Emerson poll notably showed both Democratic options beating Hogan in November hypotheticals.
ReplyCopy URL
Trump, Biden reach deal on 2 debates in Wednesday whirlwind
BY BRETT SAMUELS 05/15/24 10:54 AM ET
President Biden and former President Trump quickly reached an agreement Wednesday on two presidential debates that will have the main party candidates in head-to-head confrontation on national television ahead of the national political conventions this summer.
Trump and Biden will meet in a June 27 debate to be hosted by CNN—a battle that is historically early in the general election calendar—and will meet onstage again Sept. 10 for an debate hosted by ABC.
The whirlwind few hours started with a campaign video from Biden in which he dared Trump to meet him for debates in June and September.
Before the morning was over, the former president had made it clear he was glad to accept the challenge, and the two debates had been scheduled.
The challenge from Biden came just days after a series of new polls conducted by The New York Times and Siena College showed him trailing Trump in most of the swing states likely to decide the election.
Biden trails Trump in Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan among registered voters in those states, providing more evidence he needs to move the needle in the presidential race.
In his Wednesday challenges, Biden signaled an eagerness to take Trump on, which would also allow the Biden campaign to put more of the focus on Trump.
“I’ve received and accepted an invitation from @CNN for a debate on June 27th. Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place,” Biden posted on the social platform X.
Trump, who has held a fairly consistent lead in national polls and swing states despite a series of legal battles, also signaled an eagerness to take on Biden in a debate.
“I am Ready and Willing to Debate Crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds–That’s only because he doesn’t get them. Just tell me when, I’ll be there. ‘Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!’”
Trump told Fox News Digital in a subsequent statement he had also accepted the invitation for the June 27 debate, telling the outlet he is “looking forward to being in beautiful Atlanta.”
The network said shortly after in a statement that it would host the debate without an audience at its Atlanta studios. It will be aired live on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol, and CNN.com.
The Biden campaign earlier Wednesday called for the first debate to take place in late June, after the president returns from the Group of Seven summit in Europe and after Trump’s hush money trial in New York will likely have concluded.
Trump’s hush money trial does not convene on Wednesdays, and both campaigns have sought to take advantage of those windows to make headlines.
Biden’s campaign suggested a second debate in September ahead of the start of early voting in many states, which the ABC event would meet, as well as a vice-presidential debate in late July, after the Republican and Democratic national conventions.
The two campaigns in setting up the two debates spurned the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has facilitated the debates between presidential candidates since 1988.
In a statement, the commission said it would remain ready to execute its plans for three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate.
“The American public deserves substantive debates from the leading candidates for president and vice-president,” the commission said.
“Our 2024 sites, all locations of higher learning, are prepared to host debates on dates chosen to accommodate early voters,” the group added. “We will continue to be ready to execute this plan.”
Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon suggested working with outlets that hosted GOP primary debates in 2016 and Democratic primary debates in 2020 to avoid any perceptions of bias.
Trump has had a fractious history with CNN, blasting the network, its executives and its on-air talent as “fake news” throughout his first term in office.
Trump attended a live town hall hosted by CNN and moderated by Kaitlan Collins, an event that drew backlash after Trump frequently spoke over Collins and repeated false claims about election fraud.
Biden recently granted a rare one-on-one interview with anchor CNN Erin Burnett, during which he said of Trump “I promise you he won’t” accept the result of the 2024 election if he loses.
Wednesday’s announcement came as CNN’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, was presenting to prospective advertisers Wednesday at the annual Upfront events in New York City.
ABC News had planned to host a GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, but it was canceled after Trump and Nikki Haley said they would not attend. Martha Raddatz of ABC co-moderated one of the 2016 presidential debates; the network did not host a debate in 2020.
Officials with the Biden campaign and the Trump campaign had behind-the-scenes discussions in recent weeks about arranging debates and going around the commission. Those conversations were first reported by The Washington Post.
Trump’s campaign had in recent weeks urged the commission to schedule more debates and hold them earlier, citing the start of early voting in many states between the scheduled dates of the commission’s first and second debates.
ABC News says it will make the presidential debate between President Biden and former President Trump that it plans to host in September available for simulcast on other networks.
ReplyCopy URL
Gold bars and Google searches: The damning evidence in Bob Menendez’s corruption trial
Prosecutors must tie the gold bars to official acts.by RY RIVARD
POLITICO
05/12/2024 07:00 AM EDT
Sen. Bob Menendez is charged with more than a dozen corrupt acts that span the globe. But no detail gripped the public like the gold bars found stashed in his New Jersey home.
Not only did federal investigators find 13 gold bars in the summer of 2022, but Menendez’s own curiosity about their value shows up in repeated Google searches. Three separate times, according to prosecutors, Menendez searched online for the cash value of the gold.
Those details and more are expected to emerge at the senator’s criminal trial that begins Monday.
Prosecutors allege that the senator or his wife, Nadine Menendez, took bribes to influence state and federal prosecutors to go easy on his associates, aid the government of Egypt and help seal a deal between an associate and an investment company led by a member of the Qatari royal family—even as he was one of America’s most powerful officials on international affairs, as a leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
To prove their case, prosecutors will need to tie those gold bars to things the senator is alleged to have done to receive them. It helps that prosecutors have years of the senator’s phone and electronic records, including Google searches.
Prosecutors say those searches largely followed interactions involving the Menendezes and Fred Daibes, a New Jersey businessperson who is accused of bribing Menendez. The senator is alleged to have tried to help Daibes avoid legal troubles and to seize on a business opportunity involving an investment company run by a member of Qatar’s royal family.
Another co-defendant in the case, Egyptian-American businessperson Wael “Will” Hana, is also alleged to have provided the Menendezes with gold bars. Nadine Menendez is said to have sold some of them before investigators searched the couple’s home and deposited the proceeds into bank accounts she controlled.
Here’s how prosecutors have framed the timing of each Google search:
In mid-October 2021, Menendez and his wife had just returned from a trip to Qatar and Egypt, where they’d met with Egyptian officials and had dinner with Hana. They were picked up at JFK Airport by Daibes’s driver, according to the federal indictment.
Federal prosecutors allege Menendez tried to get other prosecutors to go easy on Daibes, who is facing separate fraud charges in New Jersey federal court.
The driver took the Menendezes to their home in New Jersey.
The next day, the senator searched for “how much is one kilo of gold worth.”
In January 2022, Daibes’s driver—who is not named in the indictment—called Nadine Menendez and then she texted Daibes, “Thank you. Christmas in January.”
About two hours later, the senator called a federal prosecutor handling Daibes’s case—the first time the senator had ever called the person, according to federal prosecutors.
Several days later, the senator searched for “kilo of gold price.”
The driver’s fingerprints were later found in the couple’s New Jersey home on an envelope containing thousands of dollars in cash. The envelope also had Daibes’s DNA and his return address.
In May 2022, after a meeting between Menendez and Daibes, the Qatari investment company signed a letter to invest in a major real estate project Daibes had been working on in New Jersey.
“Thereafter,” according to the indictment, “Daibes provided Menendez with at least one gold bar.”
Three days after the letter was signed, the senator, his wife and Daibes had dinner in Edgewater—the New Jersey town where Daibes’s development would be. Later that evening at around 10:30 p.m., the senator hit Google again, searching for “one kilo gold price.”
ReplyCopy URL
TRUMP FOUND GUILTY ON ALL 34 COUNTS
BREAKING NEWS: Trump found guilty on all counts.
The verdict in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is now being read in the courtroom.
The 34 counts stemmed from 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, and 11 checks that make up Trump’s monthly reimbursement payments to Michael Cohen who fronted the $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Follow the latest on the verdict for each of the counts below:
Count 1: GUILTY
Count 2: GUILTY
Count 3: GUILTY
Count 4: GUILTY
Count 5: GUILTY
Count 6: GUILTY
Count 7: GUILTY
Count 8: GUILTY
Count 9: GUILTY
Count 10: GUILTY
Count 11: GUILTY
Count 12: GUILTY
Count 13: GUILTY
Count 14: GUILTY
Count 15: GUILTY
Count 16: GUILTY
Count 17: GUILTY
Count 18: GUILTY
Count 19: GUILTY
Count 20: GUILTY
Count 21: GUILTY
Count 22: GUILTY
Count 23: GUILTY
Count 24: GUILTY
Count 25: GUILTY
Count 26: GUILTY
Count 27: GUILTY
Count 28: GUILTY
Count 29: GUILTY
Count 30: GUILTY
Count 31: GUILTY
Count 32: GUILTY
Count 33: GUILTY
Count 34: GUILTYThe court officer asks if either party wants the jury polled.
Donald Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche says “Yes.”
Donald Trump, who had remained staring straight ahead as the guilty verdict was read on each count, looked over toward the jury box as each member of the panel confirmed their verdict.
He’s gone back to looking straight ahead with a straight face as Judge Juan Merchan thanks the jurors.
ReplyCopy URL
Looming over Trump’s conviction: Reversal by the “13th juror”
The former president has an extensive menu of options to pursue in his appeal.by ERICA ORDEN and BEN FEUERHERD
POLITICO
06/02/2024 07:00 AM EDT
NEW YORK—Donald Trump’s conviction has raised many political and legal questions, but at least one issue is not in doubt: whether he will appeal.
He might even win.
The former president has made no secret that he plans to challenge the verdict against him in the hush money case—and attorneys say he has an extensive menu of legal avenues to pursue. Some think he has a decent chance of a reversal.
“There is an appeal that could have legs,” said Arlo Devlin-Brown, a former federal prosecutor who was chief of the public corruption unit in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office.
Trump’s first chance to challenge the verdict will come within 30 days of his sentencing on July 11, at which point he can turn to New York’s First Judicial Department appellate court, not far from where he just stood trial. That court has such broad discretion to review jury findings that it’s sometimes called “the 13th juror.”
Their attack is expected to focus on a few key issues, including the legal theory that enabled prosecutors to transform 34 misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records into a felony case against the former president.
“We are going to take this as high and far as we need to, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, to vindicate President Trump’s rights,” his attorney Will Scharf told CNN on Friday.
Unlike the trial that wrapped up with Thursday’s verdict, the appeal may focus on largely arcane legal issues—not the salacious evidence presented to the jury, said Devlin-Brown.
At trial, jurors found Trump guilty of falsifying business records with the intent of concealing a plot to undermine the 2016 election. To prove the underlying crime, jurors had to agree Trump used “unlawful means”—but they did not have to agree on a singular unlawful act.
“The combination of the prosecution offering three different theories as to how the false records could have violated state election law, limited instruction on what some of those theories required, and the fact that jurors were not required to agree on which had been proven creates a real issue for the appeal,” said Devlin-Brown.
The way the appellate division is structured could also cut in Trump’s favor. The division is dubbed the “13th juror” in New York because judges are allowed to make decisions based on the facts of the case—not only the law.
“It’s an underappreciated power that the appellate division has,” said Diana Florence, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney.
Trump will be an unprecedented appellate defendant, but he could have at least one thing going for him, Florence said.
“It’s a loophole, if you will, that exists very uniquely in the appellate division of New York. Given there’s an inherent kind of bias with white-collar defendants, who are treated less severely, to that extent it could cut in his favor,” she added.
Trump is also likely to appeal on the grounds that an expert witness he sought to have testify, a former head of the Federal Election Commission, was restricted by the judge from testifying about whether Trump violated campaign finance laws, said Alexander Reinert, a professor of litigation at Cardozo School of Law.
Trump ultimately declined to call the witness, Bradley Smith, and Trump’s remarks on Friday suggested his appeal would concern Justice Juan Merchan’s ruling regarding Smith.
Trump may also argue that some of the testimony the judge did allow was prejudicial, particularly Stormy Daniels’s detailed account of having sex with Trump, as well as some of the testimony connected to the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump’s lawyers might appeal on the ground that the material “wasn’t relevant and the jury didn’t need to hear it in order to make a conviction,” said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who is now a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice.
And then there are a handful of issues that Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised prior to the trial and throughout the process, including whether the judge should have recused himself and whether Trump deserved a change of venue. Trump’s lawyers made multiple requests for Merchan to step aside, citing his adult daughter’s work for a consulting firm that has Democratic clients. And they have often complained about the trial taking place in Manhattan, saying he couldn’t get a fair trial due to overwhelming publicity and to the borough’s heavy Democratic bent.
On Friday, Trump’s lead lawyer at trial, Todd Blanche, suggested the defense team’s sights had long been focused not on the trial itself, but on the post-conviction process.
“We’re going to appeal, and we’re going to win on appeal,” Blanche said on “The Today Show.” “That’s the goal. … This is a step in the process of our justice system, and the goal is to appeal quickly and hopefully be vindicated quickly.”
ReplyCopy URL
Ocasio-Cortez, Raskin to introduce legislation to “rein in a fundamentally unaccountable and rogue” Supreme Court
BY MIRANDA NAZZARO 06/11/24 10:49 PM ET
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Tuesday said they will be introducing legislation in response to the increased ethics concerns related to the Supreme Court.
Ocasio-Cortez and Raskin, who serve as the ranking and vice-ranking members, respectively, on the House Oversight Committee, were part of a committee roundtable Tuesday regarding these concerns. They explored various “avenues” for holding Supreme Court justices accountable, they told MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes.
“And so, it is not a question…of if Congress has jurisdiction and power over the Supreme Court. It is, what power are we going to exercise in order to rein in a fundamentally unaccountable and rogue court?” Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday night.
“Congressman Raskin and myself will be introducing forthcoming legislation to even have the Supreme Court be subject to the same $50 gift rule that he and I are subject to, as everyone else who are members of Congress,” she added later.
The Supreme Court has come under scrutiny over the past year following a series of reports detailing various undisclosed luxury trips, gifts, and questionable extrajudicial activities involving multiple justices. The reports spiked interest in congressional oversight of the justices’ behavior and the gifts they accept.
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have repeatedly pushed for legislation to increase oversight of the Supreme Court. This pressure increased last month after reports surfaced about a pair of flags flown over Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s homes, including an upside-down American flag over his Alexandria, Va. residence in the days surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, and President Biden’s inauguration.
“It’s the highest court in the land with the lowest ethical standards. These are the only governmental officials in the land who are not governed by a binding ethics code. There’s no process by which we can hold any of them accountable,” Raskin said.
“And so, we need to clean that up. And that’s why we said we’re going to start with something simple that the whole country will be able to understand immediately and intuitively,” Raskin said. “We want a $50 gift ban for U.S. Supreme Court justices. They make $300,000 a year. Pay for your own lunch and pay for your own vacation.”
Earlier on Tuesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters Democrats are planning to try moving legislation on Supreme Court ethics on the floor this week via unanimous consent. A Republican senator is widely expected to deny consent.
The Supreme Court adopted a new code of ethics in November, but Democrats said its impact is hampered by the ability for each justice to enforce it upon themselves.
ReplyCopy URL
Hunter Biden guilty on all 3 felony gun charges
BY ELLA LEE 06/11/24 12:45 PM ETPresident Biden’s son Hunter Biden was found guilty Tuesday of lying about his use of illicit drugs when applying to purchase a gun six years ago and unlawfully possessing it thereafter, marking the first criminal conviction of a sitting president’s child.
After roughly three hours of deliberation, a jury of 12 Delaware residents issued the three felony convictions that stemmed from Hunter Biden’s 2018 purchase of a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver. On a federal gun purchase form, the president’s son checked “no” when asked if he used or was addicted to illegal drugs. Then, he unlawfully possessed the firearm for 11 days.
The roughly weeklong trial spotlighted Hunter Biden’s addiction to crack cocaine, which he and his father, the president, have openly addressed as a struggle worsened by the 2015 brain cancer death of Beau Biden, Hunter Biden’s brother.
“I am more grateful today for the love and support I experienced this last week from Melissa, my family, my friends, and my community than I am disappointed by the outcome,” Hunter Biden said in a statement following the verdict. “Recovery is possible by the grace of God, and I am blessed to experience that gift one day at a time.”
Despite the shadow Hunter Biden’s addiction cast on the proceedings, special counsel David Weiss—who brought the federal charges after being appointed last year to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by the president’s son—insisted that the case was about more than just drugs.
“This case was not just about addiction, a disease that haunts families across the United States, including Hunter Biden’s family,” Weiss said in remarks after the verdict was announced. “This case was about the illegal choices defendant made while in the throes of addiction—his choice to lie on a government form when he bought a gun, and the choice to then possess that gun.
“It was these choices, and the combination of guns and drugs, that made his conduct dangerous,” Weiss continued, adding that “no one in this country is above the law.”
A series of women from Hunter Biden’s past and present took the stand to testify about his drug use, making up the bulk of witnesses federal prosecutors called to testify against the president’s son. That included his ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle; his late brother’s widow, Hallie Biden, with whom he had a brief relationship; and an ex-girlfriend.
Hallie Biden, who was married to Hunter Biden’s brother, Beau, testified that crack cocaine made Hunter Biden “agitated or high-strung, but at other times, functioning as well.”
She also described being “panicked” after discovering the firearm in question in Hunter Biden’s truck, deciding then to dump the gun outside a grocery store in Wilmington, Del.—a choice that precipitated the case against her brother-in-law.
In the defense’s case, Hunter Biden’s daughter, Naomi Biden, testified that she knew her father was “struggling with addiction” months before the unlawful gun purchase but that he “still seemed good” in October, when the transaction was made. However, prosecutors showed a text she wrote to her father at the time: “I’m really sorry dad I can’t take this.”
After jurors were released from their vow not to discuss the case, one juror told CNN that he and other jurors “felt bad” Naomi Biden was called to testify in the case, describing it as “probably a strategy that should not have been done.”
“No daughter should ever have to testify against her dad,” the juror said.
The juror also said that he did not believe Hunter Biden deserves jail time.
The president’s son faces a maximum of 25 years in prison and $750,000 in fines, although first-time offenders are rarely given the maximum penalty. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, which determines recommended sentencing guidelines, a defendant like Hunter Biden would typically face between 15 to 21 months in prison.
However, that determination is entirely at the trial judge’s discretion. Before his sentence is decided, Hunter Biden will likely meet with a federal probation officer who will interview him and create a report with recommendations, while both federal prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s attorneys will file memos to the judge with their own recommendations.
President Biden reiterated recently that he would not pardon his son if convicted, adding to that remark Tuesday by saying that he will accept the outcome of the case and “continue to respect the judicial process” as his son considers an appeal.
“As I said last week, I am the President, but I am also a Dad,” Biden said. “I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today.”
Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement after the verdict that they are “naturally disappointed” but “respect the jury process.” They intend to “vigorously pursue” all available legal challenges.
During closing arguments Monday, prosecutors contended that Hunter Biden’s drug use started “years before” the gun purchase and “continued for months after,” according to CNN.
“He had lost control,” prosecutor Leo Wise said.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys emphasized that no one had witnessed “actual drug use” in the month that he bought the gun, seeking to undercut testimony from Hunter’s three exes who testified in the government’s case.
The defense also purported that Hunter Biden, who had just completed a stint in rehab at the time he purchased the gun, did not believe he was lying when he answered “no” to the federal gun purchase form question asking if he presently was a drug user. Hunter Biden did not testify.
Ultimately, the jury’s decision did not come down to Hunter Biden’s addiction, despite its prominent role in the trial, according to the juror who spoke to CNN.
The juror revealed that the roughly three-hour deliberation focused on the evidence, not Hunter Biden’s “lifestyle” once fueled by drugs.
“It was very sad … not that he was being convicted of these crimes, but that his life has turned out the way it did,” the juror said.
The juror also indicated that “no politics came into play” in their determination, noting that neither first lady Jill Biden—who attended much of the trial—nor the president were discussed during deliberations.
“The first family was not even spoken about,” the juror said. “It was all about Hunter.”
In California, Hunter Biden faces separate charges for allegedly failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes and filing false returns. That case could go to trial in September.
ReplyCopy URL
Lauren Boebert fights for political survival amid stream of controversies
BY CAROLINE VAKIL 06/12/24 6:00 AM ETRep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is looking to overcome numerous unflattering headlines and allegations of carpetbagging as she seeks to win her GOP primary in a new House district this month.
The Colorado firebrand, who represents the 3rd Congressional District in the western part of the state, announced she would run in a new district late last year. She’s now looking to beat out a handful of Republican challengers in the June 25 primary for the 4th District in eastern Colorado.
Observers say she’s the likely front-runner, both in her primary and in November, representing a remarkable reversal of fortune for the second-term congresswoman after she was barely reelected in 2022 and has faced mounting public scrutiny.
“I think a lot of people knew as soon as she got in the race that she was the person to beat,” said Douglas County GOP Chair Steve Peck, who said he’s neutral in the primary.
“When she announced that she was getting into the race, I immediately had several candidates reach out to me and ask me what I thought, how the campaign changes, because all things being equal, she is a national figure,” he said, adding that Boebert had to “fight and earn the respect” of local Republican leaders and grassroots activists in the community.
Boebert entered Congress in 2021, ousting an incumbent Republican in the primary for a House seat in the Western Slope.
Since then, she has become one of the most polarizing figures in Congress. For several years, Boebert has drawn scrutiny and outrage over her actions, such as her insinuation Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) was a terrorist—for which she later issued an apology to the Muslim community—or her heckling of President Biden during an annual State of the Union address.
Some of those antics almost cost her her House seat in 2022, when she won reelection by just more than 500 votes, prompting her to switch districts and move to the eastern 4th District after former Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) announced he wouldn’t seek reelection.
Until a few months ago, there were serious questions over whether Boebert would be back in Congress next year: Buck resigned from his seat early, prompting a special election to serve out the remainder of his term—one that was scheduled on the same day as the GOP primary for the regular two-year term.
Boebert opted against running in the special election because doing so would have required her to step down from her current seat in Congress, triggering a special election to finish out the remainder of her term—a precarious move that would have narrowed Republicans’ already slim majority. But by not running in the special election, it could have placed her at a disadvantage for the regular GOP primary because voters may have been more likely to vote for the same candidate in both races.
Adding to her woes, Boebert also was forced to publicly apologize for an incident last year when she was ejected from a “Beetlejuice” musical in Denver after she was caught vaping and being disruptive. She has also had to dodge attacks from her rivals, who have called her a “carpetbagger” in the new district.
Some of those controversies have weighed on the minds of Republicans in the district. Gregory Martin, the GOP chair for Cheyenne County, told The Hill former radio host Deborah Flora and former state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg (R) were among his top picks, noting the drama around Boebert.
At the same time, Boebert has scored some significant wins: The Republican who won the GOP primary to compete in the special election, businessman Greg Lopez, said he only wanted to run to fill out the remainder of Buck’s term, giving Boebert a better chance to win the primary for the full term.
The Colorado Republican also saw another boost in April when she clinched 41 percent of the delegate vote during the nominating assembly, allowing her to be placed first on the ballot over the rest of her competitors.
“It was her audience, it was her core base,” said Jeff Hunt, a radio show host and former director of Colorado Christian University’s think tank Centennial Institute, referring to the atmosphere in the room during the nominating assembly.
Boebert also benefits from a crowded field that inevitably made it difficult for Republicans to coalesce around one of her challengers. She also has plenty of name ID and cash on hand—not to mention former President Trump’s all-important endorsement.
Some Republicans are still skeptical of Boebert. Mike Benson, who chairs the Sedgwick County Republican Committee, said the congresswoman wasn’t his “favorite.”
“I just don’t see how she’s really going to represent the agriculture community,” Benson said.
Other Republicans acknowledge some of her antics, such as the “Beetlejuice” incident, initially damaged her reputation. But many seemed to have largely moved past those incidents.
“Not knowing Lauren very well until she came over to CD4, I think that ‘Beetlejuice’ was something that definitely hurt her,” said Pamela Kuhns-Valdez, chair of the Bent County GOP, who saw Boebert at a party meeting earlier in the week and said she was “received very well.”
“But in retrospect … we’re all sinners who fall short of the glory of God,” Kuhns-Valdez said.
ReplyCopy URL
Sotomayor rips Thomas’s bump stocks ruling in scathing dissent read from bench
BY NICK ROBERTSON 06/14/24 11:01 AM ET
Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a fiery dissent harshly denounced a Supreme Court ruling Friday that rejected a ban on bump stocks, saying it “eviscerates” the congressional regulation of machine guns.
“Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands,” Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “To do so, it casts aside Congress’s definition of ���machine gun’ and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.”
The court ruled 6-3 against the Biden administration along ideological lines, finding that bans imposed by the Trump and Biden administrations—enacted by classifying bump stocks as machine guns—went too far.
“We conclude that [a] semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the decision.
Sotomayor rejected that reasoning.
“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” she continued.
Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, a rare move underlining her disagreement. It was the first time she read a dissent this term.
“This is not a hard case. All of the textual evidence points to the same interpretation,” she added, deriding the majority’s interpretation for ignoring common sense and instead relying on obscure technical arguments.
“Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text,” she wrote.
Sotomayor said the decision “enables gun users and manufacturers to circumvent federal law.”
The federal bump stock ban was first established by the Trump administration in 2017 after a gunman used the device in a Las Vegas mass shooting that killed 58 people and wounded hundreds of others. The Biden administration supported and defended the ban in court.
Michael Cargill, a Texas-based gun store owner, challenged the bump stock ban after surrendering two in 2019. He was backed by the National Rifle Association and other major gun advocacy groups.
The case did not implement the Second Amendment but instead asked whether the Trump administration, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, stretched the statutory definition of machine guns too far to cover bump stocks.
In the coming days, the Supreme Court is set to hand down another closely watched gun case that does implicate the Second Amendment. The justices are weighing whether a federal statute criminalizing gun possession for people under domestic-violence restraining orders is constitutional.
ReplyCopy URL
The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims
BY MARK SHERMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS 06/21/24 12:02 PM ETWASHINGTON (AP)—The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.
In their first Second Amendment case since they expanded gun rights in 2022, the justices ruled 8-1 in favor of a 1994 ban on firearms for people under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners. The justices reversed a ruling from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that had struck down the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the law uses “common sense” and applies only “after a judge determines that an individual poses a credible threat” of physical violence.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the major 2022 Bruen ruling in a New York case, dissented.
President Joe Biden, who has been critical of previous high-court rulings on guns, abortion and other hot-button issues, praised the outcome.
“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun,” Biden said in a statement. “As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades.”
Last week, the court overturned a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The court ruled that the Justice Department exceeded its authority in imposing that ban.
Friday’s case stemmed directly from the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in June 2022. A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was accused of hitting his girlfriend during an argument in a parking lot and later threatening to shoot her.
At arguments in November, some justices voiced concern that a ruling for Rahimi could also jeopardize the background check system that the Biden administration said has stopped more than 75,000 gun sales in the past 25 years based on domestic violence protective orders.
The case also had been closely watched for its potential to affect cases in which other gun ownership laws have been called into question, including in the high-profile prosecution of Hunter Biden. Biden’s son was convicted of lying on a form to buy a firearm while he was addicted to drugs. His lawyers have signaled they will appeal.
A decision to strike down the domestic violence gun law might have signaled the court’s skepticism of the other laws as well. But Friday’s decision did not suggest that the court would necessarily uphold those law either.
The justices could weigh in soon in one or more of those other cases.
Many of the gun law cases grow out of the Bruen decision. That high court ruling not only expanded Americans’ gun rights under the Constitution but also changed the way courts are supposed to evaluate restrictions on firearms.
Roberts turned to history in his opinion. “Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” he wrote.
Some courts have gone too far, Roberts wrote, in applying Bruen and other gun rights cases. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” he wrote.
In dissent, Thomas wrote, the law “strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process.”
The government “failed to produce any evidence” that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, he wrote.
“Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue,” Thomas wrote.
Seven of the nine justices wrote opinions in the guns case spanning 94 pages, mainly focused on the proper use of history in evaluating gun restrictions and other limitations on constitutional rights.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Roberts’s opinion “permits a historical inquiry calibrated to reveal something useful and transferable to the present day, while the dissent would make the historical inquiry so exacting as to be useless.” She was among the three liberal justices who dissented in the Bruen case.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was part of the Bruen majority, noted that the court probably will have many more cases about the reach of gun rights because “Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its early innings.” It was only in 2008 that the court declared for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Rahimi’s case reached the Supreme Court after prosecutors appealed a ruling that threw out his conviction for possessing guns while subject to a restraining order.
Rahimi was involved in five shootings over two months in and around Arlington, Texas, U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson noted. When police identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and showed up at his home with a search warrant, he admitted having guns in the house and being subject to a domestic violence restraining order that prohibited gun possession, Wilson wrote.
But even though Rahimi was hardly “a model citizen,” Wilson wrote, the law at issue could not be justified by looking to history. That’s the test Justice Thomas laid out in his opinion for the court in Bruen.
The appeals court initially upheld the conviction under a balancing test that included whether the restriction enhances public safety. But the panel reversed course after Bruen. At least one district court has upheld the law since the Bruen decision.
After the ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department “will continue to enforce this important statute, which for nearly 30 years has helped to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence from their abusers.”
“As the Justice Department argued, and as the Court reaffirmed today, that commonsense prohibition is entirely consistent with the Court’s precedent and the text and history of the Second Amendment,” Garland said in a statement.
Advocates for domestic violence victims and gun control groups had called on the court to uphold the law.
Firearms are the most common weapon used in homicides of spouses, intimate partners, children or relatives in recent years, according to data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guns were used in more than half, 57%, of those killings in 2020, a year that saw an overall increase in domestic violence during the coronavirus pandemic.
Seventy women a month, on average, are shot and killed by intimate partners, according to the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.
Gun rights groups backed Rahimi, arguing that the appeals court got it right when it looked at American history and found no restriction close enough to justify the gun ban.
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
