Fight breaks out between Republicans at opening of Trump campaign office in Georgia David Edwards August 5, 2024 5:33PM ET
Fight breaks out between Republicans at opening of Trump campaign office in Georgia Former President Donald Trump speaks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's Road to Majority Policy Conference on June 22, 2024 in Washington, DC. Trump and President Joe Biden will debate on CNN on Thursday. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
A celebration of the opening of Donald Trump's campaign office in Valdosta, Georgia was marred by a physical fight between two conservatives.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution gathered information from police and witnesses following the July 29 event. A police report said that Brandon Phillips, the top aide to U.S. Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), intervened in an argument related to election security.
Activist Sam Carnline told police that Phillips spit in his face, prompting physical retaliation.
"Brandon Phillips got in the middle of the conversation because he didn't like the questions he was asking," the police report said. "Words were exchanged between him and Brandon, because he was upset that Brandon spit in his face."
While Phillips denied spitting in Carnline's face, the police report concluded that he did.
"I informed Brandon that he instigated the incident by spitting on Carnline," the officer's report read. "Both parties agreed to separate and go their separate ways with no further law enforcement action needed."
Phillips later told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he intervened because he did not like the questions Carnline, an activist for paper ballots, asked Republican State Rep. John LaHood.
"They say politics can be a contact sport, and sometimes it is," Phillips explained. "I certainly don't mind defending any volunteers or officials who are trying to contribute in a positive way toward a Trump victory from outside agitators with the opposite agenda."
At least one witness suggested Phillips did not start the violence.
"One of the witnesses was Dennis Futch of Moultrie, a veteran Republican activist," the paper noted. "He told the AJ-C that he didn't see Phillips spit, but that if he did it was inadvertent because they were both shouting. He said he saw Carnline shove or hit Phillips twice."
You see Trump lying about almost dying in a helicopter crash with Willie brown?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump is on social media calling Harris a cheater for AI generated crowds. The problem is that they aren’t. Another stupid misstep by Trump. He is more worried about Harris having bigger crowds than him. What a tool
How do you know they weren't AI? I watched part of her rally last week and it sounded like they piped in fake crowd noise. Like they took in cheering from a football stadium and piped it in. It sounded fake for the venue.
They had alternate camera angles that showed it. I’m talking about the crowd on the tarmac. I guess the other videos could be AI but it’s still stupid to worry about it.
Dozens of pregnant women, some bleeding or in labor, are turned away from ERs despite federal law by: AMANDA SEITZ, Associated Press
Posted: Aug 12, 2024 / 02:31 PM EDT
Updated: Aug 12, 2024 / 02:48 PM EDT
SHARE WASHINGTON (AP) — Bleeding and in pain, Kyleigh Thurman didn’t know her doomed pregnancy could kill her.
Emergency room doctors at Ascension Seton Williamson in Texas handed her a pamphlet on miscarriage and told her to “let nature take its course” before discharging her without treatment for her ectopic pregnancy.
When the 25-year-old returned three days later, still bleeding, doctors finally agreed to give her an injection to end the pregnancy. It was too late. The fertilized egg growing on Thurman’s fallopian tube ruptured it, destroying part of her reproductive system.
That’s according to a complaint Thurman and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed last week asking the government to investigate whether the hospital violated federal law when staff failed to treat her initially in February 2023.
“I was left to flail,” Thurman said. “It was nothing short of being misled.”
The Biden administration says hospitals must offer abortions when needed to save a woman’s life, despite state bans enacted after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion more than two years ago. Texas is challenging that guidance and, earlier this summer, the Supreme Court declined to resolve the issue.
More than 100 pregnant women in medical distress who sought help from emergency rooms were turned away or negligently treated since 2022, an Associated Press analysis of federal hospital investigations found.
Two women — one in Florida and one in Texas — were left to miscarry in public restrooms. In Arkansas, a woman went into septic shock and her fetus died after an emergency room sent her home. At least four other women with ectopic pregnancies had trouble getting treatment, including one in California who needed a blood transfusion after she sat for nine hours in an emergency waiting room.
Abortion bans complicate risky pregnancy care In Texas, where doctors face up to 99 years of prison if convicted of performing an illegal abortion, medical and legal experts say the law is complicating decision-making around emergency pregnancy care.
Although the state law says termination of ectopic pregnancies isn’t considered abortion, the draconian penalties scare Texas doctors from treating those patients, the Center for Reproductive Rights argues.
“As fearful as hospitals and doctors are of running afoul of these state abortion bans, they also need to be concerned about running afoul of federal law,” said Marc Hearron, a center attorney. Hospitals face a federal investigation, hefty penalties and threats to their Medicare funding if they violate the federal law.
The organization filed complaints last week with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service alleging that different Texas emergency rooms failed to treat two patients, including Thurman, with ectopic pregnancies.
One complaint says Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz, 25, lost a fallopian tube and most of an ovary after an Arlington, Texas, hospital sent her home without treating her ectopic pregnancy, even after a doctor said discharge was “not in her best interest.”
“The doctors knew I needed an abortion, but these bans are making it nearly impossible to get basic emergency healthcare,” she said in a statement. “I’m filing this complaint because women like me deserve justice and accountability from those that hurt us.”
Conclusively diagnosing an ectopic pregnancy can be difficult. Doctors cannot always find the pregnancy’s location on an ultrasound, three doctors consulted for this article explained. Hormone levels, bleeding, a positive pregnancy test and an ultrasound of an empty uterus all indicate an ectopic pregnancy.
“You can’t be 100% — that’s the tricky part,” said Kate Arnold, an OB-GYN in Washington. “They’re literally time bombs. It’s a pregnancy growing in this thing that can only grow so much.”
Texas Right to Life Director John Seago said state law protects doctors from prosecution for terminating ectopic pregnancies, even if a doctor “makes a mistake” in diagnosing it.
“Sending a woman back home is completely unnecessary, completely dangerous,” Seago said.
But the state law has “absolutely” made doctors afraid of treating pregnant patients, said Hannah Gordon, an emergency medicine physician who worked in a Dallas hospital until last year.
She recalled a patient with signs of an ectopic pregnancy at her Dallas emergency room. Because OB-GYNs said they couldn’t definitively diagnose the problem, they waited to end the pregnancy until she came back the next day.
“It left a bad taste in my mouth,” said Gordon, who left Texas hoping to become pregnant and worried about the care she’d receive there.
“Oh my God, I’m dying” When Thurman returned to Ascension Seton Williamson a third time, her OB-GYN told her she’d need surgery to remove the fallopian tube, which had ruptured. Thurman, still heavily bleeding, balked. Losing the tube would jeopardize her fertility.
Her doctor told her she risked death if she waited any longer.
“She came in and she’s like, you’re either going to have to have a blood transfusion, or you’re going to have to have surgery or you’re going to bleed out,” Thurman said, through tears. “That’s when I just kind of was like, ‘Oh my God, I’m, I’m dying.’”
The hospital declined to comment on Thurman’s case, but said in a statement it “is committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.”
In Florida, a 15-week pregnant woman leaked amniotic fluid for an hour in Broward Health Coral Springs’ emergency wait room, according to federal documents. An ultrasound revealed the patient had no amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus, a dangerous situation that can cause serious infection.
The woman miscarried in a public bathroom that day, after the emergency room doctor listed her condition as “improved” and discharged her, without consulting the hospital’s OB-GYN.
Emergency crews rushed her to another hospital, where she was placed on a ventilator and discharged after six days.
Abortions after 15 weeks were banned in Florida at the time. Broward Health Coral Springs’ obstetrics medical director told an investigator that inducing labor for anyone who presents with pre-viable premature rupture of membranes is “the standard of care, has been a while, regardless of heartbeat, due to the risk to the mother.”
The hospital declined comment.
In another Florida case, a doctor admitted state law had complicated emergency pregnancy care.
“Because of the new laws … staff cannot intervene unless there is a danger to the patient’s health,” a doctor at Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood, Florida, told an investigator who was probing the hospital’s failure to offer an abortion to a woman whose water broke at 15 weeks, well before the fetus could survive.
Troubles extend beyond abortion ban states Serious violations that jeopardized a mother or her fetus’ health occurred in states with and without abortion bans, the AP’s review found.
Two short-staffed hospitals — in Idaho and Washington — admitted to investigators they routinely directed pregnant patients to other hospitals.
A pregnant patient at a Bakersfield, California, emergency room was quickly triaged, but staff failed to realize the urgency of her condition, a uterine rupture. The delay, an investigator concluded, may have contributed to the baby’s death.
Doctors at emergency rooms in California, Nebraska, Arkansas and South Carolina failed to check for fetal heartbeats or discharged patients who were in active labor, leaving them to deliver at home or in ambulances, according to the documents.
Nursing and doctor shortages, trouble staffing ultrasounds around-the-clock and new abortion laws are making the emergency room a dangerous place for pregnant women, warned Dara Kass, an emergency medicine doctor and former U.S. Health and Human Services official.
“It is increasingly less safe to be pregnant and seeking emergency care in an emergency department,” she said.
Texas’ abortion ban has left doctors with their hands tied. New Mexico’s governor is inviting them to her state
Dr. R. Todd Ivey, a practicing OBGYN in Houston, Texas, opened his Sunday paper last weekend to find a letter from New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham – directed at him.
“It must be distressing that a draconian abortion ban has restricted your right to practice and turned it into a political weapon,” Lujan Grisham wrote.
“I certainly respect those of you who remain committed to caring for patients in Texas, but I also invite those of you who can no longer tolerate these restrictions to consider practicing next door in New Mexico,” she added. “We’re fiercely committed to protecting medical freedoms here and we’re taking steps to ensure that what happened in Texas never happens in New Mexico.”
The letter, addressed to health care providers in Texas, appeared in five full-page ads in major newspapers across Texas.
It’s part of New Mexico’s $400,000 campaign dubbed “Free to Provide,” aimed at recruiting doctors from neighboring Texas who feel restricted by their state’s strict abortion ban. Ahead of the letter’s publishing, the campaign strategically placed six “Free to Provide” billboards around the Houston Medical Center.
Why specifically target doctors from Texas?
“We have to start somewhere,” Dr. Miranda Durham, chief medical officer for New Mexico’s health department, told CNN. “We are looking to improve the health care of New Mexicans and recruiting providers, wherever they want to move from, is part of that strategy.”
Like many states across the US, New Mexico is facing a health care provider shortage, across specialties, Durham said. As states in the region have implemented restrictive abortion policies, out-of-state patients are increasingly seeking abortion care in New Mexico, she noted.
“It’s bringing more patients to a state that’s already somewhat stressed by a provider shortage,” Durham said.
Abortion is legal without restrictions on pregnancy length in New Mexico, and the state has a shield law that protects its abortion providers caring for out-of-state residents.
Texas, on the other hand, adopted a near-total abortion ban in 2022, without exceptions for rape or incest.
Texas law does allow for exceptions in medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person, but the law does not outline exactly what constitutes a medical emergency. Doctors who violate the law risk up to $100,000 in penalties – not to mention the loss of their medical licenses and prison time.
“It’s gut-wrenching to look at a patient who you know is going to lose her pregnancy, and then say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry. We have to wait until something more severe happens,’” Ivey said. “It’s gut-wrenching, it’s – it’s not right.”
Ivey said he personally knows several doctors who made the decision to retire or practice in another state, in part because of the restrictions placed on them by Texas’ abortion law.
Rather than leaving, Ivey has encouraged his peers to stay and fight for a change in policy.
“We should be able to practice medicine – good, evidence-based, quality care – without fear of going to jail or losing our license,” he said. “Relocation is never going to be an answer for me.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office called New Mexico’s campaign a stunt.
“People and businesses vote with their feet, and continually they are choosing to move to Texas more than any other state in the country. Governor Lujan Grisham should focus on her state’s rapidly declining population instead of political stunts,” Abbott’s press secretary Andrew Mahaleris told CNN in a statement.
About 116 health centers, hospitals and other providers have posted open jobs to the campaign’s webpage where interested applicants can apply, according to New Mexico’s health department.
Democratic Texas state Rep. Vikki Goodwin, who voted against her state’s abortion ban, told CNN that the law has left some doctors in Texas concerned for their livelihood.
“Hopefully we can retain good OBGYNs here in the state, because we do have a growing population, but I want our state leaders to be aware of what’s happening and the fact that we may lose good doctors to nearby states who do allow their doctors to practice as they see appropriate,” Goodwin said.
Doctors are leaving states with abortion bans
Researchers with the Association of American Medical Colleges examined applications from the 2023-2024 residency cycle and found that states with abortion bans, including Texas, had larger decreases in residency applications than states where abortion remained legal. That trend is likely to continue, the researchers noted.
New Mexico has two medical schools, while Texas has more than a dozen – granted, the Lone Star state has a much larger population.
In New Mexico, 33.3% of counties are considered maternity care deserts, where access to services is limited or absent, compared to 46.5% in Texas, according to a March of Dimes report.
Texas’ medical emergency exception was tested in a high-profile case last December, when a woman who was told her life and future fertility could be at risk without an abortion was denied one by the state supreme court. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton publicly named the patient’s doctor in an open letter threatening first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of $100,000.
Ivey and other physicians in the state took notice.
“As a physician, when you’re in that position, you want to make a reasonable medical judgment, but you’ve got the looming fear of these really severe penalties,” Ivey said. “If the law is unclear and physicians don’t have protection, how can they feel comfortable moving forward?”
Dr. Kimberly Pilkinton, president of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told CNN Wednesday that she was saddened by Lujan Grisham’s letter.
“The thought of losing current and/or future physicians to another state primarily based on politicized medical issues is unfortunate,” Pilkinton said in a statement.
The Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it opposes policies that “interfere with the patient-physician relationship, especially under the threat of felony,” and has called for state policymakers to revise and create new laws related to the care of women and their families.
The “majority of physicians are servant leaders who want to concentrate on caring for their patients, and all states need to offer support in doing so and stop interfering with the ability to counsel and care for patients to the best of our ability to do so,” Pilkinton added. “Hopefully, our Texas governing body will offer a response and encourage current and future physicians to remain in our great state of Texas.”
Ivey is a member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and he and his peers have called on state leaders to work towards revising abortion policy in Texas.
He said he hopes doctors join them in pushing back on restrictive abortion bans, as opposed to relocating.
“My heart is in Texas, and I want to stay here,” Ivey said. “I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly hope that people realize that the women of Texas need us. They need good care.”
Pro-Trump lawyer removed from Dominion case after leaking documents to cast doubt on 2020 election
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A pro-Trump lawyer who is facing felony charges in Michigan of improperly accessing voting equipment following the 2020 presidential election has been disqualified from representing a prominent funder of election conspiracy theorists who is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems.
Michigan lawyer Stefanie Lambert has been representing Patrick Byrne, the founder of Overstock.com, in a defamation lawsuit brought against him by Dominion, one of the main targets of conspiracy theories over former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.
Lambert was disqualified from the case on Tuesday after admitting to releasing thousands of confidential discovery documents that she had agreed to keep private.
Due to Lambert’s actions, the documents that all parties “had agreed to keep confidential, have now been shared widely in the public domain,” U.S. District Court Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya wrote in a 62-page opinion.
“Lambert’s repeated misconduct raises the serious concern that she became involved in this litigation for the sheer purpose of gaining access to and publicly sharing Dominion’s protected discovery,” wrote Upadhyaya.
Lambert’s lawyer, Daniel Hartman, said by phone Wednesday that Lambert would be “appealing the decision.”
“We are appealing,” Byrne wrote in a text to The Associated Press. “They may think it was a tactical victory, but they will come to understand it was a strategic mistake.”
Lambert acknowledged earlier this year passing on records from Dominion Voting Systems to “law enforcement.” She then attached an affidavit that included some of the leaked emails and was signed by Dar Leaf — a county sheriff in southwestern Michigan who has investigated false claims of widespread election fraud from the 2020 election — to a filing in her own case in Michigan. The rest of the documents were posted to an account under Leaf’s name on the social platform X.
As a result, Dominion filed a motion demanding Lambert be removed from the Byrne case for violating a protective order that Upadhyaya had placed on documents in the case. It said Lambert’s disclosure had triggered a new round of threats toward the company, which has been at the center of elaborate conspiracy theories about Trump’s loss.
The request was described by Upadhyaya as “extraordinary” but necessary after Lambert has repeatedly shown she “has no regard for orders or her obligations as an attorney.”
In a separate case, Lambert has been charged in Michigan with four felonies for accessing voting machines in a search for evidence of a conspiracy theory against Trump. She was arrested by U.S. Marshals earlier this year after a Michigan judge issued a bench warrant for missing a hearing in her case.
Along with a local clerk in Michigan, Lambert has also been charged with multiple felonies, including unauthorized access to a computer and using a computer to commit a crime, after transmitting data from a local township’s poll book related to the 2020 election.
Lambert has pleaded not guilty in both cases.
Lambert sued unsuccessfully to overturn Trump’s loss in Michigan.
Biden won Michigan by nearly 155,000 votes over then-President Trump, a result confirmed by a GOP-led state Senate investigation in 2021.
Dominion filed several defamation lawsuits against those who spread conspiracy theories blaming its election equipment for Trump’s loss. Fox News settled the most prominent of these cases for $787 million last year.
Dominion’s suit against Byrne is one of several the company has filed against prominent election deniers, including MyPillow founder Mike Lindell and attorney Sidney Powell.
The audience, some wearing T-shirts proclaiming “I’m voting for a convicted felon” and chanting “Fight, fight, fight” in reference to the former president’s words shortly after he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt last month, urged Trump on.
George Santos pleads guilty, acknowledging lies and blaming ambition for conning his way to Congress
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. (AP) — George Santos, who spun lies about his life into an 11-month stint in Congress, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in a case that led to his expulsion from office. He blamed his ambition for clouding his judgment and said he was “flooded with deep regret.”
Santos, 36, is likely to spend at least six years in prison and owes more than $570,000 in restitution and forfeiture after tearfully admitting that he duped voters, deceived donors and stole the identities of 11 people, including his own family members, to make donations to his campaign.
Santos’ guilty plea in federal court on Long Island came weeks before the case was to go to trial, punctuating one of the more bizarre stories in modern political lore. He remains free on bond awaiting sentencing Feb. 7.
“I betrayed the trust of my constituents and supporters. I deeply regret my conduct,” the former New York representative said, his voice trembling as he entered the plea.
Santos was elected in 2022 after bandying stories — later proven false — about his wealth and background, including a lie that his mother perished in the 9/11 attacks. As his biography unraveled, Santos went to great lengths to defend himself, once saying he was “Jew-ish,” not Jewish, when confronted about his campaign claim that his grandparents had fled the Holocaust.
Once regarded as a rising Republican star after flipping a district covering parts of Queens and Long Island’s Gold Coast, Santos faced scrutiny even before taking office. Reports he lied about having a career at top Wall Street firms and a college degree were followed by questions about how he funded his campaign.
Outside court, Santos told reporters Monday his political ambitions led him “to make decisions that were unethical.”
“Pleading guilty is a step I never imagined I’d take, but it is a necessary one because it is the right thing to do,” Santos said. “It’s not only a recognition of my misrepresentation to others, but more profoundly, it is my own recognition of the lies I told myself over these past years.”
U.S. Attorney Breon Peace said Santos, in pleading guilty, told the truth “after years of telling lies.”
“And that truth is he is a criminal,” Peace said.
Santos was indicted last year on felony charges he stole from political donors, used campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses, lied to Congress about his wealth and collected unemployment benefits while working.
Additionally, Santos also admitted to “a litany of other crimes for which the court will hold him accountable at sentencing,” Peace said.
Among them: stealing multiple people’s credit card numbers and charging them for his campaign, tricking donors into giving money to a bogus nonprofit and using the cash to buy designer clothing and fabricating his personal wealth in a financial disclosure report to Congress.
A House Ethics Committee investigation last year found money Santos diverted to his personal bank accounts was used to pay credit card bills and make purchases at luxury retailer Hermes, beauty retailer Sephora and the adult content website OnlyFans.
Peace said Santos “badly deceived” his constituents, who “came to learn that they were victims of a fraud of unprecedented proportions.”
“They had to watch helplessly while Santos rode into Congress on a campaign of lies,” Peace said.
Santos was expelled from the U.S. House last December after the ethics committee investigation found “overwhelming evidence” he had broken the law and exploited his public position for personal profit. He’d refused to resign, maintaining his innocence in the face of his May 2023 indictment and additional charges months later.
The case had been scheduled for trial in early September. Prosecutors said they were prepared to call some 40 witnesses, including members of Santos’ family, campaign and former employers, and wanted to show jurors evidence of Santos’ myriad falsehoods, including claims he’d worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
After his ouster from Congress, Santos said in an interview that he’d be open to a plea deal. Asked if he was afraid of going to prison, he told WCBS-TV at the time: “I think everybody should be afraid of going to jail, it’s not a pretty place and uh, I definitely want to work very hard to avoid that as best as possible.”
Separately Monday, Manhattan Federal Judge Denise Cote tossed out Santos’ lawsuit alleging that Jimmy Kimmel, ABC and Disney committed copyright infringement and unjustly enriched themselves by using videos he made on the Cameo app for a segment on Kimmel’s late-night talk show. Cote said it was clear Kimmel used the clips for criticism and commentary, which is fair use.
Santos began selling personalized videos on Cameo after leaving Congress. He subsequently launched, then quickly abandoned, a longshot independent bid to return to Congress.
In an interview that aired Sunday on WABC Radio, Santos said he has taken comfort in a “somewhat private civilian” again, with little wistfulness for the “rubber chicken dinners and the rah-rah-rah parties and fundraisers” of his former life.
Santos said he was “terrified” of his then-looming trial, telling host Cindy Adams: “This is not absolutely an easy process to go through. It really hurts and it really messes with your psychological health.”
In the days leading to his guilty plea, the ever-online Santos appeared to signal his decision – even as he chided followers for speculating and mixed in a disappointed review of the latest installment in the “Alien” movie series.
After losing a bid to have prospective jurors fill out written questionnaires, Santos cryptically wrote on X last week: “I’m done,” adding an emoji of a hand holding up a peace sign.
Two Santos campaign aides pleaded guilty last year to crimes related to his campaign, complicating his defense.
Ex-treasurer Nancy Marks pleaded guilty to fraud conspiracy, implicating Santos in a scheme to embellish his campaign finance reports with a fake loan and fake donors. Her lawyer said she was willing to testify against him.
Ex-fundraiser Sam Miele copped to wire fraud, admitting he impersonated a congressional aide while raising money for Santos’ campaign.
Senate Republicans block bill to expand child tax credit
Democrats held the vote amid criticism over Sen. JD Vance’s comments about “childless cat ladies,” seeking to cast the GOP as on the wrong side of helping families raising children.
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan bill Thursday on to expand the child tax credit and provide some tax breaks for businesses, all but sinking it for the rest of the year.
The vote was 48-44, with the vast majority of GOP senators voting against it. Democrats voted in favor, with the exception of two independents who caucus with Democrats: Sens. Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. And just three Republicans voted for it: Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Rick Scott, R-Fla., and Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla.
“This should be a no-brainer,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters. “Right now, the only ones standing in the way are Senate Republicans. Everyone else, even House Republicans, are for this.” Before it failed, Schumer switched his vote to “no” to maintain his option to bring up the bill again.
“Today, because of Republicans, American families lost,” Schumer said after the vote.
The Senate GOP opposition to the bill, led by Mike Crapo of Idaho, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, who is aligned with party leadership. He told NBC News this week that the bill is inadequately funded and doesn’t have enough conditions on the child tax credit to win his vote.
On Thursday, Crapo called it a “senseless show vote” that Senate Republicans weren’t properly consulted on and said the generous provisions meant the bill “isn’t tax relief — it’s a subsidy.”
The vote on the bill, which would provide the most financial help to multi-child households, comes as Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, the GOP vice presidential nominee, faces criticism over past remarks disparaging “childless cat ladies” and questioning the character of women who choose not to have kids. Vance was scheduled to visit the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona on Thursday and missed the vote. While he hasn’t said how he’d vote on the bill, Vance said the child tax credit is “a great thing, and I support expanding it.”
Responding to the criticism that he missed Thursday's vote, Vance argued: “I certainly think that unless we get a better president, there’s almost nothing that Congress can pass that is really going to improve the lives of the American people."
Asked about Vance’s labeling Democrats “anti-family,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who negotiated the bill with House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., responded: “There’s a lot of weird stuff going on here.”
Democrats had cast the vote in part as a response to Vance, with Schumer predicting that most Republicans would vote against it even as they “say they care about families.” It was the last vote the Senate cast before leaving Washington for the August recess until Sept. 9. The House passed the child tax credit bill in January.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., adamantly opposed the bill.
“They’ve lost me on the pay-for,” Tillis said. “The child tax credit doesn’t have any of some of the basic requirements that we would want. It needs to go back in the oven and come out with our tax reform next year.”
Tillis distributed pamphlets at a Senate GOP lunch meeting Tuesday as he rallies colleagues to oppose the bipartisan measure. The document read: “WYDEN-SMITH IS NOT THE TAX DEAL WE ARE LOOKING FOR.”
Wyden and Smith negotiated the legislation, which passed the House 357-70. It would expand child tax credits, lift the $1,600 ceiling on refundability and adjust the benefits for inflation — it’s designed to primarily help multi-child households with low incomes. The bill also includes business tax breaks for research and development and small-business expensing, an enticement that helped garner GOP support in the House.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was a rare Republican who voted yes.
“As Republicans, we should be in favor of helping people who want to have families,” he said, adding that he doesn’t believe the GOP should be discussing women without children the way Vance did.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she's frustrated that Schumer hadn’t committed to allowing amendments.
“I just don’t think that we’re giving serious focus to when you bring it up as the last vote. I’m assuming it’s going to be the last vote before we go on break. So that’s frustrating,” she said.
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a potential vice presidential candidate for Vice President Kamala Harris, went after Vance, calling his comments “obnoxious” and “just wrong,” ripping into Vance’s suggestion that parents should get more voting power than Americans without children.
“It doesn’t surprise me that he is not in favor [of] helping families that actually need help,” Kelly said. “I’d probably put him in the category with somebody like Donald Trump — trying to help out their billionaire friends and the wealthiest Americans, big corporations.”
Vance’s team responded aggressively.
“Before he started desperately trying out to be Kamala’s VP pick, little Mark Kelly sang a completely different tune about Senator Vance. He introduced legislation with him and said their work together would bring ‘good-paying jobs’ to every corner of every state,” Vance spokesperson William Martin told NBC News. “It will be enjoyable to watch this fraud get passed up for one of the half-rate Governors on Kamala’s shortlist.”
Since these tax cuts were only for families with children and small business “WYDEN-SMITH IS NOT THE TAX DEAL WE ARE LOOKING FOR.” was their response. They think it would be better to see if they win the 2024 elections so corporations, big business and the wealthy can have their pockets lined as well. And they claim to be pro family?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
House Republicans release their impeachment report on Biden but the next steps are uncertain
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans have released their initial impeachment inquiry report on President Joe Biden, alleging an abuse of power and obstruction of justice in the financial dealings of his son Hunter Biden and family associates.
The nearly yearlong investigation by Republicans stops short of alleging any criminal wrongdoing by the president. Instead, the almost 300-page report out Monday, the opening day of the Democratic National Convention, covers familiar ground, asserting the Biden family traded on its “brand” in business ventures in corrupt ways that rise to the Constitution’s high bar for impeachment.
With Biden no longer running for reelection, next steps are highly uncertain. House Republicans have not had support from their own ranks to actually impeach the president, and removal by the Senate is even further afield. Many Republicans prefer to focus attention on the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, with some probes getting underway.
The White House has dismissed the House impeachment inquiry as a “stunt” and encouraged House Republicans to “move on.”
“The totality of the corrupt conduct uncovered by the Committees is egregious,” wrote the House Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary and Ways & Means panels leading the inquiry.
The report said the Constitution’s “remedy for a President’s flagrant abuse of office is clear: impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate.”
Republicans have spent the better part of their time in the House majority with a hyper focus on Biden and his family’s businesses, encouraged by Donald Trump as the twice impeached and indicted former president makes a comeback bid for the White House.
The impeachment inquiry has been a cornerstone of the House GOP’s effort, launched by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy shortly before he was booted from leadership and formalized in December under new Speaker Mike Johnson. Republicans are investigating many aspects of Biden family finances going back to 2009 when he was vice president to Barack Obama. In a statement Monday, Johnson was non-committal on what the House will do with the findings. “We encourage all Americans to read this report,” he said.
Through bank records, interviews from some 30 witnesses, whistleblower accounts and millions of documents, House Republicans allege a years-long practice by Hunter Biden and his associates to solicit foreign business deals using the family’s proximity to power in Washington.
Much of the focus of the report is not on Biden’s time as president, but on the years when the Biden family was in turmoil after the 2015 death of his oldest son, Beau, and as the vice president was bowing out of elected office, declining to run for president in 2016.
Hunter Biden has acknowledged a serious addiction to crack in these years. He was convicted in June of felony gun charges and is set to stand trial next month on federal tax charges.
Former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer, who was sentenced to a year in prison in 2022 in another matter, told the committee, “At the end of the day, part of what was delivered is the brand.”
To tie the elder Biden to his son’s actions, the Republicans rely on a series of phone calls and pop-by dinner meeting visits Joe Biden made while Hunter was conducting business. At times, Hunter would put his dad on speakerphone for his guests as the father and son exchanged pleasantries.
The Bidens are a famously tight-knit family and acknowledge they speak almost daily, including during this time, with the father checking on his son’s well-being.
In his own defiant closed-door deposition to House investigators, Hunter Biden insisted he did not involve his father in his business.
All told, the House Republicans allege the Biden family and its associates received some $27 million in business payments from partners or clients in Russia, China and other countries. They allege an additional $8 million in loans, including some from Hunter Biden benefactor Kevin Morris, a Hollywood attorney, and question the purchases of the son’s artwork.
The report said it is “inconceivable” that President Biden did not understand what was going on.
“President Biden participated in a conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family,” the report claims.
Biden himself declined a request to testify before the House.
Touchbacks to Trump’s impeachments at the hands of Democrats run throughout the report’s pages as Republicans work to contrast his grounds for removal to Biden family’s dealings and “grift.”
But the difference are stark, as the indicted Trump faces actual criminal charges, including in the conspiracy to overturn Biden’s 2020 election and draw supporters to Washington on the day of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
The report also accuses Biden of obstructing justice in the probe, revisiting previously aired complaints about the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation into Hunter Biden. Attorney General Merrick Garland has forcefully denied those accusations, defending the department against claims of political influence.
The report focuses heavily on what Republicans have long alleged was a pattern of “slow-walking” investigative steps and delaying enforcement actions to the benefit of the president’s son.
But the report provides no evidence that Biden had any involvement in his son’s investigation, which was launched under Trump’s presidency and has been led by a Delaware U.S. attorney appointed by Trump. The U.S. attorney, David Weiss, was kept on by Garland to insulate the probe from claims of political interference.
Garland has insisted that no one at the White House gave him or other senior officials at the Justice Department direction about the handling of the Hunter Biden investigation.
Beyond Hunter Biden, the report includes details of the involvement of Joe Biden’s brother, James, in the various family businesses.
Republicans have pointed to a series of payments that they claim show the president benefited from his brother’s work. They point to a $200,000 personal check from James Biden to Joe Biden on the same day in 2018 that James Biden received an equal amount from Americore, a healthcare company.
House Democrats have defended the transaction, pointing to bank records they say indicate James Biden was repaying a loan provided by his brother, who had wire transferred $200,000 to him about six weeks earlier. The money changed hands while Joe Biden was a private citizen.
Short of impeaching Biden, the House Republicans have issued criminal referrals recommending the Justice Department prosecute Hunter Biden and James Biden, accusing them of making false statements to Congress as part of the GOP investigation. Attorneys for those men have argued those claims are baseless or a distraction.
Until recently, the president had been a focal point for Republicans in Congress, but his decision last month to drop out of the presidential race and Harris’ ascent to the top of the ticket have forced GOP leaders to reevaluate their marquee investigation.
A year ago, GOP lawmakers had hoped the Biden inquiry would build a strong enough case for impeachment’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But the longer the inquiry dragged and the little direct evidence against Biden investigators were able to produce in public hearings or even in closed-door sessions, the more concerns grew from moderate Republicans wary of a vote on the matter.
The report released Monday makes more than 20 mentions of the “Biden-Harris administration,” while previous releases from the committees investigating Biden typically only made direct references to him.
And while Harris is not mentioned on her own in the report, the same committees leading the inquiry have begun to open new probes into her and her vice presidential pick, Tim Walz.
More Texas counties are trying to prevent people from using specific roads to get an abortion
LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — A Texas county near New Mexico — where abortion is legal — has banned helping people traveling to get an abortion in one of the newest ways conservatives are trying to restrict abortion access since the fall of Roe v. Wade.
Lubbock County is the largest of four Texas counties that have now adopted a version of the measure, which would be enforced through lawsuits filed by private citizens against people who help women obtain abortions. It is the same legal mechanism Texas used to enact a strict abortion law in 2021 before the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the state last year to ban nearly all abortions entirely.
Commissioners in the west Texas county adopted the measure 3-0 at a meeting Monday, rejecting some requests to postpone the vote.
The ordinance “has many legal problems,” said Lubbock County Judge Curtis Parrish, the county’s top elected official. “This ordinance, however, does not have a problem with its intent or the intent of those who are passionate about this.”
The measures expand on city ordinances rural Texas cities began passing in 2019 to ban abortion within their boundaries, even if the cities did not have a clinic performing abortions. Critics have attacked the campaign as an effort to intimidate women from seeking abortions in places where it remains legal.
Mark Lee Dickson, a Texas pastor who has led the efforts, praised the vote.
“Guys, I long for the day (when), coast to coast, abortion is considered a great moral, social and political wrong and is outlawed in every single state,” Dickson told commissioners.
No violations of the travel prohibition have been reported in the counties with similar measures already on the books. The measures would not punish women who are seeking the abortion but would present legal risks to people who help transport them to get the procedure.
Legal experts have questioned whether the ordinances could be enforced.
“We haven’t had this kind of issue tested, so it’s really kind of a case of first impression,” said Seema Mohapatra, a health law expert and law professor at Southern Methodist University.
The Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment on the ban or its implementation.
Lubbock County has about 317,000 residents and far outnumbers the population of the three other Texas counties — Mitchell, Goliad and Cochran — that have approved the ordinance in recent months, with each county’s population counting fewer than 10,000 residents. Highways through Lubbock County run to New Mexico, which has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the U.S.
The ban does not apply to cities within Lubbock County, including the city of Lubbock, which has about 264,000 of the county’s residents. Lubbock voters in 2021 adopted a similar measure.
“Texans already live under some of the most restrictive and dangerous abortion bans in the country, yet anti-abortion extremists continue to push additional unnecessary, confusing and fear-inducing barriers to essential healthcare,” said Autumn Keiser, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas.
Texas is one of 13 states that bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy. In August, a Texas judge ruled that the state’s ban was too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications. But that ruling was swiftly put on hold following an appeal by the state.
The Texas law was passed prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortions nationwide.
So much for each state having their laws concerning allowing abortions in their state. Now they want to stop people from traveling to states where it's still legal as well.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I imagine there will be a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to this at some point. Basically, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states. The Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine says that states can't do anything that would burn interstate commerce. So it can be argued that something like this would burden interstate travel/commerce.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
So, I asked an AI to give me ten reasons Trump should not be re-elected, here is the result:
Here are 10 reasons why some people may argue that Donald Trump should not be re-elected as President of the United States:
1. **Divisive rhetoric and policies**: Trump's presidency has been marked by divisive rhetoric and policies that have exacerbated social and economic inequalities, particularly for marginalized communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
2. **Lack of transparency and accountability**: Trump's administration has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability, including the use of executive privilege to conceal information from Congress and the public.
3. **Disregard for the rule of law**: Trump has been accused of disregarding the rule of law, including his attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the FBI, as well as his refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.
4. **Climate change denial and inaction**: Trump has been a vocal climate change denier and has taken steps to roll back environmental regulations and withdraw from international agreements aimed at addressing the issue.
5. **Economic policies that benefit the wealthy**: Trump's economic policies, including tax cuts and deregulation, have been criticized for benefiting the wealthy at the expense of working-class Americans.
6. **Handling of the COVID-19 pandemic**: Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has been widely criticized, including his initial downplaying of the threat, his refusal to take decisive action to slow the spread of the virus, and his politicization of the response.
7. **Abuse of power and corruption**: Trump has been accused of abusing his power and engaging in corrupt behavior, including his dealings with Ukraine and his attempts to use his office to benefit his personal business interests.
8. **Disregard for the Constitution and the separation of powers**: Trump has been accused of disregarding the Constitution and the separation of powers, including his attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and his refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.
9. **Racism and xenophobia**: Trump has been accused of racism and xenophobia, including his comments about immigrants and his policies aimed at restricting immigration and targeting minority communities.
10. **Lack of leadership and vision**: Trump's presidency has been marked by a lack of leadership and vision, including his failure to address pressing national issues, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
It's worth noting that these are just some of the reasons why some people may argue that Trump should not be re-elected, and that opinions on his presidency are highly divided.
________________________________
Can you believe it!?!? AI is already smarter than the MAGA base.
AI is compiling/analyzing/evaluating data all the time. At some point, AI will self-actualize, and use Donald Trump as its justification for human eradication.
For counterbalance - here's the response on ten reasons to vote for DT:
Here are ten reasons some might advocate for making Donald Trump president again:
Economic Policies: Supporters argue that Trump's economic policies, including tax cuts and deregulation, led to significant economic growth, low unemployment rates, and a strong stock market before the pandemic.
Tough on Immigration: Many of Trump's supporters appreciate his strict immigration policies, such as building a border wall and implementing more stringent measures on illegal immigration.
America First Approach: Trump's foreign policy was centered around putting American interests first, which resonated with voters who felt that previous administrations were too focused on globalism.
Judicial Appointments: Trump appointed three Supreme Court Justices and numerous federal judges, shaping the judiciary for decades. Supporters see this as a major achievement, particularly for those with conservative views on issues like abortion and gun rights.
Strong Stance on China: Trump's tough stance on China, including trade tariffs and holding China accountable for various issues, was popular among those who viewed China as a growing threat to U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.
Energy Independence: Under Trump, the U.S. became a net exporter of energy for the first time in decades. His administration's policies promoted oil, gas, and coal production, leading to energy independence.
Support for Law Enforcement: Trump was a vocal supporter of law enforcement and took a strong stance against movements to defund the police, which resonated with voters concerned about crime and public safety.
Military Strength: Trump focused on rebuilding the military, increasing defense spending, and taking decisive actions, such as the elimination of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which appealed to those prioritizing national security.
Deregulation: Trump's administration rolled back numerous regulations, arguing that it would reduce the burden on businesses, spur economic growth, and increase job creation.
Populist Appeal: Trump's ability to connect with and energize a large segment of the electorate, particularly working-class Americans who felt neglected by the political establishment, remains a compelling reason for his supporters to want him back in office.
These reasons reflect the views of those who support Trump’s return to the presidency. However, it's essential to recognize that these points are highly debated and are part of a broader, contentious political landscape.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
888- Interesting list, BUT if folks REALLY LOOKED at what he said and did your list doesn't hold up as VALID- America first- well, who is America more than "the average Joe walking down the street- here is what Trump said and did- "“This guy has made it clear how he stands,” Walz said on Monday in Milwaukee. “He’s sitting down at Mar-a-Lago after he got elected president and this was his exact quote, he’s talking to a bunch of folks at Mar-a-Lago: ‘You’re rich as hell, and we’re gonna give you a tax cut.’ At the same time, he was telling workers they get paid too much already. That’s who this guy is.” How many fat cats got tax breaks while average Joe was screwed. Rich guys and gals taking care of each other-- your "funniest"/sad one is law and order- Trump IS a felon, he LIES about everything, he allowed his gangs- Proud Boys,etc to attack Capital and did NOTHING for hours, and he encouraged folks to "HANG MIKE PENSE", his VP, lastly- his appointees on the Supreme Court just made the Presidency more like a King/and United States like a Kingdom vs democracy than ever before- hold the President accountable- lot harder now than before TRUMP's Supreme Court stooges made Presidents Kings. We've got MAJOR problems with Supreme Court- modern ethics doesn't exist- bribes, grift, life time appointments and do whatever you want ain't cutting it anymore--- I thought going forward meant we improved---NOT.
"You've never lived till you've almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know" A vet or cop
Oh I agree that most of the points are very subjective or do not hold up.
Meanwhile - maybe we should follow what Elon Mush has retweeted and *seemingly* promoted .... replacing a democratic government with a government made up of 'high-status males' .... LOL
Oh I agree that most of the points are very subjective or do not hold up.
Meanwhile - maybe we should follow what Elon Mush has retweeted and *seemingly* promoted .... replacing a democratic government with a government made up of 'high-status males' .... LOL
Goldman Sees US GDP Hit If Trump Wins, Boost If Democrats Sweep Christopher Anstey Tue, September 3, 2024 at 5:34 PM EDT·3 min read 3
(Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists gamed out the potential economic implications of a Republican or Democratic victory in the November elections, cautioning that US GDP faces a hit in the case of a win for Donald Trump.
“We estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse” from maintaining most tax cuts, Goldman economists including Alec Phillips wrote in a note Tuesday.
Gross domestic product would see a peak hit of 0.5 percentage point in the second half of next year in that scenario, with the effects abating in 2026, the Goldman team estimated. They assumed a 20 percentage-point hike in China tariffs under Trump, along with higher duties on auto imports from Mexico and the European Union, and a reduction in immigration that would slow growth in the labor force.
Should Vice President Kamala Harris win and Democrats secure control of both chambers of Congress, “new spending and expanded middle-income tax credits would slightly more than offset lower investment due to higher corporate tax rates,” the Goldman economists wrote. That would result in “a very slight boost to GDP growth on average over 2025-2026.”
Campaign Comments
If Harris won the White House in a divided-government scenario, where Republicans control at least one chamber of Congress, “the effects of policy changes would be small and neutral on net,” Phillips and his colleagues wrote.
The Trump campaign said forecasters failed to anticipate the pickup in growth that followed his victory in 2016. “These Wall Street elites would be wise to review the record and acknowledge the shortcomings of their past work if they’d like their new forecasts to be seen as credible,” said Brian Hughes, a senior advisor on the campaign.
Harris campaign spokesperson Joe Costello said that “right, left, or center, experts agree that Trump is threatening an economic disaster” of skyrocketing unemployment, an inflation “bomb,” exploding debt and a potential recession.
Immigration Outlook
With President Joe Biden already having taken steps to tighten immigration, Goldman expects a Harris administration to oversee a slowdown in new arrivals to 1.5 million a year — still higher than the pre-pandemic average of around 1 million. A Trump administration would likely prompt a sharper slowdown, to 1.25 million or — if Republicans take Congress and boost resources for enforcement — 750,000 a year.
A surge in immigration is viewed by many economists as having contributed to strong US employment growth in recent years, in the face of high interest rates.
“We estimate that the contribution from immigration to labor force growth if Harris wins would be 10,000 per month higher than if Trump wins with divided government,” and 30,000 a month higher than if Republicans sweep, Goldman’s economists wrote.
In trade policy, Goldman said it’s not expecting further tariff increases should Harris win.
Trump’s likely tariff hikes on China, the EU and Mexico would lead to an inflationary bump, with a peak impact of 30 to 40 basis points on the Federal Reserve’s preferred price gauge, the bank’s economists wrote. An additional 10% universal tariff, which the GOP candidate has floated, would have a bigger impact though it would take longer.
--With assistance from Akayla Gardner and Hadriana Lowenkron.
(Updates with Trump and Harris campaign comments, in sixth and seventh paragraphs. An earlier version of this story corrected the magnitude of tariff hikes expected.)
IMO, an endorsement (if that's what we can call this) from the likes of Goldman Sachs or any other global investment company of that size should be taken with a grain of salt.
Last edited by oobernoober; 09/04/2403:29 PM.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
How do you know they weren't AI? I watched part of her rally last week and it sounded like they piped in fake crowd noise. Like they took in cheering from a football stadium and piped it in. It sounded fake for the venue.
What the hell is this obsession over crowd size. Do you and Trump both know it means nothing.. NOTHING at all... to worry about it is dumb.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
How do you know they weren't AI? I watched part of her rally last week and it sounded like they piped in fake crowd noise. Like they took in cheering from a football stadium and piped it in. It sounded fake for the venue.
What the hell is this obsession over crowd size. Do you and Trump both know it means nothing.. NOTHING at all... to worry about it is dumb.
....Why am I not surprised that you're in the size doesn't matter camp....
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)