With former President Donald Trump now facing two separate indictments, some are wondering whether a convicted felon can run for or be president.

If Trump were to be convicted – he maintains his innocence against the charges – could he still be president?

That requires some complicated legal analysis, but a felony conviction alone does not bar a person from running for, or serving as, the United States president, according to Politifact.

You can read the Trump indictment here.

Former President Donald Trump has confirmed in a post on Truth Social that he has been indicted in the investigation into classified documents. He called the Biden administration “corrupt.” Trump is already facing pending criminal charges in Manhattan after being accused of falsifying business documents relating to payments to Stormy Daniels.

“We’re learning from our sources that there appears to be at least seven counts here. This ranges from everything from the willful retention of national defense information to conspiracy to a scheme to conceal to false statements and representations,” ABC News’ Katherine Faulders reported.

Here’s what you need to know:

The U.S. Constitution Made No Prohibition on a Felon Running for President

GettyDonald Trump was indicted, he confirmed.

“A criminal conviction does not prevent a person from running for president,” Barbara L. McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Attorney, told Politifact, when the site explored this question. “The Constitution controls this question, and it makes no prohibition. States can decide their own rules for who is eligible to hold office within their own states, but they cannot disqualify someone from running for president.”

Politifact concluded, “The short answer is legally, it appears that Trump could still run for president, even if convicted of a crime.”

According to Politifact, some might argue whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could prevent Trump from running and serving if he is convicted.

Justia.com noted that “at least some of the charges Trump faces could be deemed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ within the meaning of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, thus warranting impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.” This provision would be unlikely to get enough Republican support, Justia noted.

If Trump was incarcerated on election day and was elected that might leave him “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” within the meaning of the Twenty-fifth Amendment,” Justia reported, but the site added that Trump’s cabinet majority and vice president would have to agree.

The Constitution Does Ban People From Serving as President Who ‘Engaged in Insurrection or Rebellion’ But Donald Trump Might Pardon Himself

YouTubeTrump

One Constitutional provision says no person “shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military” who previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” Politifact reported.

In that regard, the election probe in Georgia might bear the most danger to a Trump re-election. However, according to Politifact, efforts to keep U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn off the ballot for speaking at a Trump rally just before the January 6 attack failed in federal court.

According to The Atlantic, this provision was passed in the wake of the Civil War and was meant to apply to former Confederates. The Constitution does not define having “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” and there is “no clear enforcement mechanism.”

However, according to The Atlantic:

In theory, if enough states were to require presidential candidates to affirm that they had not engaged in insurrection or rebellion within the meaning of Section 3 as a precondition to getting on a ballot, other contenders could challenge Trump’s qualifications through whatever mechanisms are provided under each state’s law. But that process would be piecemeal and complicated, with uncertain outcomes, because the scope and meaning of Section 3 have never been definitively litigated.

According to the Atlantic, state prosecutions are not the biggest problem for Trump. However, if prosecutor Jack Smith were to indict and convict Trump under 28 U.S.C. § 2383, that could bar Trump from serving as president. It reads, “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto … shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States,” The Atlantic reported.

Justia.com reported, however, that Trump could try to pardon himself. 1871, the Supreme Court “ruled that someone who had received a presidential pardon could not be deemed disloyal in virtue of his having participated on the Confederate side of the Civil War,” the site reported.

According to the Atlantic, the Constitution’s prohibitions on being president require a candidate to be a “natural-born U.S. citizen,” at least age 35, and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years.

Other Indicted Candidates Have Run for Office

Other indicted candidates have run for office. The New York Times cited former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who ran for president while under felony indictment and socialist candidate Eugene Debs, who was in federal prison when he ran unsuccessfully for president in 1920.

According to ABC, central to Smith’s case “is determining whether lawyers who represented the former president falsely certified in response to a grand jury subpoena that Trump had returned all classified records to the government, or whether Trump himself sought to conceal records that he might have unlawfully retained.”

The probe began in 2022 when National Archives officials “asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump’s handling of White House records.” According to ABC News, the National Archives “retrieved 15 boxes of records from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that had been improperly taken in violation of the Presidential Records Act.”

READ NEXT: The Disappearance of Madeline Kingsbury.

The Matt Walsh documentary is a controversial movie called “What Is a Woman” about gender and transgender topics that the Daily Wire podcaster says has accrued more than 110 million views since it was available to stream on Twitter and the Daily Wire platform.

“110 million views and a 120 thousand retweets. Incredible,” Walsh tweeted on June 3, 2023, but the launch started with controversy about Twitter’s handling of the movie.

Walsh is a conservative commentator and podcaster who hosts “The Matt Walsh Show” at The Daily Wire.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. Twitter CEO Elon Musk Pinned the Documentary to the Top of His Twitter Page After Matt Walsh Accused Twitter of Censoring It

The documentary’s streaming led to accusations of censorship by Twitter, resulting in Twitter CEO Elon Musk pinning the movie to the top of his Twitter page, where he suggested that all parents watch it.

Daily Variety reported that Twitter was initially accused of censoring the Matt Walsh documentary for “misgendering” people.

“This was a mistake by many people at Twitter. It is definitely allowed,” Musk wrote. “Whether or not you agree with using someone’s preferred pronouns, not doing so is at most rude and certainly breaks no laws. I should note that I do personally use someone’s preferred pronouns, just as I use someone’s preferred name, simply from the standpoint of good manners. However, for the same reason, I object to rude behavior, ostracism or threats of violence if the wrong pronoun or name is used.”

Matt Walsh wrote on Twitter, “It’s been a wild 24 hours. It began with Twitter labeling our film hate speech and completely suppressing it, and ends with all suppression lifted and Elon Musk himself tweeting out the film and urging people to watch it. A huge win.”

Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro tweeted, “Thanks, @elonmusk! Overnight, visibility limits on the movie have been removed. Elon continues to work to make good on his pledge to keep Twitter an open platform!”

Walsh wrote, “It was a battle but free speech wins in the end. The film can now be seen and shared by all.”

2. The Matt Walsh Documentary, Dubbed ‘the Movie They Really Don’t Want You to See,’ Could Be Viewed for Free the Weekend of June 3, 2023, Via Twitter

Daily Wire tweeted the 1.5 hour long documentary, writing, “It’s the movie they really don’t want you to see: #WhatIsAWoman? Watch the explosive documentary starring @MattWalshBlog FREE on Twitter for 24 hrs.” The 24 hours then grew to include the weekend.

It’s free through the end of the weekend.

Walsh’s website describes him as “a writer, speaker, author, and one of the religious Right’s most influential young voices. He is known for boldly tackling the tough subjects and speaking out on faith and culture in a way that connects with his generation and beyond.”

3. Matt Walsh Accused Movie Critics of Ignoring the Documentary

“The film has been seen by millions of people but still only six movie critics have dared to review it. And none of them are from major mainstream publications,” Walsh tweeted.

“I try not to think about this. Our film has been banned from most platforms. Mainstream movie critics refused to even review it. It’s been blacklisted and suppressed and yet still reached a massive audience. But how many more could we have reached without the deck stacked completely against us? It’s no use lamenting these things,” Walsh tweeted.

As of June 4, 2023, the film had an 83% positive critics score and 86% positive audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes did list only six reviews by critics, five positive and one coded as negative.

4. Some News Outlets Have Labeled the Matt Walsh Documentary ‘Transphobic’

Rolling Stone wrote an article headlined, “Why Are Social Media Companies Taking Ad Money From a Right-Wing Transphobic Doc?”

“For years, right-wing commentator, Daily Wire host, and all-around s***** provocateur Matt Walsh has used his platform to go after trans people. So it’s not surprising that this essentialist ideology has become the centerpiece of his new documentary, What Is a Woman?” Rolling Stone wrote.

Rolling Stone wrote, “Walsh interviews academics, psychologists, and trans people themselves about transitioning and asking people how they know they are a woman. He attends a women’s rights march trying to find the answer and even makes his way to Africa to ask a tribe of men how a woman is defined.” Rolling Stone reported that, when production staff reached out to “prominent LGBTQ activists,” they described the film as “exploring the real lives of people in the LGBTQIA+ communities.”

The New Republic ran a story that read, “Elon Musk Personally Elevates Transphobic Video Originally Flagged as Hate Speech,” calling the documentary “The Daily Wire’s transphobic documentary What Is a Woman? hosted by the vicious and intellectually dull Matt Walsh.”

5. Matt Walsh, Who Used to Be a Radio Host, Has Found Himself in a Number of Controversies Over the Years

Walsh started as a talk radio host. Walsh started working for The Blaze in 2014 after his website, which offered cultural commentary from a conservative perspective, garnered millions of views.

In 2017, he joined the Daily Wire, announcing the move on Twitter.

Walsh has caused controversy before, such as when South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, a Republican, accused him of “horrible misogyny” for saying, “Kristi Noem is a very attractive woman. So she’s got that going for her,” while adding that there was “no use” for her, according to CNN. According to CNN, he added, “As far as I can tell that’s the only reason why she was ever looked at as some sort of 2024 potential frontrunner. The hype and everything that she’s gotten from conservative media is entirely based on the fact that she’s an extremely attractive woman, which she is. But you put 50 pounds on her and another 20 years? I don’t think she gets any of the hype.”

According to Media Matters, “From early 2010 through August 1, 2011, Matt Walsh co-hosted a radio show called The Matt and Crank Program along with Andrew ‘Crank’ Murr at WZBH ‘The Beach’ 93.5 FM based in Georgetown, Delaware.” According to WGMD.com, “Listener reaction has been positive after his first evening on the air.”

According to Media Matters, Walsh once said, “we probably lost our republic after Reconstruction” and that “as the Anglo-Saxons, which were the original Americans, die off, our identity and our culture goes with it.” He once said, “if you want extreme change, you must take extreme action,” Media Matters reported.

The Hill reported that Walsh wrote a children’s picture book “Johnny the Walrus,” that “equates the trans experience with a young boy who imagines he is a walrus.”

GLAAD tweeted of his book, “This is horrible. @AmazonHelp Please remove this book from the LGBTQ category immediately. It is absolutely not an LGBTQ book. It specifically targets transgender people with hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric.”

READ NEXT: Idaho Murders Suspect Bryan Kohberger’s Parents

That’s the reason Tim Scott, a Republican U.S. senator from South Carolina, made a 2024 election cycle visit to the state in mid-April 2023, just hours after announcing he had launched a presidential exploratory committee. It’s also the reason former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson was in the state on April 13, two weeks after announcing his presidential bid.

Scott and Hutchinson know that for Republicans, the road to the White House begins in Iowa.

They are not alone. Announced candidates, including former President Donald Trump and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, as well as candidates who have not officially announced, such as former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have also made the trek to Iowa, too.

The state gives presidential hopefuls a venue to test their messages and campaign skills early in the campaign process. And candidates with limited resources can meet Iowa voters face to face and forgo expensive advertising campaigns to make their cases.

I am an emeritus professor of political science at Iowa State University, where I began working in 1970 and have watched the Iowa caucuses evolve. I have written books on the topic, including the textbook “American Government and Politics Today, which I co-authored with Barbara A. Bardes and Mack C. Shelley II. I see the caucuses this year facing a big challenge, as the Democrats in Iowa may defy the DNC and continue to hold their caucuses first.

Iowa Wasn’t Always First

The Iowa caucuses have been a tradition since 1846. Before 1907, both parties in the state selected all their candidates, not just president, through the caucus system. Iowa held a presidential primary in 1916, but it went back to the caucus system the following year because the primary was costly and none of the major candidates participated.

But the state’s modern nominating contest that gave it first-in-nation status was largely an outgrowth of the chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

The convention was marred by violence over the Vietnam War, labor disputes, civil rights, racial conflict and an unfair presidential nominating process. Party leaders decided that the primaries and caucuses had to become more inclusive, fair and open, so they formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1972 to examine the root problems in the party. The commission issued a report which laid out reforms that reduced the power of party bosses and mandated a process of primaries or caucuses where ordinary citizens, including women and minorities, would have a fair process of selecting delegates.

The commission report noted, “The face-to-face confrontation of Democrats of every persuasion in a periodic mass meeting is productive of healthy debate, important policy decisions, … reconciliation of differences, and realistic preparation for the fall presidential campaign.” While this was in reference to conventions, it was also exactly what caucuses have done.

At the same time, Iowa Democrats, dissatisfied with the state’s caucus system, forced state reforms that included holding district and state conventions separately. For logistical and scheduling reasons, the modern caucuses had to start in January, instead of May, when they had been held. The first time the Iowa Democrats held caucuses in January was in 1972. The Republicans did the same in 1976.

That year, a little-known candidate, Jimmy Carter, the governor of Georgia, won the Democratic Party’s Iowa caucuses and eventually the party’s presidential nomination and then the presidency. That’s when the contest took on new meaning. Candidates in both political parties saw the benefit of campaigning in the state, and the Iowa caucuses became a political must-do for anyone seeking their party’s nomination for president.

Now both a tradition and a requirement for politicians seeking exposure and name recognition, the caucuses provide candidates with lots of media exposure early in the process.

All Republican Campaigns Begin in Iowa

For decades, Democrats and Republicans have held their caucuses on the same night, one week before the next event in the primary season – the first-in-the-nation primary, which is held in New Hampshire. That plan allowed candidates and party leaders to maximize use of the massive media coverage that always comes with the Iowa caucuses. Republicans are sticking with that plan and will hold their opening presidential caucuses in Iowa on Feb. 5, 2024.

But in February 2023, the DNC moved Iowa out of its early voting calendar, saying it wanted early nominating states to reflect the ethnic diversity of the party. Instead of Iowa and then New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the new Democratic lineup makes South Carolina the first state. Next up are Nevada and New Hampshire, then Georgia and Michigan. Many Democrats also lost confidence in the Iowa caucuses after the 2020 presidential caucus results were significantly delayed because of reporting issues and technical problems.

But the DNC may not get the last word on its calendar shakeup. The schedules for both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are mandated by their state laws, and Democratic and Republican party leaders in both states have pushed back on the DNC calendar shake-up, citing those reasons.

Iowa election codes, for example, specify that the state’s caucuses be held “not later than the fourth Monday in February of each even-numbered year” and that Iowa holds its caucuses “at least eight days earlier” than any other state’s presidential nominating contest.

Meanwhile, New Hampshire election law states that the “presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March” or seven days before any other state presidential nominating contest. Only the Iowa caucuses are allowed before New Hampshire, according to New Hampshire law.

Iowa Democrats could ignore the DNC’s nominating calendar and hold their caucuses early. But if Iowa Democrats ignore the calendar change, the Democratic Party can issue sanctions, which may include Iowa losing half its delegates.

Now, in what appears to be a losing effort to keep the Iowa caucuses as the first presidential nominating contest, Iowa Democrats are floating a plan that would allow them to conduct caucuses mostly by mail. That would address the inclusiveness and accessibility the national Democrats want. But it seems certain the DNC would not accept that as a reason for Iowa to bypass the revised calendar which does not have Iowa first. Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans, as well as New Hampshire Democrats, say Iowa Democrats voting by mail would amount to a primary, which – according to New Hampshire’s state law – means New Hampshire would get to go first.

It’s a mess.

However the Democratic presidential nominating calendar turns out in the end, Republicans are sticking with Iowa first.

By Steffen W. Schmidt, Lucken Endowed Professor of Political Science, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg obtained the indictment on March 30, 2023, following a grand jury vote, but the exact charges against Trump remain sealed. Multiple media sources are reporting the indictment alleges the former president committed business fraud.

I am a former prosecutor and law professor who studies the criminal justice system. While the complexities of Trump’s case will continue to unfold, The Conversation asked me to break down the complex legal situation. Here are four key points to understand about the prosecution and what will likely come next.

1. Falsified Business Records Are the Key Issue

From what we understand of the investigation, the charges against Trump appear to stem from a US$130,000 payment in 2016 by Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels. In return, Daniels promised not to tell the media about her alleged affair with Trump.

Media reports suggest that there could be about 30 counts against Trump, and at least some of those counts will be felonies.

Just the fact that there are so many counts does not mean that there are many different criminal events or kinds of crimes alleged. Prosecutors often charge similar, repeated conduct – for example, multiple drug sales – as separate counts. In this case, the multiple counts may refer to a series of business records that record the same or similar transactions. Or the charges may, indeed, span multiple alleged criminal events.

Media reports indicate that Bragg does not appear to be alleging that Trump’s payment to Daniels was itself illegal.

Instead, Trump will likely be charged with “falsifying business records” for trying to hide the payment by lying about its nature in the records of the Trump Organization, his company.

Creating a false business record with the intent to defraud is a Class A misdemeanor offense in New York. But the offense can become a low-level Class E felony if Bragg can prove that Trump created false business records for the purpose of facilitating a second crime.

It is not yet clear what the second crime will be – or even that a second crime is being alleged – but possibilities include federal or state campaign finance violations or tax evasion.

2. Bragg Will Have to Prove Trump’s Involvement, Fraudulent Intent

If there is a trial, the prosecution will have to put together a series of pieces to secure a conviction on each of the charges facing Trump.

First, the prosecution would have to prove that the Daniels payment was recorded by Trump officials as something clearly inaccurate. It is not enough to show that the payment was recorded ambiguously – like “miscellaneous” or even “legal services.” The business records at issue must be unequivocally “false.”

Second, it is not necessary that Trump himself created false records. The prosecution would just have to prove that Trump was the direct cause of the false entry – meaning someone followed his specific directions.

Third, the prosecution would have to prove that Trump created the false record for a fraudulent purpose and, to prove a felony, with the specific purpose of committing – or covering up – another crime.

This is important because there could be other potentially plausible reasons the defense might offer, including that Trump sought to avoid embarrassment to his family or himself. Another option is indifference, that Trump gave little thought to how the transaction was recorded. That’s why the details of the allegedly false records, and Trump’s degree of involvement in their creation, will be central questions at trial.

Finally, for the felony offense, the prosecution would also have to prove that there was another crime that was either committed or covered up by using this false business record.

3. It’s the Most Complex Straightforward Case in History

While everyone will be watching to see if this case is handled like other cases, differences are inevitable. For example, the New York Police Department and court officers will need to coordinate the arrest process with Trump’s Secret Service agents.

Further complications will arise if there is any prospect of incarceration. Based on what we know now, there is little prospect that Trump will be jailed pending trial for this allegation of a nonviolent crime. And even if he is ultimately convicted, it’s still unlikely he’ll be locked up, based on the nature of the charges and his lack of a prior criminal record. That said, judges have broad discretion in determining sentences.

That is only a small window into the logistical challenges that await the Manhattan district attorney’s office and the New York courts. If this were any other defendant, this would be a relatively straightforward case, the kind that make up the hundreds of cases in a typical prosecutor’s caseload.

However, Trump is not any other defendant. That means this is likely to be the most complex straightforward case in American history.

4. The Judicial Process Will Be a Messy Affair

Most low-level felony and misdemeanor cases are resolved before trial, especially when there is no obvious victim. Typically, the prosecution will offer a plea deal, perhaps including a term of probation, or even propose a diversion program with community service, for example, which will lead to a dismissal of the charges.

It will be interesting to see if Bragg makes an offer along those lines. Even if he does, defendants must typically admit guilt to take advantage of these arrangements, and Trump may refuse for political, personal or legal reasons to admit guilt.

So it’s likely the case will go to trial, a process that will be messy for many reasons – most importantly, the jury.

When choosing a jury in a criminal case, the trial judge is supposed to screen out potential jurors who are biased in favor of, or against, the defendant. That’s normally easy because the jurors have usually never have heard of the defendant.

But most potential jurors will have opinions about Trump and many will need to be excused from jury service because of a lack of objectivity.

In a trial with this much media attention, there will also be people who have strong feelings about Trump and want to be on the jury. Some of them may hide their biases. That’s a problem by itself.

Then, once the trial starts, the media attention will shine a spotlight on the selected jurors. If it becomes clear that the jurors lied or failed to disclose information in jury selection, that could be grounds for removing them from the jury in the middle of the trial. If enough jurors are removed, the case will end in a mistrial, sending everyone back to square one.

So, while there is a lot about this prosecution that isn’t yet clear to the general public, one thing is clear – this will be a case with unprecedented attention and complexity.

By Jeffrey Bellin, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s the first time a U.S. president or former president has been indicted.

At the same time, Trump is expected to continue his campaign for the presidency, seeking to regain in 2024 the position he lost in 2020 to Joe Biden.

What are the consequences of an indictment and potential trial for his campaign and, if his effort is successful, his future presidency?

Article II of the U.S. Constitution sets forth very explicit qualifications for the presidency: The president must be 35 years of age, a U.S. resident for 14 years and a natural-born citizen.

In cases involving analogous qualifications for members of Congress, the Supreme Court has held that such qualifications form a “constitutional ceiling” – prohibiting any additional qualifications to be imposed by any means.

Thus, because the Constitution does not require that the president be free from indictment, conviction or prison, it follows that a person under indictment or in prison may run for the office and may even serve as president.

This is the prevailing legal standard that would apply to former President Trump. The fact of his indictment and potential trial is irrelevant to his qualifications for office under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, there seems no question that indictment, conviction or both – let alone a prison sentence – would significantly compromise a president’s ability to function in office. And the Constitution doesn’t provide an easy answer to the problem posed by such a compromised chief executive.

Governing From Jail?

A presidential candidate could be indicted, prosecuted and convicted by either state or federal authorities. Indictment for a state crime may seem less significant than federal charges brought by the Department of Justice.

Ultimately, though, the spectacle of a criminal trial in state or federal court would have a dramatic effect on a presidential campaign and on the credibility of a president, if elected.

All defendants are presumed innocent until proved guilty. But in the case of conviction, incarceration in state or federal prison involves restrictions on liberty that would significantly compromise the president’s ability to lead.

This point – that functioning as president would be difficult while under indictment or after being convicted – was made plain in a 2000 memo written by the Department of Justice. The memo reflected on a 1973 Office of Legal Counsel memo produced during Watergate titled “Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office.” The background to the 1973 memo was that President Richard Nixon was under investigation for his role in the Watergate break-in and Vice President Spiro Agnew was under grand jury investigation for tax evasion.

These two memos addressed whether a sitting president could, under the Constitution, be indicted while in office. They concluded he could not.
But what about a president indicted, convicted, or both, before taking office, as could be the case for Trump?

In evaluating whether a sitting president could be indicted or imprisoned while in office, both the 1973 and 2000 memos outlined the consequences of a pending indictment for the president’s functioning in office. The earlier memo used strong words: “[t]he spectacle of an indicted President still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination.”

Even more pointedly, the memos observe that a criminal prosecution against a sitting president could result in “physical interference with the President’s performance of his official duties that it would amount to an incapacitation.”

The memo here refers to the inconvenience of a criminal trial that would significantly detract from the president’s time commitment to his burdensome duties.

But it’s also lawyer’s language to describe a more direct impediment to the president’s ability to govern: He might be in jail.

Core Functions Affected

According to the 1973 memo, “the President plays an unparalleled role in the execution of the laws, the conduct of foreign relations, and the defense of the Nation.”

Because these core functions require meetings, communications or consultations with the military, foreign leaders and government officials in the U.S. and abroad in ways that cannot be performed while imprisoned, constitutional law scholar Alexander Bickel remarked in 1973 that “obviously the presidency cannot be conducted from jail.”

Modern presidents are peripatetic: They travel nationally and globally on a constant basis to meet with other national leaders and global organizations. They obviously wouldn’t be able to do these things while in prison. Nor could they inspect the aftermath of natural disasters from coast to coast, celebrate national successes and events or address citizens and groups on issues of the day, at least in person.

Moreover, presidents need access to classified information and briefings. But imprisonment would also obviously compromise a president’s ability to access such information, which must often be stored and viewed in a secure room that has been protected against all manner of spying, including blocking radio waves – not something that’s likely available in a prison.

As a result of the president’s varied duties and obligations, the memos concluded that “[t]he physical confinement of the chief executive following a valid conviction would indisputably preclude the executive branch from performing its constitutionally assigned functions.”

Translation: The president couldn’t do his job.

Running From Prison

Yet what to do if citizens actually elect an indicted or incarcerated president?

This is not out of the question. At least one incarcerated presidential candidate, Eugene Debs, garnered almost a million votes out of a total 26.2 million cast in the election of 1920.

One potential response is the 25th Amendment, which enables the president’s Cabinet to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

The two Department of Justice memos note, however, that the framers of the 25th Amendment never considered or mentioned incarceration as a basis for the inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office. They write that replacing the president under the 25th Amendment would “give insufficient weight to the people’s considered choice as to whom they wish to serve as their chief executive.”

All this brings to mind Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ admonition about the role of the Supreme Court: “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.”

Holmes’ statement came in a letter reflecting on the Sherman Antitrust Act, which he thought was a foolish law. But Holmes was prepared to accept the popular will expressed through democracy and self-determination.

Perhaps the same reflection is apt here: If the people choose a president hobbled by criminal sanctions, that is a form of self-determination too. And one for which the Constitution has no ready solution.

By Stefanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina confirmed the indictment.

The New York Times reported that it is not yet clear what exact charges Trump will face, but a formal indictment will likely be issued in the next few days. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is the first prosecutor ever to issue an indictment against a former president. Trump is still the center of several ongoing investigations regarding other alleged criminal activity, including actions he took while in office.

American history is rife with presidents who have used their office to extend executive authority.

Presidents are not kings. George Washington once reflected on this distinction, saying, “I had rather be on my farm than be emperor of the world.”

But American politics and presidency scholars – including me – have long worried about the idea of an imperial presidency – meaning, a president who tries to exert a level of control beyond what the Constitution spells out.

Trump was just another example of a president acting as if he was king by just another name.

Expanding Role of the Presidency

While some early presidents, notably Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, expanded the executive branch, most were constrained by the dominance of the legislative branch in their day.

The growth of the executive branch in terms of size and power began in earnest during the 20th century.

Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court to overcome opposition to his New Deal legislation, a series of public works and spending projects in the 1930s.

Roosevelt wanted to add a justice for every existing judge on the court who did not retire by age 70 – but it was a transparent attempt to alter the court’s composition to favor his agenda, and the Senate shot it down.

Richard Nixon decided to impound money authorized for programs simply because he disagreed with them. Nixon had vetoed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 but was overridden by Congress. He still withheld money, which eventually culminated in a 1975 Supreme Court case, in which the court ruled against Nixon.

Other presidents tried to unduly influence more mundane aspects of life.

In August 1906, for example, Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order forcing the Government Printing Office to begin using the new spellings of 300 words – including “although” and “fixed” – in order to simplify them.

Following broad public criticism of this plan, Congress voted to reject these proposed spelling improvements in 1906.

Trump’s Turn

Trump’s actions and words throughout the presidency also suggest he believed that the office gave him overarching power.

For example, Trump reflected on his power over states to force them to reopen during the COVID-19 crisis, saying in April 2020, “When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total.” But governors actually maintained the control over what remained open or closed in their states during the pandemic.

Trump has also treated the independent judiciary as an inferior branch of government, subject to his control.

“If it’s my judges, you know how they’re gonna decide,” Trump said of his potential judicial appointees in 2016.

Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s view on this issue in 2018, saying, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. … What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

It’s Classified

There is a rigorous procedure if presidents decide to declassify information. This complex process involves all classified material being reviewed by appropriate government agencies and experts at the National Archives.

But Trump claimed at one point any documents he took home were already declassified.

He later asserted, “There doesn’t have to be a process, as I understand it. … You’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it’s declassified, even by thinking about it.”

These comments help substantiate Trump’s belief in his absolute authority. There are specific procedures in place to manage declassification that do not involve psychic powers.

One Real Superpower

If the American presidents have one superpower, it is the power of the pardon. American presidents can pardon people, and the legislative and judiciary branches cannot prevent it.

Past presidents have used pardons largely in the service of justice, but at times to also reward personal friends or connections. But Trump took it even further, using this power seemingly as a way to reward his loyal supporters – and says he will seriously consider pardoning the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters if he is reelected.

Trump also apparently considered granting himself a pardon as a way to avoid any prosecution for his involvement with the Capitol attack.

A self-pardon would also potentially place any president in constitutional murky water.

A 1919 Supreme Court ruling declared that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.” So, if Trump had pardoned himself for anything, he would have admitted to having committed a crime – for which he could still potentially be impeached or investigated under any applicable state law, which is not covered by a presidential pardon.

After Office

Since leaving office, Trump has attempted to claim post-presidential executive privilege, independent of the current administration. But President Joe Biden – who must first give Trump this privilege – never extended it to his predecessor.

Trump’s defense that he was allowed to store classified documents at Mar-a-Lago as a result of executive privilege has largely been unsuccessful in the courts.

Trump has also used his time as president to avoid any lawsuits that emerged after he left office.

In January 2023, a federal judge shot down Trump’s attempt to dismiss a 2022 defamation lawsuit filed by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump raped her in the 1990s. Trump denied the rape in 2019.

In court, Trump argued that anything he said as president should be protected and he should be given immunity during that period.

Though a ruling is still pending, Carroll has argued in court that immunity would apply only if Trump were referring to presidential matters, and not personal ones.

Everyone Is Held to the Same Rules

American presidents serve a limited amount of time governing before they return to the general population’s ranks.

Those privileged enough to hold the top office in the U.S. are still citizens. They are held to the same laws as everyone else and, the founders believed, should never be held above them.

Throughout history, many presidents have pushed the boundaries of power for their own personal preferences or political gain. However, Americans do have the right to push back and hold these leaders accountable to the country’s laws.

Presidents have never been monarchs. If they ever act in that manner, I believe that the people have to remind them of who they are and whom they serve.

By Shannon Bow O’Brien, Associate Professor of Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The federal government, along with many state and foreign governments and some companies, has banned TikTok on work-provided phones. This type of ban can be effective for protecting data related to government work.

But a full ban of the app is another matter, which raises a number of questions: What data privacy risk does TikTok pose? What could the Chinese government do with data collected by the app? Is its content recommendation algorithm dangerous? And is it even possible to ban an app?

Vacuuming Up Data

As a cybersecurity researcher, I’ve noted that every few years a new mobile app that becomes popular raises issues of security, privacy and data access.

Apps collect data for several reasons. Sometimes the data is used to improve the app for users. However, most apps collect data that the companies use in part to fund their operations. This revenue typically comes from targeting users with ads based on the data they collect. The questions this use of data raises are: Does the app need all this data? What does it do with the data? And how does it protect the data from others?

So what makes TikTok different from the likes of Pokemon-GO, Facebook or even your phone itself? TikTok’s privacy policy, which few people read, is a good place to start. Overall, the company is not particularly transparent about its practices. The document is too long to list here all the data it collects, which should be a warning.

There are a few items of interest in TikTok’s privacy policy besides the information you give them when you create an account – name, age, username, password, language, email, phone number, social media account information and profile image – that are concerning. This information includes location data, data from your clipboard, contact information, website tracking, plus all data you post and messages you send through the app. The company claims that current versions of the app do not collect GPS information from U.S. users. There has been speculation that TikTok is collecting other information, but that is hard to prove.

If most apps collect data, why is the U.S. government worried about TikTok? First, they worry about the Chinese government accessing data from its 150 million users in the U.S. There is also a concern about the algorithms used by TikTok to show content.

Data in the Chinese Government’s Hands

If the data does end up in the hands of the Chinese government, the question is how could it use the data to its benefit. The government could share it with other companies in China to help them profit, which is no different than U.S. companies sharing marketing data. The Chinese government is known for playing the long game, and data is power, so if it is collecting data, it could take years to learn how it benefits China.

One potential threat is the Chinese government using the data to spy on people, particularly people who have access to valuable information. The Justice Department is investigating TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, for using the app to monitor U.S. journalists. The Chinese government has an extensive history of hacking U.S. government agencies and corporations, and much of that hacking has been facilitated by social engineering – the practice of using data about people to trick them into revealing more information.

The second issue that the U.S. government has raised is algorithm bias or algorithm manipulation. TikTok and most social media apps have algorithms designed to learn a user’s interests and then try to adjust the content so the user will continue to use the app. TikTok has not shared its algorithm, so it’s not clear how the app chooses a user’s content.

The algorithm could be biased in a way that influences a population to believe certain things. There are numerous allegations that TiKTok’s algorithm is biased and can reinforce negative thoughts among younger users, and be used to affect public opinion. It could be that the algorithm’s manipulative behavior is unintentional, but there is concern that the Chinese government has been using or could use the algorithm to influence people.

Can the Government Ban an App?

If the federal government comes to the conclusion that TikTok should be banned, is it even possible to ban it for all of its 150 million existing users? Any such ban would likely start with blocking the distribution of the app through Apple’s and Google’s app stores. This might keep many users off the platform, but there are other ways to download and install apps for people who are determined to use them.

A more drastic method would be to force Apple and Google to change their phones to prevent TikTok from running. While I’m not a lawyer, I think this effort would fail due to legal challenges, which include First Amendment concerns. The bottom line is that an absolute ban will be tough to enforce.

There are also questions about how effective a ban would be even if it were possible. By some estimates, the Chinese government has already collected personal information on at least 80% of the U.S. population via various means. So a ban might limit the damage going forward to some degree, but the Chinese government has already collected a significant amount of data. The Chinese government also has access – along with anyone else with money – to the large market for personal data, which fuels calls for stronger data privacy rules.

Are You at Risk?

So as an average user, should you worry? Again, it is unclear what data ByteDance is collecting and if it can harm an individual. I believe the most significant risks are to people in power, whether it is political power or within a company. Their data and information could be used to gain access to other data or potentially compromise the organizations they are associated with.

The aspect of TikTok I find most concerning is the algorithm that decides what videos users see and how it can affect vulnerable groups, particularly young people. Independent of a ban, families should have conversions about TikTok and other social media platforms and how they can be detrimental to mental health. These conversations should focus on how to determine if the app is leading you down an unhealthy path.

This article has been updated to indicate that TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before Congress on March 23, 2023.

By Doug Jacobson, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Now, both Democratic and Republican politicians are making pronouncements about whether bipartisan-backed deregulation in 2018 led to the banks’ collapse and whether the banking industry needs more government intervention.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Katie Porter of California, both Democrats, introduced a bill on March 15, 2023, to restore stiff banking regulations that they maintain would have prevented the practices that led to the recent bank collapses. But some Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky, say lax government policy that included overspending – which Barr says, fueled inflation, as well as long-term low interest rates – not deregulation, was behind the banks’ failures.

In dispute are requirements in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that were rolled back in 2018. Dodd-Frank put in place financial regulatory changes in response to the 2008 global financial meltdown. The legislation included among its requirements one that banks with US$50 billion in assets be subject to strict standards. Some lawmakers, including Porter and Warren, say those requirements should have remained intact.

But the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 loosened the standards, raising the asset threshold to $250 billion, meaning fewer banks were under strict controls.

The Conversation asked Gerard W. Comizio, a law professor, former Wall Street attorney and former senior Treasury Department official, to explain some of the problems that spurred Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and another bank to fail.

What Caused Silicon Valley, Signature & a Third bank, Silvergate, to Fail?

Significant withdrawals at all three banks caused cash crises that could not be addressed by selling assets, such as bank notes and bonds. In the case of all three banks, sales of their assets would have triggered significant additional losses, since their portfolios were worth less than they paid for them and interest rates were rising.

While some aspects of each failure were different, there were common elements, and a certain level of Murphy’s law – the idea that if something can go wrong, it will. In the case of these banks, everything went wrong.

In the last three months of 2022, Silvergate had a record $1 billion loss, due to heavy lending to troubled and failed crypto trading exchanges. And its interest rate-sensitive securities portfolio became kindling for the current crisis.

During 2022, Silvergate’s deposit base grew dramatically, almost doubling its assets to $210 billion. But the bank did not have either the administrative capacity or market demand to lend out all of the money, as banks normally do. So, it invested the excess deposits in Treasury bonds and mortgage investment products.

But the bond purchases became a problem as the Federal
Reserve began to
raise interest rates to address inflation. As Business Insider reported, a two-year U.S. Treasury note that offered nearly triple the amount of Silicon Valley Bank’s portfolio of long-term bonds – which generated income at an average of just 1.6% – was much more attractive.

Bond prices plunged, creating billions of dollars in paper losses for Silicon Valley Bank, popularly known as SVB.

To shore up its cash assets, in the face of increasing customer withdrawals, SVB sold $21 billion in bonds at a $1.8 billion loss.

Which Regulations From the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act Were Designed to Prevent Banking Failures?

Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act adopted so-called “enhanced prudential regulation” rules for all banking organizations with more than $50 billion in assets, designating them as “systemically important financial institutions,” popularly known by the term “too big to fail.” These standards were designed to be more stringent than those applied to smaller banks. Lawmakers believed the larger institutions posed far greater risk to the financial stability of the U.S.

These stricter rules required, among other things, that the banks deemed too big to fail periodically update for the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. a comprehensive resolution plan. Dubbed the Living Will, that plan details a company’s plans for a “rapid and orderly” dissolution of the bank in the event it is failing or has already failed. In addition, these too-big-to-fail banks had a requirement to periodically assess their risk under a variety of market conditions, including rises in interest rates and risk hedging strategies. The rules also said designated banks had significantly higher capital requirements.

No longer required to adhere to those key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, the failed banks did not. Arguably, the provisions could have saved them.

Why Weren’t the Banks Subject to Those Regulations?

Industry leaders, among them Greg Becker, CEO of Silicon Valley Bank, lobbied Congress in 2015 to roll back some of the Dodd-Frank Act provisions.

Arguing that the $50 billion threshold needed to be raised, Becker said the restrictions on midsize banks under the Dodd-Frank Act were too burdensome and inhibited banks’ ability to “provide the banking services our clients need.”

In 2018, Congress, in a bipartisan vote, with the support of then-President Donald Trump’s administration, all of the federal banking agencies and the banking industry, passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act. It amended the Dodd-Frank Act to substantially reduce the number of banks subject to the more stringent regulation by raising the threshold at which banks posed potential systemic risk, from $50 billion up to $250 billion.

On July 6, 2018, all of the banking agencies issued a statement confirming the elimination of these requirements.

If the Dodd-Frank Act Had Remained Intact, Would the Banks Have Failed?

There are a number of arguments as to whether these failures could have been prevented and addressed faster if the Dodd-Frank standards had still been in place. These standards were arguably designed to specifically prevent and address the type of circumstances that triggered these recent bank failures: multiple failures and contagion in the financial system, market panic, deposit runs and liquidity crisis.

For example, abiding by Living Wills and stress testing would have identified problems far earlier and potentially required these banks to address a number of potential red flags that constituted higher risk, such as:

• Interest rate risk in the banks’ securities portfolio investments, and the consequences of liquidating those investments at a significant loss in the event of a cash crisis;

• Lack of interest rate risk hedging strategies;

• Excessive uninsured deposits that posed a risk to the bank if customers withdrew their money en masse; and

• The need to hold higher-than-normal levels of money to address their risks.

Ironically, in taking steps to provide unprecedented deposit insurance coverage to uninsured deposits at these banks, the U.S. Treasury, the Fed and the FDIC issued a joint statement on March 12 that they were invoking the systemic risk exception which allowed them to replace depositors’ money, even though the law was changed in 2018 to make clear banks of their size no longer posed systemic risk.

By V. Gerard (Jerry) Comizio, Professor of Law, American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is the only son of now-deceased parents, Alvin Bragg Sr. and Sadie Bragg, who worked in public service and education, according to his wedding announcement in The New York Times.

He’s married to Jamila Ponton Bragg, who, according to American Theatre, has worked for non-profit organizations before starting a theatre production company.

Bragg is in the news after former President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that he believes Bragg’s office is about to arrest him in connection with the long-standing criminal investigation into a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Here’s what you need to know about Bragg’s family:

1. Alvin Bragg Called His Mother, Sadie Bragg, Who Worked for a Manhattan Community College, the ‘Best Educator I’ve Ever Known’

According to the wedding announcement in The New York Times, Bragg’s mother, Sadie Bragg, was vice president for academic affairs at the Borough of Manhattan Community College.

In a 2021 Facebook page, Bragg touted his mom.

“My mom, Dr. Sadie Bragg, was the best educator I’ve ever known. She knew very little about law, but she always loved that I was pursuing it — pursuing justice. On this #InternationalWomensDay and every day after I pledge to honor her memory by never giving up that global pursuit,” he wrote.

Sadie Bragg’s 2018 obituary says that “Sadie dedicated her professional life to teaching students mathematics and expanding educational opportunities, especially for students of color and women.”

According to the obituary:

Early in her career, she taught mathematics to junior high school students; taught students at an alternative high school as part of the New York Urban League Street Academy; and coordinated a college-bound program for junior high school students. From 1970 to 1982, Sadie taught college-bound adult students as a mathematics lecturer at the Manhattan Educational Opportunity Center.

In 1982, after earning a Doctorate in Education in College Teaching of Mathematics from Teachers College, Columbia University, Sadie joined the Borough of Manhattan Community College’s (BMCC) mathematics department as a professor. Over the years at BMCC, Sadie served in several positions, including Associate Dean of Academic Affairs for Curriculum Provost, and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs. She retired in 2014.

2. Alvin Bragg’s Father Worked for the New York City Human Resources Administration & With Homeless Shelters

Obituary photo {M Wilkerson Funeral Home)Alvin Bragg Sr.

Bragg’s father was a retired assistant superintendent for welfare “in the New York City Human Resources Administration” and formerly directed the Manhattan chapter of the New York Urban League, the wedding announcement said.

According to Sadie’s obituary, her husband was Alvin Leonard Bragg, Sr., and they had one child together, Alvin Leonard Bragg, Jr., the Manhattan DA.

Bragg Sr. died in 2014. According to his obituary, Alvin Leonard Bragg, Sr. “was born in South Hill, Virginia to Marvin Alvin Bragg and Horatia Hayes on March 3, 1945.”

“Alvin graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in Political Science in 1968. Upon Alvin’s graduation, Alvin and Sadie moved to New York City. Alvin later earned a Master of Science degree in Human Resource Management from the University of Utah,” the obituary says.

“Alvin dedicated most of his professional life to the delivery of social services in New York City. He started his career at the New York City Youth Board, where he helped oversee a program that provided services to students who had dropped out of high school,” the obituary says.

It continues:

After a brief period as a stock broker, Alvin worked for over 14 years at the New York Urban League. For his first five years at the Urban League, Alvin helped direct a series of programs: an educational program for students who had dropped out of high school; a community service center for young adults on probation and a skills training and job placement program,” it says. “From 1976 to 1986, Alvin oversaw the Urban League’s operations in Manhattan as the Borough Director Urban League, Alvin worked for several years for the New York City Human Resources Administration as a director at New York City homeless shelters.

3. Alvin Bragg Has Said Loved Ones’ Experiences With the Criminal Justice System influenced His Views

GettyAlvin Bragg

Bragg told Patch that his family’s experiences have affected his views on the criminal justice system.

“I’m running to make the District Attorney’s office the progressive leader it should be. One that proves we can keep neighborhoods safe and end the racial disparities that are still deeply ingrained in the system,” he told Patch in the 2021 interview.

“Growing up in Harlem, I was repeatedly stopped and frisked by the NYPD, including 3 times at gunpoint. I’ve seen loved ones arrested and have opened our home to support a close family member post-incarceration.” He did not name who those loved ones were.

Patch quoted him as saying,

As a Black man who grew up in Harlem in the 1980s, I have been surrounded by race, class, and inequality throughout my life. From whitewashing alcohol and cigarette billboards targeting Harlem as a youth leader at my church to helping lead the response on my college campus to the beating of Rodney King, I have been outspoken about racism, classism, and inequality throughout my life.

4. Alvin Bragg & His Wife Have Two Children Together

In the 2021 Patch profile, Bragg said his family consisted of “my wife Jamila and our two children.”

He also said that no one in his family worked in politics or government. The children were not named in the article and have stayed out of the headlines.

5. Alvin Bragg & His Wife Met When Both Were Students at Harvard University

Twitter (Jamila Ponton Bragg)/GettyAlvin Bragg and his wife, Jamila Ponton Bragg,

The wedding announcement for Bragg and his wife that appeared in The New York Times says that the Reverend Calvin O. Butts III performed their ceremony at Heinz Memorial Chapel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Bragg and his wife met at Harvard, while he was getting a law degree, and she was getting a master’s degree in education, that article says..

Bragg’s bride-to-be was a 29-years-old program director at Girls Inc., a nonprofit youth group located in New York, according to The New York Times.

At the time of the wedding, the announcement said that Bragg was an assistant New York State attorney general in Manhattan.

According to American Theatre, in July 2022, Ponton Bragg was named “the winner of the 2022 Prince Fellowship.” The fellowship was “originally created by legendary producer Harold Prince, are designed to empower a new generation of creative producers in the development of their chosen project,” the site says.

America Theatre says that Ponton Bragg “is the founder of JamRock Productions, LLC, a theatre production company committed to works for, about, and by women. After nearly 20 years in the nonprofit industry, she transitioned to theatre producing and began her journey in March 2020 as a co-producer on Blue, a play by Charles Randolph-Wright.”

The site notes that Ponton Bragg “is credited as an associate producer on the August 2021 Broadway production of Pass Over, and as an investor in for colored girls who considered suicide when the rainbow is enuf. Bragg holds a B.S. in psychology from Duke University and an Ed.M. from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.”

READ NEXT: The Political Background of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

Jamila Ponton Bragg is the wife of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Bragg has been thrust into the national spotlight in a big way after former President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that he expects Bragg’s office to arrest him in a long-standing investigation into a payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

That has people curious about Bragg’s biography. His wife is the former Jamila Marie Ponton.

Here’s what you need to know about Bragg’s wife:

1. Alvin Bragg & His Wife Jamila Ponton Bragg Have Two Kids Together

In a 2021 profile written by Patch when he was running for the District Attorney’s position, Bragg said his family consisted of “my wife Jamila and our two children.”

He also said that no one in his family worked in politics or government.

Ponton Bragg’s Facebook page says she is from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

His children have stayed out of the news.

2. Alvin Bragg Met His Wife Jamila Marie Ponton at Harvard University

The couple’s wedding announcement in The New York Times says that the Reverend Calvin O. Butts III performed their ceremony at Heinz Memorial Chapel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The announcement says that Bragg and his wife met at Harvard, while he was getting a law degree, and she was getting a master’s degree in education.

At the time of the wedding, Jamila Ponton was 29-years-old and program director at Girls Inc., a nonprofit youth group located in New York, according to The New York Times.

It says that she graduated from Duke and her mother was a first-grade teacher in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

At the time of the wedding, the announcement said that Bragg was an assistant New York State attorney general in Manhattan.

3. Jamila Ponton Bragg Is Founder of JamRock Productions, LLC, a Theatre Production Company Focused on Works About Women

According to American Theatre, in July 2022, Ponton Bragg was named “the winner of the 2022 Prince Fellowship.” The fellowship was “originally created by legendary producer Harold Prince, are designed to empower a new generation of creative producers in the development of their chosen project,” the site says.

Prince Fellowship mentor David Stone said in a statement, according to American Theatre, “Jamila brings an incredible level of experience in the nonprofit field and a rich education with her as she transitions to commercial, creative producing. Her background and incredible focus will be an amazing contribution to this community.”

America Theatre says that Ponton Bragg “is the founder of JamRock Productions, LLC, a theatre production company committed to works for, about, and by women. After nearly 20 years in the nonprofit industry, she transitioned to theatre producing and began her journey in March 2020 as a co-producer on Blue, a play by Charles Randolph-Wright.”

The site notes that Bragg “is credited as an associate producer on the August 2021 Broadway production of Pass Over, and as an investor in for colored girls who considered suicide when the rainbow is enuf. Bragg holds a B.S. in psychology from Duke University and an Ed.M. from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.”

4. Jamila Ponton Bragg Has Retweeted People’s Posts About the Trump Investigation

Twitter (Jamila Ponton Bragg)Retweet by Jamila Ponton Bragg.

On Twitter, Ponton Bragg retweeted a tweet about the Trump investigation written by a workers’ rights lawyer named Terri Gerstein. The Gerstein tweet retweeted by Ponton Bragg said, “Just saw Mark Pomerantz on @60Minutes explaining why he took his ball & went home from the @ManhattanDA office. If he truly cared about Trump being prosecuted, he wouldn’t be blabbing on national TV, spilling so many details about an ongoing investigation he worked on.”

She also retweeted a March 2022 article in the Palmer Report headlined, “Finally, a bit of good news in the Manhattan DA criminal case against Donald Trump.” That article says, in part, “Tonight’s newly released Mark Pomerantz resignation letter to Alvin Bragg is actually a bit of good news (no, really). It’s the first official confirmation that the Manhattan DA’s office has Trump nailed on felonies.”

She also retweeted a Palmer Report tweet that reads, “Alvin Bragg said today that a ‘team of experienced prosecutors is working every day to follow the facts and the law.’ But this doesn’t fit with the media’s ratings-friendly false narrative that the Trump case was dropped. So the facts get ignored in favor of doomsday fiction.”

Pomerantz is an attorney who, according to a book he wrote about it, was one of the lawyers who worked on Trump investigation with Bragg’s office and “resigned in protest when Manhattan’s district attorney refused to act” and charge Trump.

She retweeted a collage of newspaper headlines about Trump and January 6.

Twitter (Jamila Ponton Bragg)Jamila Ponton Bragg tweet.

She frequently retweets people’s posts on race relations, including presidents who owned slaves, critical race theory, and police shootings.

For example, this is her top retweet:

She also retweeted a post about possible Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s views on the confederate flag.

Ponton Bragg also retweeted a tweet criticizing The New York Times for its coverage of crime.

5. Alvin Bragg’s Wife Once Worked for Sesame Workshop

Ponton Bragg’s LinkedIn page lists her as a consultant for the Emma Bowen Foundation for three years through 2018.

She also wrote that she was educational outreach manager for The Electric Company Sesame Workshop for nine months and was a special assistant to the CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies.

Her LinkedIn page says she was project director at Girls, Inc. for more than six years.

READ NEXT: The Political Background of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

Former President Donald Trump has written on Truth Social that he believes he will be arrested on Tuesday, March, 21, 2023, in the long-standing probe by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office into a payment to Stormy Daniels.

If Trump is, in fact, arrested, that raises a host of questions. Among them: Would Trump be handcuffed? Would the Secret Service allow a former President of the United States to be in handcuffs? Would his mugshot be taken?

Trump has declared his innocence on Truth Social, and he has railed at the Manhattan DA’s office, which is led by an elected Democrat, Alvin Bragg.

Of course, no one knows if Trump will really be arrested or what would happen for sure if he is; in fact, his attorney and spokesman told CNN he was basing his arrest comments on press reports and has not received any formal notification that he will be arrested.

That being said, there is some information that can be gleaned about the likely process if Trump is arrested. According to NBC News, Trump’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, told the network that, in NBC’s words, the former president will follow “normal procedures” if asked to surrender to the Manhattan DA.

Here’s what you need to know:

The Secret Service Will Take the Lead on Whether Donald Trump Would Be Handcuffed, But He Would Likely Be Fingerprinted, a Report Says

On air, Fox News anchor John Roberts reported that, according to an unnamed source, law enforcement held a meeting “to discuss logistics for some time next week, which would mean they are anticipating an indictment.”

He said they went “over security” preparations, and indicated that the Secret Service will take the lead “on what they will allow or will not allow.”

Roberts said that, according to the source, this includes the “decision to handcuff the former president or not,” adding that the Secret Service, which protects all former presidents, “will set the tone” and would escort Trump into the courtroom.

According to Roberts, the Secret Service will coordinate with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, but “they will defer to the Secret Service.” The source said the “battle will be between” the Secret Service and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg as to how and when Trump would be in the building.

The source believes the former president “will still have to be fingerprinted and processed like every other defendant,” according to Roberts.

GettyAlvin Bragg

Business Insider reports that if Trump is arrested, there likely “will be a mugshot, and fingerprinting, and a mandatory DNA cheek-swabbing. And there will be an appearance before a judge, and a not-guilty plea — likely, though not necessarily, in open court.”

Typically, according to Business Insider, a white-collar surrenders “at the DA’s headquarters in Lower Manhattan at a set time on the agreed-upon date and is immediately handed over to the custody of DA investigators.”

If he were any other defendant, according to Business Insider, Trump “would be walked in handcuffs by DA investigators down a courthouse hallway — with the press shouting and filming from behind barricades — to the courtroom.”

However, Business Insider reports, although it’s possible a Trump arrest could be handled this way, a source told the publication it’s also possible that Trump would not be arrested at all and rather would be given a criminal summons to show up for his arraignment.

“He would appear in court and then get printed before or after. No cuffs,” in that scenario, the source told Business Insider. Another possibility, the publication reported, is that the arraignment could be handled virtually.

Bill Pickle, a former special agent with the Secret Service, told Business Insider that he doubted the Secret Service would allow Trump to be exposed to potential harm through a traditional “perp walk.”

Some Democrats Have Long Wanted to See Former President Donald Trump in Handcuffs, But Trump’s Spokesman Says He Is ‘Completely Innocent’

GettyPresident Trump says he will be arrested Tuesday

According to an excerpt aired on Fox News, in August, after Trump’s Florida residence was raided for classified documents, MSNBC host Tiffany Cross said on the air, “I think a lot of people do want to see Donald Trump handcuffed like an episode of COPS and walking out. We want to see them perp walk Donald Trump, and we may not see that.”

When it comes to the Stormy Daniels investigation, Fox News also reported on its website that Bragg’s office had asked for a meeting with law enforcement ahead of a “possible Trump indictment.”

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Fox News, “President Donald J. Trump is completely innocent, he did nothing wrong, and even the biggest, most Radical Left Democrats are making that clear.”

He added, according to Fox, “From Russia, Russia, Russia, to the Mueller Hoax, to Impeachment Hoaxes 1 and 2, and even the Unlawful Mar-a-Lago Raid, Democrats have investigated and attacked President Trump since before he was elected – and they’ve failed every time.”

READ NEXT: The Political Background of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

About 50 million more threats every year. That’s the estimated number of records annually classified as confidential, secret or top secret by the U.S. government.

The U.S. has an overclassification problem, which, experts say, ironically threatens the nation’s security.

Those in the intelligence field, along with at least eight special commissions through the decades, acknowledge the security risk of nearly 2,000 workers processing tens of millions of classified records each year, which could be viewed and potentially leaked or misplaced by more than 4.2 million government employees and contractors who have access to them.

I have seen the secrecy creep – more classification and more withholding of information by the government – growing for decades, as a scholar who studies freedom of information, as recent president of the National Freedom of Information Coalition and as incoming director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida. Also, as a member of the Federal Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, I see firsthand the struggles the U.S. faces in maintaining transparent, accountable government.

The classified federal records are made secret based on categories defined by the president through executive orders, not law. These records can include just about anything a government employee deems confidential, secret, top secret, sensitive or restricted.

While classification is intended to protect the national security of the nation – such as weapons data, military plans and codes – often records with no direct connection to national security are hidden, including already published newspaper articles, sometimes to prevent agency embarrassment or accountability.

Overclassification Kills

Experts and members of Congress acknowledge that 90% of classified records do not need to be classified.

J. William Leonard, former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the classification system, testified in 2016 before Congress that overclassification is rampant throughout federal government.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that excessive classification inhibited the ability of defense agencies to share critical files, contributing to the terrorists’ success in killing nearly 3,000 Americans. They said, “No one has to pay the long-term costs of overclassifying information, though these costs – even in literal financial terms – are substantial.”

Former President Barack Obama noted the problem in a 2016 Fox News interview:

“There’s classified,” he said, “and then there’s ‘classified.’ There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state that you might not want on the transom or going out over the wire but is basically stuff that you could get in open source.”

Overclassification leads to more leaking of dangerous information, according to the Public Interest Declassification Board, a congressional advisory group that recommends policies to the president on classification.

Overclassification impedes information-sharing by agencies and makes people trust the system less. Some government employees may even come to believe the system is too secretive. That “may encourage dangerous information leaks from within the government,” stated the board’s 2020 report urging modernization of the system.

The Founders Started It

Government secrecy started before the U.S. even had a government.

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 was held in secret, and the Senate debated the Bill of Rights behind closed doors in 1791. Congress didn’t print its approved laws for the public until 1795 – nearly two decades after the founding of the United States and six years after the Constitution’s ratification.

From the country’s earliest days, presidents sought to restrict information from the public – and even from Congress. George Washington kept secret his treaty communications with Britain in 1795, and John Adams hid treaty negotiations with France in 1798, all in the name of national security.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first president to officially classify documents. He issued Executive Order 8381 in 1940 to keep some military records hidden. Succeeding presidents followed suit, greatly expanding secrecy through the decades. The most recent order, issued by Barack Obama in 2009, stands today.

Santa & Conan

Classification has become so prevalent that the outcomes are sometimes meaningless, sometimes nefarious and sometimes absurd.

Lauren Harper, director of public policy and open government affairs for the National Security Archive, a nonprofit that collects federal records for historians, notes some of the worst examples of overclassification:

• The CIA labeled as confidential a weekly terrorism situation report on Dec. 17, 1974, stating, “A new organization of uncertain makeup, using the name ‘Group of the Martyr Ebenezer Scrooge,’ plans to sabotage the annual courier flight of the Government of the North Pole. …” The memo, a CIA inside-office joke, wasn’t made public until 1999.

• A 1975 government biographical dossier on former Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet, kept secret on national security grounds, stated that the dictator’s favorite liquor was “scotch and pisco sours.”

• The government argued that records documenting the sex of Conan the dog, which participated in the 2019 raid to kill Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, were a national security secret.

• Historical documents about the Bay of Pigs were released in 2016 after decades of the CIA arguing the information would “confuse the public.” In actuality, they were covering up embarrassing internal political bickering.

Sometimes records are kept secret to avoid criticism, such as the documents hidden by the George W. Bush administration to cover up instructions for effective torture.

Transparency vs. Secrecy

Many recommendations to diminish overclassification have been offered by experts and special commissions over the decades, with little progress. Federal agencies push back against transparency, presidents defer to secrecy and the inertia of federal bureaucracy favors the status quo. But perhaps bipartisan cooperation in Congress can get somewhere on several fronts.

Legislators could simplify the levels of classification, focusing only on what specific information would truly harm national security and align the level of protection with the level of harm.

Significantly increased funding would help modernize the operations of the National Archives and Records Administration, which oversees classification efforts and is hamstrung by old technology in a digitized world. The agency’s annual budget has flatlined at about US$320 million for the past three decades. Congress could invest in more sophisticated technology, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to better identify records that should be classified and those that shouldn’t be classified. New research indicates that machine learning can save government employees time in identifying parts of records that should be kept secret.

Finally, classifications can be hit and miss, and agencies should be required to accurately delineate what is classified and what isn’t and label the classified parts of records accurately, as recommended last year by the Federal FOIA Advisory Committee.

Some secrets are necessary, and I believe the classification system can be strengthened, for the good of national security and the ability of citizens to know what their government is up to. Sometimes, less secrecy brings more safety.

By David Cuillier, Associate Professor, School of Journalism, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

To learn more about the accusations against O’Keefe and what the legal consequences might be for the tax-exempt organization, The Conversation asked nonprofit law scholar Samuel Brunson five questions to explain the situation and the issues it raises.

1. Who Is Accused of What, Exactly?

The board of directors of Project Veritas has accused O’Keefe of “financial misfeasance.” Its allegations of financial improprieties by the man who until recently served as the group’s chairman include that he spent money donated to the organization on various luxuries for himself, such as charter flights and theater tickets.

If the accusations prove valid, it is possible that this misuse of Project Veritas funds could imperil the group’s tax exemption. A tax-exempt organization cannot use its money to benefit certain individuals, especially insiders such as its leaders and major donors. It can pay its employees, but the staff and its leaders cannot receive unreasonable compensation or any other type of benefit that looks like the tax-exempt organization is sharing its profits with them.

While it sounds odd that a nonprofit would have profits, it is not. The rule for nonprofit and tax-exempt organizations is not that they cannot make profits; it is that, unlike for-profit entities, they cannot distribute their profits to shareholders.

2. Why Would It Be a Big Deal if Project Veritas Were to Lose Its Tax-Exempt Status?

Tax-exempt status provides at least three benefits to Project Veritas.

First, these groups don’t need to pay taxes on most of their revenue.

Second, and likely more importantly, it means that donations to Project Veritas are tax deductible for many wealthy supporters. Through what’s known as the charitable deduction, donors can essentially get a subsidy from the federal government for their donations.

The third benefit: Tax exemption can provide a veneer of legitimacy to an organization by signaling to some potential donors that the federal government has approved of its activities.

But, in fact, tax exemption does not represent any type of government approval. That’s because the government cannot deny tax-exempt status on the basis of ideological disagreement.

3. How Has James O’Keefe Responded?

O’Keefe acknowledged in a long video posted to the Vimeo video platform that he had been forced out. The board has declared that he has had the opportunity to meet with its members to discuss allegations of financial misdeeds and mistreating staff members. But the man who founded the group 13 years ago has declined to take that opportunity.

O’Keefe also indicated in the video, which he said was being recorded on Feb. 20, 2023, that he may intend to launch a new organization. “I’m not done,” he said. “The mission will perhaps take on a new name.”

4. In a Situation Like This, Are the Authorities Likely to Look Into the Accusations?

The Internal Revenue Service could investigate the allegations if it wanted to do so. Although the agency is underfunded and understaffed, it sometimes uses high-profile and highly publicized instances of noncompliance to discourage other people and groups from violating tax laws.

That said, based on the publicly available facts, I can’t yet tell whether Project Veritas has violated the rules governing tax-exempt status. While O’Keefe may have misused the group’s funds, it looks like he did it without the board’s knowledge or approval.

The Tax Court, a federal court that adjudicates tax disputes, has explained that a charity does not lose its exemption just because an officer of the charity has “skimmed or embezzled or otherwise stolen from the charity.” Unless there is some evidence that Project Veritas deliberately allowed O’Keefe to use its resources for personal consumption, I suspect the IRS will not pursue this.

5. How Can Such a Demonstrably Partisan Group Have Nonprofit Status?

Project Veritas claims exemption as an educational organization. According to U.S. Treasury Department regulations, an organization that advocates for a particular viewpoint can be educational for exemption purposes, even though it “advocates a particular position or viewpoint,” as long as it fully presents the facts in a way that allows listeners to make an informed conclusion.

Does Project Veritas meet what the IRS calls the “full and fair exposition” test? If so, and as long as it complies with the other requirements for tax-exempt status, it qualifies as exempt – notwithstanding its ideological leanings.

By Samuel Brunson, Professor of Law, Loyola University Chicago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

For the most part, Biden struck a positive tone delivering the speech, which drew cheers and applause – and the occasional heckling – during the joint session of Congress. But the president’s upbeat demeanor came at the end of what is usually a tough and sometimes impossible process for the writers who have crafted the speech.

In any administration, writing the annual State of the Union address is a difficult assignment. I should know: I am a former presidential speechwriter for George H.W. Bush, and while I never wrote a State of the Union speech, I’ve seen the process up close and was always relieved to have dodged the bullet.

Sure, the State of the Union speech is one of the great rituals of our American democracy – but it’s also an unusually difficult and thankless job for any speechwriter.

The goal of a State of the Union address is to rally public support for the president’s domestic and foreign policy agenda.

This year’s speechwriters had to balance the president’s desire to point out his administration’s successes with voters’ negative sentiment about the way things are going. Among many others, NBC News polling found that large and persistent majorities of voters – over 70% in eight out of nine recent polls – continue to believe that America is on the wrong track. One NBC affiliate’s website claims the network’s polling has “never before recorded this level of sustained pessimism” among voters.

Similarly, Gallup found that the 22% of Americans who are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. represents one of the lowest levels the firm has ever seen. As public policy scholar Elaine Kamark wrote recently, the U.S. population is “wallowing in pessimism.”

Other presidential speechwriters have faced the same challenge. So, how does a speechwriter try to change opinions?

Matching Agenda & Voters’ Concerns

The State of the Union speech is usually assigned to one speechwriter and one researcher, who start working on it weeks to months in advance.

The process typically begins with a call to all the Cabinet agencies asking for a paragraph or so from each on their accomplishments over the previous year and goals for the future. As the submissions come in, the speechwriter somehow has to string them all together in a compelling way.

At the same time, the challenge is to match the administration’s agenda with the voters’ top concerns. The latest Gallup poll shows that those responding to the poll believe government is the top problem facing the country, at 21%, followed by inflation at 15%, immigration at 11%, and the economy in general at 10%.

Yet The New York Times reports that Biden’s top economic aides argued for weeks over “how much to talk about child care, prekindergarten, paid leave, and other new spending proposals that the president failed to secure” in his first two years in office.

Those issues, which are important to the president’s agenda, are not exactly at the top of voters’ minds. How does a speechwriter balance the two?

Add to the assignment: the decision whether to lead with domestic or foreign policy; how to resolve differences on conflicting policies, goals or budget numbers among Cabinet agencies; and whether to craft clever applause lines that produce a standing ovation by the entire House and Senate, to show bipartisan support for the president in, say, targeting Big Tech. Or perhaps create lines aiming to spark roaring approval by one side of the aisle while the other sits on its hands, to make wedge issues clear to voters – such as increased spending proposals in the face of mounting national debt.

Representative Guests

Along the way, the White House invites guests to hear the speech from the House gallery. This is a tradition that started during the Reagan administration, when Lenny Skutnik, a hero of the Air Florida flight that crashed into the Potomac, was recognized by the president and given a standing ovation.

Each guest is selected to illustrate specific policy areas in the speech. We saw this in President Biden’s recognition during his speech of the parents of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols, who was beaten by Memphis police and died three days later. “Let’s come together and finish the job on police reform,” Biden said.

It is the speechwriter’s job to highlight these stories in a way that puts a human face on public policy in a heartwarming, poignant and relevant way. The ancient Greeks called this “pathos” – and it’s often the most memorable part of the State of the Union address.

Once all this is ironed out, the final draft is circulated among the White House senior staff and the Cabinet for review.

The ‘Final Final’

It could take anywhere from hours to weeks to agree on the policy conflicts and budget numbers. The number of drafts can climb into the double digits. The Washington Post reported that this year, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Bruce Reed played a “key role” in smoothing out the policy sections.

At long last, the “final final” goes to the president for his edits. The usual rule is that no one can edit the speech after it goes to the president – no executive wants “a surprise on the way to the podium” in which the speech to be delivered is different from one that was approved.

Once the president is happy with the “final final” speech, rehearsals begin – often more than one – until the big night. Hours before the speech is given, the White House usually releases to the press an embargoed “as prepared” copy of the speech so that TV camera crews can cue the close-ups of people mentioned in the speech, and print and broadcast reporters can research the context and history behind the policies.

That evening, the House chamber is usually standing room only, with the primary audience being the members of the House, Senate, Supreme Court, military brass and invited guests. But the secondary audience is far bigger. The American people, as well as allies and enemies worldwide, are just as much the target of the president’s rhetoric as those in the room.

The television audience for the address has been shrinking over time. President Biden’s 2021 address drew the smallest number of viewers in the modern era, at 26.9 million. The numbers in 2022 were higher, but still lower than nearly all of Trump’s addresses. Roughly three times more Americans watch the Super Bowl than the State of the Union.

Many Americans simply wait for the highlights reel and the reactions of media commentators the next morning.

Here’s the problem: Most speechwriters are happy to dodge being assigned the speech, because no objective political analyst ever raved about the address – much less acknowledged how much work went into it. This year’s speech was no exception.

Editor’s note: A group of the author’s speechwriting students contributed to this article.

By Mary Kate Cary, Adjunct Professor, Department of Politics and Senior Fellow, UVA’s Miller Center, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tonight, President Joe Biden is delivering his 2023 State of the Union speech. The SOTU address begins at 9 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, February 7. But how long will the speech last? What time is it expected to end?

Biden’s State of the Union Will Likely Last Between 60 to 90 Minutes

Although it’s not known the exact time that Biden’s address will end, most State of the Union speeches tend to last between one hour to 90 minutes. Because Biden’s SOTU speech begins at 9 p.m. Eastern, you can expect his speech to conclude between 10 and 10:30 p.m. Eastern. (In other time zones, this would be between 9 and 9:30 p.m. Central, between 8 and 8:30 p.m. Mountain time, or between 7 and 7:30 p.m. Pacific.)

Biden’s two previous speeches to a joint session of Congress can also give viewers an idea of when to expect tonight’s speech to end. In 2022, his speech was 61 minutes and 50 seconds long, KVUE reported. In 2021, his speech to a joint session of Congress started at 9:06 p.m. Eastern and ended at 10:12 p.m. Eastern, lasting approximately 66 minutes in length.

Biden’s last two speeches were longer than an hour, but less than 70 minutes long. So this year’s could likely be about the same length. If he starts his speech a few minutes after 9 p.m. Eastern, it might be ending right around 10:10 to 10:15 p.m. Eastern.

TV stations covering the speech live have allotted more time in their schedules in case the speech goes longer. According to TV Guide, CBS, ABC, and NBC all have set aside two hours to cover the State of the Union, with local programming starting immediately after. Local programs can be delayed if needed.

You can watch Biden’s speech live in the embedded video above. This is a live stream provided by CNBC.

Biden’s speeches have historically been shorter than former President Donald Trump’s. Trump’s 2020 speech was 78 minutes long and his 2019 speech was 82 minutes long. His 2018 speech was 80 minutes. Only his 2017 speech was shorter, clocking in at 60 minutes.

According to The American Presidency Project, former President Bill Clinton had the longest speeches, with a 2000 speech lasting 88 minutes and a 1995 speech lasting 84 minutes.

The Republicans Will Give a Response After Biden’s Speech

After Biden’s speech concludes tonight, the Republicans will give their response in a speech delivered by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, CBS News reported. Although there’s not a specific time that her speech will begin, it will start shortly after Biden’s speech finishes.

A Sanders representative told CBS News that she will address the need for a new generation to rise up and lead America.

The Republican response in Spanish will be delivered by Rep. Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, CBS News reported.

Biden’s speech tonight is expected to look back at his progress and successes, but also address the work that still needs to be done for the economy, CNBC reported. He’s also expected to discuss the debt ceiling and police reform, The Hill reported.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said that Republicans will be following their code of ethics during Biden’s speech, Insider reported, and they won’t be doing “childish games tearing up a speech.”

READ NEXT: Kamala Harris’ Husband, Douglas Emhoff: 5 Fast Facts

President Joe Biden is addressing a joint session of Congress tonight, February 7, for the annual State of the Union. The speech comes after Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives, which means there’s a change in who is sitting behind him tonight. So while you’re watching the SOTU tonight, you may find yourself wondering: Who’s sitting behind Biden while he’s speaking?

Vice President Kamala Harris & Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy Are Sitting Behind Biden

Tonight, Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy are sitting behind Biden for his 2023 State of the Union speech. They will be there for the entire speech while it’s aired live on TV and streamed online.

It’s a long-standing tradition for the Vice President and Speaker of the House to sit behind the President while he addresses the three branches of government. Other traditions include having cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, and diplomats sit in front of the House chamber, with the First Lady and her guests sitting in the gallery, NBC Washington reported. The press corps also has its own section during the speech, located behind and above the President.

Last year, Nancy Pelosi was seated beside Harris during Biden’s speech. Pelosi was also seated behind former President Donald Trump during his addresses. In 2019 she went viral for a sarcastic clap that she made at him during his speech. Then in 2020, she went viral again when it wasn’t clear if he ignored an attempted handshake, and she later tore Trump’s speech in half while sitting behind him.

This year, McCarthy takes the spot behind Biden after a long battle for the position of Speaker of the House. He was elected speaker after 15 rounds of voting in early January, BBC reported. Some concessions he made included agreeing to lower the requirement for voting on unseating the Speaker to just one member of the House.

McCarthy Said He Won’t Tear Biden’s Speech Tonight

In anticipation of his highly visible seat tonight, McCarthy has said that he won’t rip up Biden’s speech like Pelosi did to Trump in 2020, The Hill reported.

He shared his plans in a video on Twitter, saying: “I don’t believe in the theatrics of tearing up speeches. I respect the other side, I can disagree on policy. But I want to make sure this country is stronger, economically sound, energy independent, secure and accountable.”

He also said that all Republicans will be behaving according to their code of ethics without any “childish games,” Insider reported.

“We’re members of Congress. We have a code of ethics of how we should portray ourselves,” McCarthy said.

Melania Zanona of CNN reported on Twitter that McCarthy was concerned about how Republicans will act tonight and warned them that “mics are hot” and “cameras are on.”

McCarthy also confirmed with Manu Raju of CNN, before the State of the Union, that Rep. George Santos will be facing a House Ethics probe.

Meanwhile, the day before the speech, Harris announced that private companies have pledged nearly $1 billion to support projects in Central America that will help farmers, telecommunications industries, and create jobs, The New York Times reported.

READ NEXT: Kamala Harris’ Husband, Douglas Emhoff: 5 Fast Facts

Republicans, who regained control of the House of Representatives in November 2022, are threatening to not allow an increase in the debt limit unless they get unspecified spending cuts in return. In so doing, they risk pushing the U.S. government into default.

Brinkmanship over the debt ceiling has become a regular ritual – it happened under the Clinton administration in 1995, then again with Barack Obama as president in 2011, and more recently in 2021.

As an economist, I know that defaulting on the national debt would have real-life consequences. Even the threat of pushing the U.S. into default has an economic impact. In August 2021, the mere prospect of a potential default led to an unprecedented downgrade of the the nation’s credit rating, hurting America’s financial prestige as well as countless individuals, including retirees.

And that was caused by the mere specter of default. An actual default would be far more damaging.

Dollar’s Collapse

Possibly the most serious consequence would be the collapse of the U.S. dollar and its replacement as global trade’s “unit of account.” That essentially means that it is widely used in global finance and trade.

Day to day, most Americans are likely unaware of the economic and political power that goes with being the world’s unit of account. Currently, more than half of world trade – from oil and gold to cars and smartphones – is in U.S. dollars, with the euro accounting for around 30% and all other currencies making up the balance.

As a result of this dominance, the U.S. is the only country on the planet that can pay its foreign debt in its own currency. This gives both the U.S. government and American companies tremendous leeway in international trade and finance.

No matter how much debt the U.S. government owes foreign investors, it can simply print the money needed to pay them back – although for economic reasons, it may not be wise to do so. Other countries must buy either the dollar or the euro to pay their foreign debt. And the only way for them to do so is to either to export more than they import or borrow more dollars or euros on the international market.

The U.S. is free from such constraints and can run up large trade deficits – that is, import more than it exports – for decades without the same consequences.

For American companies, the dominance of the dollar means they’re not as subject to the exchange rate risk as are their foreign competitors. Exchange rate risk refers to how changes in the relative value of currencies may affect a company’s profitability.

Since international trade is generally denominated in dollars, U.S. businesses can buy and sell in their own currency, something their foreign competitors cannot do as easily. As simple as this sounds, it gives American companies a tremendous competitive advantage.

If Republicans push the U.S. into default, the dollar would likely lose its position as the international unit of account, forcing the government and companies to pay their international bills in another currency.

Loss of Political Power Too

Since most foreign trade is denominated in the dollar, trade must go through an American bank at some point. This is one important way dollar dominance gives the U.S. tremendous political power, especially to punish economic rivals and unfriendly governments.

For example, when former President Donald Trump imposed economic sanctions on Iran, he denied the country access to American banks and to the dollar. He also imposed secondary sanctions, which means that non-American companies trading with Iran were also sanctioned. Given a choice of access to the dollar or trading with Iran, most of the world economies chose access to the dollar and complied with the sanctions. As a result, Iran entered a deep recession, and its currency plummeted about 30%.

President Joe Biden did something similar against Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine. Limiting Russia’s access to the dollar has helped push the country into a recession that’s bordering on a depression.

No other country today could unilaterally impose this level of economic pain on another country. And all an American president currently needs is a pen.

Rivals Rewarded

Another consequence of the dollar’s collapse would be enhancing the position of the U.S.‘s top rival for global influence: China.

While the euro would likely replace the dollar as the world’s primary unit of account, the Chinese yuan would move into second place.

If the yuan were to become a significant international unit of account, this would enhance China’s international position both economically and politically. As it is, China has been working with the other BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia and India – to accept the yuan as a unit of account. With the other three already resentful of U.S. economic and political dominance, a U.S. default would support that effort.

They may not be alone: Recently, Saudi Arabia suggested it was open to trading some of its oil in currencies other than the dollar – something that would change long-standing policy.

Severe Consequences

Beyond the impact on the dollar and the economic and political clout of the U.S., a default would be profoundly felt in many other ways and by countless people.

In the U.S., tens of millions of Americans and thousands of companies that depend on government support could suffer, and the economy would most likely sink into recession – or worse, given the U.S. is already expected to soon suffer a downturn. In addition, retirees could see the worth of their pensions dwindle.

The truth is, we really don’t know what will happen or how bad it will get. The scale of the damage caused by a U.S. default is hard to calculate in advance because it has never happened before.

But there’s one thing we can be certain of. If Republicans take their threat of default too far, the U.S. and Americans will suffer tremendously.

By Michael Humphries, Deputy Chair of Business Administration, Touro University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

But New York’s 3rd Congressional District voters, who elected Santos as their representative in November 2022, cannot directly force him out of office until the next election, in November 2024.

It appears that Santos, who beat Democrat Robert Zimmerman during the 2022 midterm election, has woven a web of lies about his personal and professional background, some of them touching on on major historical and tragic events. Santos falsely claimed, for example, to have Jewish ancestry and said that his maternal grandparents fled to Brazil during the Holocaust. He also said that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks seemingly “claimed” the life of his mother – who actually died in 2016.

Santos said he graduated from Baruch College in the top 1% of his class and from NYU’s Stern School of Business – but he never attended either institution, nor did he graduate from college.

He also lied about his work experience, falsely claiming Citigroup and Goldman Sachs as former employers.

Santos has since admitted to embellishing parts of his résumé and said that he has not worked for CitiGroup or Goldman Sachs – and does not have a college degree.

Although a local weekly newspaper raised questions about his background in September, the story did not gain traction until The New York Times published its own story in December 2022. If the voters had known about these lies before the election, Santos might have lost.

As a scholar of constitutional law and public policy, I think it is important to understand that voters have limited options at this point. Forty states provide for the recall of state and local elected officials. But there is no federal recall law that could lead to the removal of someone like Santos from Congress.

There Are Few Federal Options to Remove Santos

The Nassau County Republican Committee and other local offices in Santos’ Long Island district are calling for him to step down. Several Republican House members have joined the chorus.

Santos, meanwhile, has said that he will not resign.

“I was elected by 142,000 people. Until those same 142,000 people tell me they don’t want me, we’ll find out in two years,” Santos recently said.

He may be right.

The Constitution says that members of Congress can be impeached and removed for treason, bribery or other offenses. The Constitution does not specify grounds for expulsion – or actually removing someone from office – leaving that to each chamber of Congress to determine.

The Constitution also says nothing about recall elections.

The Supreme Court has also never specifically addressed the legality of a federal recall, but two other rulings suggest that such a law would be unconstitutional. The court first determined in 1969 that Congress may not refuse to seat a duly elected member who meets the constitutional qualifications for office. And it also ruled in 1995 that states may not impose term limits on members of Congress, because that would add an additional qualification for membership beyond the citizenship, age and residency requirements mentioned in the Constitution.

Even if a federal law authorizing the recall of members of Congress were adopted and survived a legal challenge, the legislative and legal processes would consume virtually all of Santos’ two-year term. So recalling Santos is not a promising option, even if it were legal.

Critics might also try to get the House to expel Santos. But expulsion is exceedingly rare. The House has expelled only five members in its entire history, most for joining the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Ethics Concerns Are at Play, Though

Santos would not be committing any crime simply by telling lies. Maybe he did other things that violated the law – state, federal and Brazilian authorities are currently investigating whether he used campaign funds for personal expenses, and whether he committed fraud in Brazil by using someone else’s checkbook to pay his bills.

But Santos will not automatically lose his office even if he is convicted of any crime. The House does not require members to forfeit their office in those circumstances – or even if they go to prison.

Santos’ case, however, does raise ethics concerns that members of Congress can address. Two House Democrats from New York have filed ethics complaints against Santos with the House Ethics Committee regarding incomplete financial disclosure forms.

This bipartisan committee investigates alleged law violations by Congress members and makes recommendations to the full House. Ethics Committee recommendations are not legally binding. The House itself must consider them, though. In any event, this process probably would extend far into or beyond Santos’ term.

Santos might also resign if the Ethics Committee recommended his expulsion. That has happened on several occasions. In 1986, Sen. Harrison Williams resigned when facing an Ethics Committee’s recommendations that he be expelled because of corruption. In 1995, Sen. Robert Packwood left his post for the same reason.

Rep. Mario Biaggi of New York also stepped down before an expulsion vote in 1988.

No Clear Exit Ahead

In short, Santos would be able to serve most or all of his term even if the House did ultimately vote to expel him. But there are additional complications. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to expel a member of Congress. Such a supermajority is unlikely, especially in a House with a narrow majority in which every vote counts and when Republicans might be hard-pressed to win a special election to fill Santos’ vacancy.

Voters who are appalled by George Santos’ apparent lies have little direct leverage to force him out of office quickly. Their first and best opportunity will come in 2024 if Santos decides to seek another term. Voters could defeat him in the Republican primary, where he surely would face opposition. And if he somehow survived the primary, he would still have to face a Democrat in the general election.

By Jonathan Entin, Professor Emeritus of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Treasury Department on January 13, 2023, said it expects the U.S. to hit the current debt limit of US$31.38 trillion on January 19. After that, the government will take “extraordinary measures” – which could extend the deadline until May or June – to avoid default.

But it’s not clear whether Republicans in the House will agree to lifting the debt ceiling without strings attached – strings that President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats have vowed to reject. Right-wing Republicans demanded that, in exchange for voting for Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House, he would seek steep government spending cuts as a condition of raising the borrowing limit.

Economist Steve Pressman explains what the debt ceiling is and why we have it – and why it’s time to abolish it.

1. What Is the Debt Ceiling?

Like the rest of us, governments must borrow when they spend more money than they receive. They do so by issuing bonds, which are IOUs that promise to repay the money in the future and make regular interest payments. Government debt is the total sum of all this borrowed money.

The debt ceiling, which Congress established a century ago, is the maximum amount the government can borrow. It’s a limit on the national debt.

2. What’s the National Debt?

On January 10, 2023, U.S. government debt was $30.92 trillion, about 22% more than the value of all goods and services that will be produced in the U.S. economy this year.

Around one-quarter of this money the government actually owes itself. The Social Security Administration has accumulated a surplus and invests the extra money, currently $2.8 trillion, in government bonds. And the Federal Reserve holds $5.5 trillion in U.S. Treasurys.

The rest is public debt. As of October 2022, foreign countries, companies and individuals owned $7.2 trillion of U.S. government debt. Japan and China are the largest holders, with around $1 trillion each. The rest is owed to U.S. citizens and businesses, as well as state and local governments.

3. Why Is There a Borrowing Limit?

Before 1917, Congress would authorize the government to borrow a fixed sum of money for a specified term. When loans were repaid, the government could not borrow again without asking Congress for approval.

The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which created the debt ceiling, changed this. It allowed a continual rollover of debt without congressional approval.

Congress enacted this measure to let then-President Woodrow Wilson spend the money he deemed necessary to fight World War I without waiting for often-absent lawmakers to act. Congress, however, did not want to write the president a blank check, so it limited borrowing to $11.5 billion and required legislation for any increase.

The debt ceiling has been increased dozens of times since then and suspended on several occasions. The last change occurred in December 2021, when it was raised to $31.38 trillion.

4. What Happens When the US Hits the Ceiling?

Currently, the U.S. Treasury has under $400 billion cash on hand, and the U.S. government expects to borrow around $100 billion each month this year.

When the U.S. nears its debt limit, the Treasury secretary – currently Janet Yellen – can use “extraordinary measures” to conserve cash, which she indicated would begin on Jan. 19. One such measure is temporarily not funding retirement programs for government employees. The expectation will be that once the ceiling is raised, the government would make up the difference. But this will buy only a small amount of time.

If the debt ceiling isn’t raised before the Treasury Department exhausts its options, decisions will have to be made about who gets paid with daily tax revenues. Further borrowing will not be possible. Government employees or contractors may not be paid in full. Loans to small businesses or college students may stop.

When the government can’t pay all its bills, it is technically in default. Policymakers, economists and Wall Street are concerned about a calamitous financial and economic crisis. Many fear that a government default would have dire economic consequences – soaring interest rates, financial markets in panic and maybe an economic depression.

Under normal circumstances, once markets start panicking, Congress and the president usually act. This is what happened in 2013 when Republicans sought to use the debt ceiling to defund the Affordable Care Act.

But we no longer live in normal political times. The major political parties are more polarized than ever, and the concessions McCarthy gave right-wing Republicans may make it impossible to get a deal on the debt ceiling.

5. Is There a Better Way?

One possible solution is a legal loophole allowing the U.S. Treasury to mint platinum coins of any denomination. If the U.S. Treasury were to mint a $1 trillion coin and deposit it into its bank account at the Federal Reserve, the money could be used to pay for government programs or repay government bondholders. This could even be justified by appealing to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.”

Few countries even have a debt ceiling. Other governments operate effectively without it. America could too. A debt ceiling is dysfunctional and periodically puts the U.S. economy in jeopardy because of political grandstanding.

The best solution would be to scrap the debt ceiling altogether. Congress already approved the spending and the tax laws that require more debt. Why should it also have to approve the additional borrowing?

It should be remembered that the original debt ceiling was put in place because Congress couldn’t meet quickly and approve needed spending to fight a war. In 1917 cross-country travel was by rail, requiring days to get to Washington. This made some sense then. Today, when Congress can vote online from home, this is no longer the case.

This is an updated version of an article first published on July 18, 2019.

By Steven Pressman, Part-Time Professor of Economics, The New School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In images similar to those from the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, demonstrators were seen overwhelming and beating police while breaching the security perimeter of the buildings.

It comes weeks after Bolsonaro was ousted in an election that saw the return of leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The Conversation asked Rafael Ioris, an expert on Brazilian politics at the University of Denver, to explain the significance of the attack and what could happen next.

1. Who Was Behind the Storming of the Brazilian Congress?

Sergio Lima/AFP via GettySupporters of Brazilian former President Jair Bolsonaro invade the National Congress in Brasilia on January 8, 2023.

What we saw was thousands of hardcore supporters of Bolsonaro – those who share his extreme right-wing agenda – attempting to take matters into their own hands after the recent election.

Even though Bolsonaro wasn’t there in the capital while the attack took place – he was in Florida – I believe he is ultimately responsible for what occurred. While he was in power he encouraged distrust in political institutions, advocating the closure of Congress and attacking the Supreme Court – two of the institutions targeted by demonstrators.

Others were also behind what happened. Protests have been taking place for weeks, and there are big funders of the demonstrations, such as large landowners and business groups who helped pay for the busing in of thousands of Bolsonaro supporters to the capital, Brasilia.

And then there is the role of the military. Leading military figures have been supportive of Bolsonaro’s extreme right agenda for a long time and even recently have displayed outright support for several pro-coup demonstrations unfolding in different parts of the country in the lead-up to the attack.

The lack of security preventing the storming of key institutions in the capital also leads me to ask: Were they negligent, or were they complicit?

2. Can You Expand on the Role of the Military?

Ton Molina/AFP via GettySupporters of Brazilian former President Jair Bolsonaro destroy a window of the the plenary of the Supreme Court in Brasilia on January 8, 2023.

Street security is not a responsibility of the armed forces, but the military’s continued support for Bolsanaro’s agenda has helped provide legitimacy for the holding of such views among members of the state-run military police. And it was the military police who were tasked with keeping the demonstrations in check in Brasilia.

The pro-Bolsonaro demonstrators are demanding a military intervention to overturn what they claim – with no evidence – to be a fraudulent election that saw Lula come to power.

Their hope is that senior members of the military – many of whom have expressed support for Bolsonaro and sympathy for the protest camps that have been set up near army bases – would support the push to oust Lula.

Brazil has a long history of the armed forces not accepting civilian rule. The last military coup was in 1964. Of course, circumstances are different now from then – when in the heat of the Cold War, the coup was supported by outside governments, including the U.S.

Bolsonaro cultivated close ties to the Brazilian military by moving key military people into positions in government. Right-wing generals friendly with Bolsonaro became ministers of defense, chief of state and even the minister of health at the height of the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, it is estimated about 6,000 active military personnel were given jobs in nonmilitary positions in government in the last eight years.

Some generals in both the Navy and the Air Force especially have been supporting the protests. Since the election, you have had generals proclaim that demonstrations demanding military intervention were legitimate.

I think it is fair to say that segments of Brazil’s military were encouraging what happened.

But when it came down to it, the armed forces were quiet. The military may have nurtured the protest, but when it came to the idea of a traditional coup – tanks on the streets stuff – that just didn’t happen.

3. So Would You Characterize This as an Attempted Coup?

Sergio Lima/AFP via GettySupporters of Brazilian former President Jair Bolsonaro break a window as they invade Planalto Presidential Palace in Brasilia on January 8, 2023.

That is a central question. As events unfurled on January 8, it looked more like a protest that got violent and out of hand – the level of destruction inside some of the buildings attests to that.

But it was weeks in the making and well financed, in that hundreds of buses were paid for to get Bolsonaro supporters to the capital. And the expressed aim of many protesters was military intervention. So in that sense, I would say it more akin to an attempted coup.

4. What Does the Attack Tell Us About Democracy in Brazil?

Sergio Lima/AFP via GettySupporters of Brazilian former President Jair Bolsonaro invade Planalto Presidential Palace while clashing with security forces in Brasilia on January 8, 2023.

Brazil has been at a crossroads. The Bolsonaro presidency saw the country backslide on democracy, as trust in institutions eroded under attack from the president himself and through corruptions scandals. And close to half of the country voted for him despite his record of undermining democracy. But the election of Lula seems to indicate that even more want to rebuild democratic institutions in the country after four years of attack from Bolsonaro.

So this could be a turning point. The media in Brazil has come out strongly in denouncing the actions of demonstrators. In the coming days and weeks, there will be investigations into what happened, and hopefully some degree of accountability. What will be key is Lula’s ability to address the anti-democractic elements of the military.

5. Are Comparisons to the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol Valid?

Sergio Lima/AFP via GettyA supporter of Brazilian former President Jair Bolsonaro throws stones at security forces during clashes outside Planalto Presidential Palace in Brasilia on January 8, 2023.

Trumpism and Bolsonarismo share a narrative of stolen elections, with supporters drawn from the right who support issues such as gun rights and traditional family structures.

An important difference is the role of the military. Although former military personnel were at the Jan. 6 attack in D.C., top U.S. military figures condemned it. Nor was the aim in the U.S. to see military intervention, unlike the Jan. 8, 2023, attack in Brasilia.

But there are clear parallels – in both we saw extreme right-wing, powerful groups and individuals refusing to accept the direction of a country and trying to storm institutions of power.

Now I’m wondering if there will also be parallels in what happens after the attack.

In the U.S., authorities have done a good job punishing a lot of people involved. I’m not sure we will see the same in Brazil, as they might need to confront powerful groups within the military and police forces around the country. So, democratic actors within and outside of the county will be essential in supporting the task of defending democracy in Brazil.

By Rafael R. Ioris, Professor of Modern Latin America History, University of Denver

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Erika Lees Donalds is an education entrepreneur, former school board member, wife of Florida Congressman Byron Donalds and the mother of their three children. Erika Donalds’ husband has been put forward as a nominee for Speaker of the House of Representatives by a group of holdout Republicans who oppose California Representative Kevin McCarthy’s candidacy to lead the GOP’s majority in the House.

While her husband currently sits in elected office, Erika Donalds has also had a long history of being involved in politics and Republican movements in Florida and across the country. She has been a frequent guest on Fox News and Fox Business and other conservative TV shows and radio talk shows, according to her social media profiles. Byron Donalds, of Naples, served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2016 to 2020 before being elected to represent Florida’s 19th Congressional District in 2020. He was re-elected to a second term in 2020.

Erika Donalds, 42, is an accountant who founded OptimaEd, an education company that runs several charter schools in Florida as The Optima Foundation. She served on the Collier County Board of Education from 2014 to 2018, according to her LinkedIn profile. She described herself in her Instagram bio as a, “Christ follower | Byron’s wife | #BoyMom | Liberty Lover | CEO | Maximizer | Fighter for #EducationFreedom | Happiest on the beach 🏖.”

Here’s what you need to know about Erika Donalds, Byron Donalds’ wife:

1. Erika Lees Donalds, Who Grew Up in Tampa, Has Been Married to Byron Donalds Since 2003; She & Her Husband Both Attended Florida State University

Erika Lees Donalds is originally from Tampa, Florida, and attended Chamberlain Senior High School there, according to her Facebook page. She then graduated from Florida State University with a degree in accounting in 2002 and earned her master’s degree, also in accounting, from Florida Atlantic University in 2006, according to her Facebook page.

Erika Donalds’ husband, Byron Donalds, also attended Florida State and graduated in 2002. The couple has been married since March 15, 2003, according to Erika’s Facebook page. In March 2022, Erika Donalds wrote on Facebook, “Celebrating 19 years with the love of my life! My hero, my soulmate, and the best decision I’ve ever made. I choose you again and again, a thousand times over.”

Byron Donalds also shared a photo from their wedding in March 2022 on their anniversary, and wrote on Facebook, “Can’t let the day end without wishing my wife, Erika, a happy anniversary! I’m blessed to have you as my life partner, mother of our three boys, and my devoted wife.”

2. Erika & Byron Donalds Have 3 Sons: Damon, Darin & Mason

Erika and Byron Donalds have three sons: Damon, Darin and Mason, according to Byron’s biography on the House website. In June 2022, Erika Donalds posted a photo of their family on Father’s Day on Instagram and wrote, “Happy Fathers Day, @byrondonalds! I’ve always said that God gave us boys so the world could have more men like you. We love you and we celebrate the beautiful legacy you are leaving for generations to come.”

Their son, Damon Donalds, plays college football for the Holy Cross Crusaders in Massachusetts, according to the school’s website. Damon Donalds, a graduate of the Community School of Naples, is a sophomore defensive lineman for the Crusaders.

In December 2021, she posted a photo of her sons on Instagram and wrote, “Reunited and it feels so good! @damon.d59 is finally home for the holidays and all is right with the world for this happy momma 🥰”

3. Erika Donalds Became a Face of the School Choice Movement in Florida After She Says Her Son Had a ‘Negative Experience’ in a Public School, Leading to Her Run for the Local School Board

According to FloridaPolitics.com, Erika Donalds, “serves as the face of school choice in Florida.” She told the newspaper she became interested in school choice when her middle son had a negative experience in public schools. She and her husband tried to get her son into a charter school but faced a long waiting list, according to the article.

Erika Donalds then became a school choice activist and ran for the Collier County School Board, winning a seat as a Republican in 2014. She told FloridaPolitics.com she decided not to run for re-election in 2018 because she wanted to spend more time with her family.

According to the OptimaEd website, “Erika is a former elected member of the Collier County School Board. She served on Florida’s 2017-2018 Constitution Revision Commission as well as Governor DeSantis’ Advisory Committee on Education and Workforce Development. Erika now serves on the Florida Gulf Coast University Board of Trustees, and on advisory boards for Classical Learning Test, Moms for Liberty, and the Independent Women’s Forum Education Freedom Center.”

4. Erika Donalds Founded OptimaEd in November 2017 After a Career in Finance

youtube.com/watch?v=I52Q_YWA1f4

Erika Donalds worked in finance before becoming involved in education. “Prior to launching Optima, Erika was Chief Financial Officer/Chief Compliance Officer and Partner at DGHM, an investment management firm. She served with the company for almost 20 years and was responsible for the finance, compliance, and operations, in addition to serving on the firm’s Management Committee. In 2014, Erika was named one of Gulfshore Business magazine’s 40-Under-40,” the OptimaEd website states.

She founded OptimaEd in 2017. On the OptimaEd website, Erika Donalds wrote, “As a mother of three, I understand it’s critical to give parents the power to select the optimal academic environment for every child. OptimaEd focuses on creating excellent education experiences and increasing high quality options for students and their families. Our organization is founded on core principles – including integrity, professionalism, and service.

She added, “We seek to be a valuable resource for the education community as a forward-thinking force for the innovation and refinement of our tools. Optima uses time-tested methods to prepare students to think critically and to equip them to confront the inevitable challenges all generations must face. Most importantly, we are committed to bringing knowledge and virtue to every student we serve. I hope you will join us!”

5. Erika Donalds Spoke Out Over the Rules for Unvaccinated Attenders, Like Herself, of a Reception for Congressional Spouses Hosted by First Lady Jill Biden at the White House in March 2022

Erika Donalds gained attention in March 2022 when she posted about the rules for a White House reception for Congressional spouses hosted by First Lady Jill Biden. Erika Donalds tweeted, “First Lady Jill Biden was kind enough to invite me & the other Congressional spouses to a reception at the White House. I just have to take a COVID test, & as an unvaccinated person (with natural immunity) I won’t be allowed to eat, drink, or talk to anyone. Should be a blast! 🥂”

She appeared on Fox News with Tucker Carlson to talk about the event, according to her Facebook page. She wrote on Facebook, “Thanks First Lady Jill Biden, but a reception where I’m asked to refrain from eating and drinking and stay in a 6 foot bubble does not sound like a good time. The White House needs to drop these ridiculous mandates and just let people be free.”

Erika Donalds told Carlson, “It wasn’t very inviting to say the least. … They sent out a save the date for this reception and I responded, I RSVP’d yes. And I’m one of the few conservative wives that will actually will accept an invitation from the White House. … I didn’t receive the COVID protocols until after I had already made my travel plans to go to the reception in Washington D.C.

She added, “As you know, I was in Naples, Florida, in the free state of Florida in paradise, but when I saw those COVID protocols I definitely had to take a second thought of whether I want to attend and exert my freedom to live as a free person and exercise my rights to eat and drink at a reception like everyone else, despite not being vaccinated.”

In multiple ballots conducted on January 3, 2023 to elect the speaker of the House, McCarthy failed to get the required number of votes. Additional balloting is expected in the race for speaker.

Slim margins might make for dramatic television, but they create legislative and institutional uncertainty that has very real consequences for how Congress is run and how policy gets made.

Because the GOP’s 10-seat House majority is so small, McCarthy has had to placate the moderate wing, the right wing and the far-right wing of his conference – all at the same time – in his quest for the speaker’s gavel.

The GOP’s slim majority may actually get slimmer. This is because of seat vacancies caused by the early departures of members of Congress. These vacancies happen with regularity, and could have major impacts on the Republicans’ legislative agenda over the next two years.

A slim majority means that the Republican leadership can’t afford to lose support from even small groups of members within their party. But each congressional session, some members depart Congress early, leaving vacancies that can complicate party leaders’ efforts to placate their competing factions or blocs. Imagine, for example, that a moderate Republican member dies or resigns in the next few months. Will that person be replaced with another moderate? A Trump-aligned Republican? A Democrat?

With such a small advantage, the potential effect of this replacement is huge – not just for McCarthy, but for Congress as a whole, and the American people, whose lives are affected by legislation passed by Congress.

How Do Vacancies Occur?

The 117th Congress, which met from Jan. 3, 2021, to Jan. 3, 2023, set a modern record with 15 vacancies, a rate unmatched going back to the 1950s. This was partly because of six member deaths, including Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, the longest-serving House member at the time. A number of these vacancies occurred in the first days of the 117th, when several Democratic House members, including Cedric Richmond of Louisiana and Marcia Fudge of Ohio, took positions in the new Biden administration.

High-profile vacancies in recent history were due to other causes. Some members were forced to resign because of scandal, like Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., who was convicted in 2022 for lying to the FBI about illegal campaign contributions. Others cut short their current term, leaving Congress after losing their primaries, as Rep. Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, did in 2014. House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, resigned after facing threats of being ousted from leadership in 2015.

And although the 117th was a banner Congress for vacancies, the historical data demonstrates that they happen all the time. Based on my analysis, there are usually at least a handful of vacancies per two-year congressional cycle.

Resignation is the most common reason for departure in recent Congresses. However, at least one member – and often more than one – has died in all but one Congress in the past 70 years. The number of deaths that regularly occur among members is more than sufficient to change how the majority party functions in a closely contested Congress like this one.

This potentially leaves party leaders captive to some particular interest, either in their party or in the opposition party.

How Are Vacancies Filled?

Although U.S. Senate vacancies are often – though not always – filled through an appointment by the governor of that state, the Constitution mandates that House vacancies be filled by special elections scheduled by the governor.

These elections usually happen within a few months of the vacancy. What this means is that there are real possibilities for the size of a party’s majority to shrink, or grow, between election years. And even if a majority party shift doesn’t happen, a district could still replace a moderate departing representative with an extremist, or vice versa.

Special elections have received significant focus from the media and the public in recent years. That’s mainly because their results, when compared with the most recent result for that seat, can be bellwethers for how the next set of congressional elections will turn out.

For example, a number of special elections throughout 2022 — including the Alaska race to replace Young — showed even or Democratic-leaning results compared with 2020, giving early indications that the “red wave” many experts predicted would not actually materialize.

What Does This Mean for the 118th Congress?

A vacating member, and the special election that decides a successor, is not just an electoral crystal ball. It can have major implications for the balance of power in Congress; any GOP leader will have to manage these implications.

On the right, there is the 44-member House Freedom Caucus and, more specifically, the “MAGA Squad” – think Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz and Andy Biggs. To the left, there’s a swath of more moderate Republicans from such states as New York and Ohio with no intention of letting far-right firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene control the agenda.

These are two factions of Republicans who want vastly different action in the 118th Congress. The moderate bloc understands that, with a Democratic Senate and Joe Biden as president, compromise with Democrats may be necessary for legislative achievement.

Meanwhile, the far-right bloc has made other priorities clear, such as relentlessly investigating Biden, his administration and his family. Managing these competing demands will be hard enough for the new House speaker and unexpected vacancies could make the task even harder.

Beyond the tensions among Republicans, Democrats will be ready to pounce on any opportunity to divide and conquer. The recent revelations surrounding incoming Rep. George Santos, a Republican from New York, who allegedly fabricated huge portions of his résumé and personal story during his campaign, represent one such potential opportunity. If Santos is forced to resign, a Democratic victory in a special election in his Long Island swing district could cut the GOP’s majority from 10 to eight.

Even if special elections don’t change a party’s control over certain seats, vacancies can and will throw the 118th House of Representatives into chaos by shifting the balance of power from one ideological bloc to another. More chaos, that is, than it is already enduring.

By Charles R. Hunt, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The House committee recommended that the Justice Department pursue four main charges against Trump – obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement and inciting or assisting an insurrection. The committee also recommended that the House Ethics Committee sanction four Republican members of Congress who refused the committee’s subpoena requests to provide information about the events of Jan. 6.

But what does that all mean? The Conversation asked Margaret Russell, professor of constitutional law at Santa Clara University, to help explain why these recommended charges are important, where they fall short – and what could come next.

1. What Are the Biggest Takeaways From These Referrals?

People have wondered whether the proceedings would have any strong result. Now it is clear that the committee does not see these proceedings as primarily about making a historical record. They have done more than that.

One big takeaway is that Trump is at the top of the pile. When the proceedings began it was not clear – though many people suspected and alleged – how much he knew, when he knew it, what he said before Jan. 6, what he knew and said before the election’s certification, and whether he knew he really had not won the election. It is now clear Trump was the architect of most of this conspiracy – and the committee is urging specific accountability for him and other people who played a part in it.

It is also interesting to think about the committee urging criminal prosecution. It really means it reached the brink. This bipartisan committee, which comprised seven Democrats and two Republicans, decided unanimously that backing away from criminal charges would be a dereliction of its duty to recommend, based on what it has found. Committee members are not telling the Department of Justice what it has to do – they can’t. But in their investigatory role they concluded that in order for there to be accountability, they needed to recommend charges.

2. Do These Referrals Have Any Legal Teeth?

The magnitude of these recommended charges, particularly the insurrection one, is unprecedented. Rather than saying they don’t have legal teeth, I think they certainly have very strong teeth in the sense of urging the Department of Justice to make sure that there is accountability. Accountability is a word that jumped out to me in committee members’ statements on Dec. 19 – there must be accountability, even though this committee, of course, cannot force the Department of Justice to do anything.

The charges, of trying to overthrow the government, essentially, go right to the heart of the Constitution. There is no historical precedent for this. The Justice Department’s determination to pursue the referrals would depend on the validity of the House commitee’s findings. And since the department has been doing its own investigation of Trump, it wouldn’t be starting from ground zero. The committee’s work could be added to what it has.

3. Will the New GOP Congress Have Any Say in These Referrals?

Now that the report has been handed over and the referrals made, I would imagine the Department of Justice will start considering it. And, so, when there is a difference in leadership of the House there won’t be any way to undo it. The House can conduct its own investigations, but it cannot stop the Department of Justice and it cannot undo this report and its recommendations. Attorney General Merrick Garland has clearly sent a message that the department he runs is not influenced by outside factors. And he has tried to insulate any prosecutions from accusations of political influence by appointing a special counsel to oversee the Trump investigations.

4. Were Lawmakers Who Ignored the Subpoenas Legally Required to Obey the Committee’s Request for Testimony?

I think the answer is yes. The Constitution (Article I, Section 5) states that each chamber makes its own rules that bind its members. The Supreme Court has underscored this constitutional power as well as the legal legitimacy of the congressional subpoena. The consequences of ignoring a congressional subpoena might ultimately wind up within the purview of the Ethics Committee, but there are consequences.

5. Does the House Committee’s Report Increase the Likelihood That Trump Will Be Charged?

I think it makes a strong argument in the public sphere for the prosecution of Trump, which is what a lot of people have been waiting for. It doesn’t guarantee a prosecution, but it spells out, I think meticulously, why Trump is included in this and at the forefront.

The House committee’s message of accountability – that if the nation is to consider itself to be a democracy that works there must be accountability for Trump and others – was made very powerfully. As committee member Adam Schiff said on Dec. 19, “I think the day we start giving passes to presidents or former presidents or people of power or influence is the day we can say that this was the beginning of the end of our democracy.”

By Margaret M. Russell, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Officially called Title 42 of the U.S. Code, the little-known law was established initially in 1944 to prevent the spread of influenza and allow authorities to bar entry to foreigners deemed to be at risk of spreading the disease.

In March 2020, on the recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, then-President Donald Trump invoked the law to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But Trump and his advisers had another goal as well – closing the U.S.-Mexico border and restricting the number of new immigrants.

Indeed, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled in November 2022 that the Trump administration’s implementation of Title 42 was “arbitrary and capricious,” blamed the CDC for failing to come up with reasonable alternatives and reluctantly extended the November expiration date to Dec. 21 to allow the Biden administration to prepare for the increase in cases filed by asylum-seekers.

As an immigration researcher and expert on international borders, I have followed border crossing trends and the effects of Title 42.

In my view, the end of Title 42 will not weaken border security. Nor will it mean that the U.S. has “open borders” or that we will have a crisis in border states, as many conservative politicians and commentators claim.

More Than a Million Migrants Expelled

While the Trump administration was reluctant to impose federal lockdowns or mask mandates at the start of the pandemic, it was aggressive in its use of Title 42 to close the border to people fleeing from persecution who have the legal right to make their asylum claims.

As written, Title 42 of the U.S. Code allows for the “suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases.”

In practice, the law enabled U.S. law enforcement officers to immediately deny entry to asylum-seekers and other migrants.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, around 51% of the people encountered at the border were immediately expelled or put into deportation proceedings as a result of Title 42.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that over 1 million people were denied entry under Title 42 alone in each of the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years.

In October 2022 alone there were more than 204,000 encounters along the U.S. southern border and over 78,400 expulsions under Title 42, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

After being sent back, asylum-seekers and migrants often try to enter more than once and are counted separately each time by the authorities. This inflates the counts of encounters at the border significantly.

The Number of Border Encounters May Decline Without Title 42

In the short term, I would expect to see that the end of Title 42 will mean an increase in the number of asylum applications being processed, and the federal government has said it is prepared for a surge.

In fact, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has said repeatedly that he has a six-point plan in place to cope with the expected immediate surge in numbers when Title 42 is lifted.

In my view, after some months, the lifting of Title 42 will actually result in a decrease in the official number of border “encounters,” because fewer people will be counted multiple times and the traffic jam created by the border closure to asylum-seekers will eventually ease.

Both Republicans and a few Democrats want to keep Title 42 in place, at least temporarily, to stem the flow of migrants across the U.S. border.

For example, Sens. John Cornyn, Republican from Texas, and Joe Manchin, Democrat from West Virginia, and Texas Reps. Tony Gonzales, a Republican, and Henry Cuéllar, a Democrat – among others – have appealed to President Joe Biden to extend Title 42.

What these lawmakers do not say is that Title 42 was originally designed to prevent the spread of a highly contagious disease – not to deny people their legal right to make a claim for asylum in the U.S.

By Ernesto Castañeda, Associate Professor of Sociology, American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The tournament featured a highly competitive group stage, increased global representation in the knockout rounds, dramatic upsets and outstanding individual performances — highlighted by Argentina’s great Lionel Messi and emerging superstar Kylian Mbappé of France.

From the moment FIFA announced Qatar as the 2022 World Cup host in 2010, non-sporting controversy has plagued the event. In addition to bribery charges against FIFA officials, questions were raised about the suitability of a small nation with limited football history or infrastructure hosting the World Cup.

Complicating the choice of Qatar further was the desert nation’s hot summers which made scheduling the event in its normal June-July timeframe impractical — necessitating the move to November-December, which European football associations viewed as disrupting their regular schedules.

Politics & Sport

Beyond the logistical issues, the 2022 World Cup will also be remembered as one of the most politically scrutinized sporting events in recent times. A sampling of global politics intersecting with the World Cup include:

• FIFA threatened to give yellow cards to team captains who wear One Love armbands in support of LGBTQ+ rights.

• German players covered their mouths during the pre-game photo to protest the Qatari government’s human rights violations.

• Some Morocco fans rioted in Belgium after the North African nation defeated the Belgians.

• Serbian players displayed a map of their home nation in their locker room that included Kosovo with the words “No Surrender.” Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in 2008.

• Iranian state officials called for the U.S. to be kicked out of the tournament after the U.S. Soccer Federation displayed an image of the Iranian flag on social media without the Islamic Republic emblem.

• There were tensions between pro-government and protest-supporting Iranian fans.

• Fans refused to be interviewed by Israeli media outlets.

• The Palestinian flag was waved by teams and fans.

• Tensions escalated on the field and in the stands during Serbia’s match with Switzerland who featured players of Albanian descent.

Human Rights Criticisms

Human rights groups criticized Qatar’s laws banning homosexuality and its poor treatment of migrant workers. Millions of migrant workers live in Qatar, with an estimated one million employed in the construction industry.

According to a report by The Guardian, 6,500 of these migrant workers — mostly from South Asia — died in Qatar in the years since FIFA’s decision to award the country the World Cup.

Qatari authorities have challenged The Guardian’s report, claiming the number of migrant worker deaths were in line with expected mortality rates. And officials also highlight the legacy that the World Cup will provide Qatar, including modernized infrastructure for a diversified economy and social progress, including labour reforms, to better protect vulnerable migrant workers.

During the event’s opening ceremony, American actor Morgan Freeman appeared on the field with Ghanim al-Muftah — a young Qatari social media celebrity born with a lower spine impairment — to emphasize the world as “one big tribe.” Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani welcomed the world to his nation, and asked for people to “put aside what divides them” and engage in “human and civilized communications.”

The gentle tone of Qatar’s leader contrasted with FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s angry hour long speech the previous day calling out the West’s hypocrisy and demanding Europe apologize for the next 3,000 years for its human rights abuses.

Throughout the tournament, our project has been highlighting this intersection of global politics and the World Cup. Every match tells a story about international affairs — sometimes directly through football, other times tangentially. But the reality is sport always happens in times and places and the political dimension cannot be ignored or set aside despite pleas from gatekeepers such as FIFA who want to better the world while appearing to stay on the political sidelines.

Diverging Opinions

As the tournament concludes, assessments will begin: was it a success beyond the sport? The answer is — it’s complicated. Defenders of Qatar as host will likely point to the nation’s lasting infrastructure enhancements and employment of cutting-edge sustainability practices; the significance of bringing the World Cup to the Middle East and building cultural bridges through a peaceful sporting event; and the opportunity for Qatar to showcase its modern identity.

Detractors will point to the treatment of migrant workers, the estimated US$200 billion price tag and the sportswashing of Qatar’s image.

To capture these divergent ways of looking at the intersection of sport and politics, Tim Elcombe created the REI/BCI continuum. One can view Qatar’s hosting of the World Cup from a positive perspective: an opportunity for Qatar to develop meaningful resources (R), to engage the world in productive dialogue (E) and to show the world Qatar’s identity (I).

At the same time, a negative view of the 2022 World Cup host would emphasize the waste of resources (and loss of life) to put on a four-week “show” (Bread and Circus) for the purpose of washing its image through sport (BCI).

Regardless of which view holds sway, the 2022 FIFA World Cup reminds us that sport is complex and tense — both on and off the field.

Tim Elcombe, Associate professor, Kinesiology & Physical Education; Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University; Alanna Harman, Assistant Professor, Kinesiology and Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier University, and Alun Hardman, Senior Lecturer and Associate Dean, International, Cardiff Metropolitan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The group is accused of trying to instate Heinrich XIII – a descendant of German royalty – as their leader. Among those arrested were members of the Reichsbürger (which translates as citizens of the Reich), a disparate movement of groups and individuals, including some with extreme-right views.

Here’s what you need to know about the Reichsbürger movement:

1. A Former Member of the German Parliament, Who Was Also a Judge, & Former Soldiers Have Been Accused of Being Members of the Movement

Reichsbürger adherents have been stopped from attempting violent action before, but this latest incident and its alleged members have caused greater concern.

A former member of the German parliament, who was also a judge until shortly after her arrest, was among the group. Birgit Malsack-Winkemann was a parliamentary deputy for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), but left the party in 2021.

Several former soldiers were also arrested in connection with the coup plot. This is a cause for great concern for law enforcement, as such ties give possibly dangerous extremists access to weapons and trained individuals.

Earlier in 2022, Heinrich XIII was reported in the German press as being close to the Reichsbürger scene and a believer of conspiracy theories, prompting his family, the House of Reuss, to publicly distance themselves from him.

He does not, however, have a high profile, apart from a 2019 speech at the WorldWebForum conference in Switzerland, which contained an antisemitic and historical revisionist message. The involvement of an aristocrat speaks to the monarchist motivations of some Reichsbürger, who wish to reinstate a Kaiser as head of state.

2. What do the Reichsbürger Believe?

The Reichsbürger do not have a centralised structure but are estimated to have at least 21,000 supporters. Their key belief is that the current German state (the Bundesrepublik or Federal Republic), its institutions and democratically elected representatives are not legitimate.

Supporters of the movement refuse to adhere to state authority, such as by paying taxes. They became notorious in the early years of the pandemic for refusing to comply with COVID-19 restrictions.

Some adherents to the movement consider that official German passports and ID cards are illegitimate. While some prefer to use an official certificate of citizenship (called a gelber Schein or yellow certificate), others manufacture their own illegal passports and driver’s licenses. These will often include former German states as places of birth, such as the kingdoms of Bavaria or Prussia. In 2021, a German civil servant was removed from office after he applied for a passport with the Kingdom of Bavaria listed as his birth state.

3. Members Believe the Current German State Should Have Sovereignty

Members of the group generally believe that some previous version of the German state is in fact the legitimate form – though there is some inconsistency as to which.

Some supporters believe Germany’s true form existed between 1871 and 1918, when the German Reich was established following unification and before the first world war. Others cite the constitution of the interwar Weimar Republic as that of the true Germany. And others still focus on 1937 to demonstrate what they perceive as the legitimate boundaries of German territory, which then included the former Kingdom of Prussia, now Poland and Russia, but not Austria, which was annexed in 1938.

A uniting belief among the Reichsbürger is that the current German state lacks sovereignty. They think the western allies (France, the UK and US) supposedly retained control after their occupation of West Germany ended in 1955. Therefore, some believe that the current German state is a puppet regime which does not support the interests of the German people.

They sometimes refer to it as Deutschland GmbH (Limited), implying it has no power over itself and exists only to enrich its controllers. The name BRD GmbH is also used, referring to the abbreviated name for post-war West Germany.

4. Revisionist History & Antisemitism

The focus on historical revisionism and erasure of German sovereignty can encourage a conception of Germany as a blameless country with uncomplicated pride. By focusing on pre-war borders and overlooking post-war history, the Reichsbürger can ignore Germany’s defeat in the second world war, as well as its process of coming to terms with its Nazi and colonial past, notably the Holocaust and the 1904 Herero and Nama genocide in Namibia. The removal of these dark moments in German history enables the movement’s supporters to focus on their own perceived victimisation as subjects of a German state which they do not recognise.

A similar revisionism is common in the wider German far right, notably some members of the populist AfD party. Repudiation of the Holocaust’s importance and an emphasis on “positive” moments in German history encourages Holocaust relativisation and antisemitism.

However, unlike the AfD, which has adapted its rhetoric to fit into the political mainstream, some Reichsbürger followers entirely disregard current German laws banning Holocaust denial and the dissemination of Nazi propaganda. The group is linked to overt antisemitism and the spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories about the power of “high finance” as well as outright Holocaust denial. In March 2020, German police seized neo-Nazi propaganda during raids on the homes of some Reichsbürger members.

However, the historical revisionism can confuse the picture. Although many of its adherents are antisemitic and glorify the colonial past, the Reichsbürger is not specifically defined as a group of right-wing extremists. In truth, only a small portion of the movement can be defined as such.

At its core, right-wing extremism is largely defined as anti-democratic. While many Reichsbürger refuse to endorse the legitimacy of Germany’s current democratic state, the lack of unified vision within the movement makes it unclear which system would be preferable, the constitutional monarchy of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the democratic experiment of Weimar Germany or the dictatorship of Nazi Germany. However, in the case of the most recent plot, the key role of Heinrich XIII implies that the goal was the restitution of a constitutional monarchy in the style of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s regime.

5. Is the Movement a Growing Threat?

Some Reichsbürger followers are evidently beginning to engage in political violence. The latest arrests follow multiple other incidents. In 2016, a police officer was killed during a raid on a member of the movement’s illegal collection of weapons. In August 2020, members of the Reichsbürger attempted to enter the German parliament as part of a protest against COVID-19 restrictions.

The presence of former military figures and a former parliamentarian among the most recently arrested group suggest the Reichsbürger are not without potential influence. The AfD has long denied any links to the movement, but has been shifting further and further to the right in recent years. In 2019, the German interior ministry reported that it had identified some isolated connections between the Reichsbürger and the AfD.

The Reichsbürger could be viewed as a fringe group but their ideas clearly appeal to some enough to convince them a coup is a worthwhile undertaking. And links to more influential organisations would make them more dangerous – which is why this matter has been taken so seriously by the authorities.

By Claire Burchett, PhD candidate in European Politics, King’s College London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

One of Rhodes’ four co-defendants, Kelly Meggs, was also convicted of seditious conspiracy. All five on trial were found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding, namely Congress’ certification on Jan. 6, 2021, of the 2020 presidential election results.

The convictions for seditious conspiracy – a rarely used, Civil War-era charge typically reserved in recent decades for terror plots – are the most significant yet relating to the violent storming of the Capitol, and have meaning that extends beyond those who were on trial.

As someone who has studied the U.S. domestic militia movement for nearly 15 years, I believe the Oath Keepers convictions illuminate two crucial issues facing the country: the limits of the American right to free speech and the future of the militia movement.

Greater Accountability

Rhodes’ seditious conspiracy conviction suggests the jury believed, as one prosecutor asserted, that he “concocted a plan for an armed rebellion to shatter a bedrock of American democracy.” In other words, he was convicted over what he had said and written prior to the actual Jan. 6 attack – and this is where free speech comes into play.

The First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It’s considered a sacred American right, one that sets the U.S. apart from many peer nations, some of which have stricter controls and consequences for speech that may be harmful.

Efforts to arrest and convict groups in the U.S. that have discussed violence against racial groups, politicians or others have often been stymied by appeals to the First Amendment.

Far-right extremists or other hate groups can claim they are just venting or even fantasizing – both of which would be protected under the First Amendment. In the absence of any specific plan, threat or incitement, group members may never suffer legal consequences for oral or written expressions that nonetheless create fear in those who draw these groups’ ire.

For this reason, seditious conspiracy charges have historically been hard to prosecute.

The last time this charge was attempted was against members of the Christian militia group called Hutaree in Michigan in 2009, for allegedly planning to engage law enforcement “in armed conflict.” But the judge dismissed the sedition charges, citing First Amendment protections.

What is interesting about the Oath Keepers case is that Rhodes himself did not breach the Capitol yet was convicted of seditious conspiracy. Meanwhile three of his co-defendants – Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson and Thomas Caldwell – did storm into the Capitol building, but were not convicted of that charge.

This suggests that the jury believed that Rhodes’ texts and other communications incited others to violent, undemocratic action in a way that requires accountability.

‘Slower-Brewing Social Harms’

Rhodes’ conviction follows three other prosecutions that reflect an evolving understanding of the limits of free speech. Conspiracy-purveyor Alex Jones was ordered to pay almost US$1.5 billion to families of children killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting in three defamation cases arising from Jones’ lies about the children’s deaths, the shooting itself, and the parents.

Jones claims the prosecutions violated his rights to free speech.

Neither defaming someone nor inciting immediate lawless action are protected under the First Amendment – but these cases have often been hard to prove. The Oath Keepers and Alex Jones verdicts may herald a new and greater understanding of the slower-brewing social harms that can arise if people are allowed to spread misinformation without consequences.

Take Them Seriously

The convictions of Rhodes and other Oath Keepers may also lead law enforcement agencies to similarly shift their understanding of militia groups.

In the past, such agencies, from the local to federal levels, have tended to disregard potential threats from militia groups. Some sheriffs in particular have even openly allied with militia groups for search and rescue efforts or used them for event “security.”

Both the seriousness of the charges against Rhodes and his defendants as well as the widely shared videos of physical assaults that took place on Capitol police officers during the insurrection may help change attitudes in at least some agencies.

The Oath Keepers convictions come just three months after convictions of several members of the Wolverine Watchmen, the militia whose members plotted to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and put her on trial for treason. Together, the verdicts may, at the very least, solidify the impression that militia members have the potential for violent and organized actions against elected officials.

Militias Still Relevant Force

An unknown in all this is how militias may respond to the implications of the Oath Keepers verdicts.

It is unlikely that there will be one single reaction within the militia movement.

Rhodes has long been a controversial figure within the movement, with some militia leaders I have interviewed supporting his efforts and others strongly disliking him. Some told me a decade ago that they distrusted both his general abilities, citing his self-inflicted gunshot wound, and his motives for pushing the Oath Keepers to be a national organization. Militia members who have always disliked Rhodes had little sympathy for him as the trial developed.

Those in the militia movement who continue to believe the 2020 election was stolen, however, may well view Rhodes as a martyr for a bigger cause. For them, Rhodes’ conviction and whatever prison sentence he receives could very well become one of several reference points about the purported unfairness or illegitimacy of the system. It could even serve as a rallying point for militias and their sympathizers who believe the soul of their nation is at stake and will want to fight for their desired outcome in the next election.

The U.S. is unlikely to see another Capitol incursion. But the militia movement – in which Rhodes was a leader – and other groups who share many of its ideological principles will almost certainly continue to be a relevant political force as the country heads into the 2024 presidential election cycle.

By Amy Cooter, Senior Research Fellow in Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute of International Studies

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jeff Halperin is the husband of Kari Lake, the Republican candidate for governor in Arizona. The couple has been married for 24 years and they have two children together.

According to the Associated Press, Lake came up short in the race for governor. The outlet has projected Democrat Katie Hobbs as the winner.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. Halperin & Lake Worked at the Same TV Station in Phoenix

Halperin and Lake worked at the same local TV station in Phoenix, Arizona. As TIME magazine reported, Halperin was a videographer at the NBC affiliate in Phoenix, which is KPNX-TV.

Halperin’s LinkedIn account has been hidden or deleted, but an archived version of his page shows Halperin’s previous jobs included “photojournalist at NBC” and as a news photographer at WNYT-TV, which is in Albany, New York.

InstantCheckmateKari Lake’s husband, Jeff Halperin was news videographer.

Lake was hired as a weekend weather anchor for KPNX-TV in 1994, the Arizona Daily Independent reported. She worked in that job for four years before moving to Albany, New York, for one year. She came back to Phoenix in 1999 and was hired as an anchor at Fox 10. She remained there for more than 20 years before she resigned and became a politician.

Halperin and Lake tied the knot amidst all of their moves. They have been married since September 1998. Lake celebrated their 20th anniversary in 2018 with a Facebook post that read, “Celebrating 20 ‘chalk marks’ on the marriage chalkboard down at Maricopa County Superior Court with my stud-muffin-in-residence.”

2. Halperin Is Now an Independent Videographer

VimeoKari Lake’s husband, Jeff Halperin, is an independent videographer.

At some point, Halperin left the local news industry to become an independent videographer. According to his Facebook page and Vimeo account, Halperin runs his own company, called Zen HD.

As of this writing, Zen HD’s website was under construction. But the Vimeo account states that Halperin’s company “works with all types of video production – broadcast, corporate, commercial, documentary.”

Halperin included that he is available for hire as a “Director of Photography (DP), Cameraman, Camera Operator, Cinematographer, Shooter.” He also wrote a personal message on the Vimeo page: “Super fortunate to be in this industry and do something I really enjoy.”

Arizona Secretary of StateJeff Halperin owns Awake Media LLC in Arizona.

Zen HD is not registered as an independent business on the Arizona Secretary of State’s website. However, Halperin registered “Awake Media LLC” in March 2021 in Maricopa County. His wife is listed as the manager of the organization.

3. Lake’s Husband Has Provided Videography for Her Campaign But Only Their Daughter Has Received a Paycheck

Halperin has kept a relatively low national profile amid his wife’s campaign for the governor’s race in Arizona. However, even though he has not been noticeably vocal, he is often at Lake’s side with a camera.

As The New York Times reported:

Another constant presence is Ms. Lake’s husband, Jeff Halperin, a videographer who watches his wife’s every move on the campaign trail through the frame of his digital camera, compiling footage for political ads and recording interviews with reporters. Her campaign has occasionally posted such clips to show her battles with the media, which she has increasingly portrayed as hostile to her candidacy.

Halperin also accompanied Lake to a meeting with former President Donald Trump in August 2021. Lake wrote on Facebook, “Best birthday ever! Spent it with my two favorite guys! Thank you so much, President Trump.”

Arizona Secretary of StateJeff Halperin and Kari Lake’s daughter, Ruby, has been paid by the campaign as a consultant.

Halperin’s camerawork may have been voluntary. A search of campaign finance records on Arizona’s Secretary of State’s website does not bring up any payments made to Halperin.

But the couple’s daughter, Ruby Halperin, has received at least four checks of $1,500 apiece from the campaign. Ruby was paid as a “consultant” according to the paperwork, in her role as a “Live Coordinator” for the organization “Turning Point USA.”

4. Halperin Was Nominated for an Emmy in 2020

Before he was filming footage for his wife’s campaign, Halperin’s professional work included sports. He worked on an ESPN E:60 documentary on professional basketball player Enes Kanter.

The documentary, called “Enes Kanter: Enemy of the State,” is about the athlete’s political activism in his native country of Turkey. The video is available on Vimeo.

Halperin and the rest of the production team received a 2020 Emmy nomination in the “Outstanding Sports Journalism” category, although they did not win. Lake celebrated the nomination on Facebook and wrote that she was “so proud” of her husband. She added, “Such an amazing story that is deserving of recognition.”

5. Halperin Is of Colombian Descent

Halperin is Latino. His family was originally from Colombia, according to social media posts from Lake.

Lake included a joke about herself in this October 5, 2022, Facebook post: “What great event featuring #LatinosForLake and so many Latino Business owners and greats! 1/3 of the people in Arizona are Latino. 3/4 of the people in my home are Latino. My husband and children are Americans of Colombian descent. I am the holdout Gringo. 😜 Arizona is such a beautiful melting-pot. It’s all about the American dream. Maybe we should call it the Arizona dream! Hardwork, faith, family, and love for our Beautiful Arizona! When we come together as Arizonans we are more powerful.”

READ NEXT: How Wealthy is Ohio Senate Candidate JD Vance?

Aron McKillips is a member of the Boogaloo Bois extremist group arrested in Ohio with a grenade launcher and homemade machine guns after threatening to kill government employees in hopes of sparking a second civil war, federal authorities said in court documents. McKillips was arrested on October 31, 2022.

McKillips was charged with unlawful possession of a machine gun and interstate communication of threats, according to documents filed in the Northern District of Ohio federal court obtained by Heavy. The Daily Beast first reported on the court documents revealing McKillips’ arrest.

Federal prosecutors and the FBI haven’t commented on the case. McKillips remained in federal custody as of November 1, 2022, records showed.

Here’s what you need to know about accused Boogalo Bois member Aron McKillips:

1. Aron McKillips Was a ‘Well-Known’ Member of the ‘Boogaloo Bois’ & Federal Investigators Obtained Months of Communications Between Him & Other Members of the Extremist Group, Documents Show

According to the FBI, the case against McKillips was built using multiple “confidential human sources,” along with social media communications and postings and messages and chats on Discord, Signal and Keybase. The FBI said McKillips is a “well-known member” of the Boogaloo Bois and is also a member of the New Sons of Liberty Milita Group. He has traveled around the U.S. for protests, meetings and trainings with other members of the extremist group anti-government extremist group and militia, the FBI said in the affidavit.

In chats, McKillips used the name “prisonoh” and “Prison OH,’ the FBI said. He was a “sector leader” of NSOL-OH, a local group of the New Sons of Liberty, the FBI said. According to the affidavit, they “discussed in the Signal chat group about attacking the power grid and taking out sub-stations.”

McKillips attended several Black Lives Matter and anti-police protests in Ohio and elsewhere, according to the FBI. He and other Boogaloo Bois “provided security” for protesters in Louisville in May 2021, according to the FBI.

He talked in a chat group in July 2021 about “burning down federal buildings and shooting federal agents,” saying, “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence. So we gonna f***** start killing people like federal agents and s*** or are we gonna f***** sit here and jerk off,” the FBI said. He also said, “I just wanna blow up the IRS.”

McKillips also talked about carrying out an attack or shooting on an ATF office in Columbus, according to the affidavit. He wrote in a May 2022 Signal chat, ““I’ve been saying this awhile but noone wants to raid government building with me,” adding he wanted to send a “feds head back to his wife.”

Read More From Heavy

The Boogaloo Movement: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

2. McKillips Built Machine Guns & Traded a Gun for a ‘Grenade Launcher’ & ‘Primo Cocaine,’ the FBI Says in an Affidavit

The FBI said McKillips was building his own machine guns and other gun parts and buying, selling and trading guns, weapons and other materials, according to the affidavit.

The FBI wrote, “The witness claimed that McKillips was likely making illegal firearms. The witness stated that they had seen one of the firearms, knowing it was fully automatic, as it had a third hole that had been drilled out. The witness also stated that McKillips made statements about drilling out the top of his door and filling it with Tannerite.”

That witness also told the FBI McKillips tried to sell an M-45 and an AK-47 with fully automatic capabilities and offered to convert the witnesses’ AK-47 to a fully automatic firearm, according to the affidavit.

In May 2021, McKillips told an FBI source he had an AK-47 and traded it for a .308, which he then traded for a “grenande launcher and some ‘primo cocaine.'” McKillips said his “grenade launcher was firing pin activated and he had the knowledge to make high explosive rounds that he could shoot out of the launcher,” the FBI said in the affidvait.

3. McKillips Grew Up in Sandusky, Ohio, & Works as a Welder, According to His Facebook Page

McKillips grew up in Sandusky, Ohio, and he attended Perkins High School in Sandusky, according to his Facebook page. McKillips works as a welder at a Sandusky manufacturing company, according to his Facebook page. McKillips’ Instagram and Twitter accounts are set to private.

The affidavit details two interactions McKillips had with police in Ohio. According to Ohio court records, McKillips was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia in 2014. He was also charged with illegal target shooting in 2015, records show. In 2021, he was charged with improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, a felony, records show, but the case was later reduced to a misdemeanor when McKillips pleaded guilty.

The FBI says that in December 2020, McKillips was stopped for a traffic violation by the Sandusky Police and gave consent to a search of his vehicle. The FBI said officers found two marijuana roaches along with several hundred rounds of 5.56mm and 9mm ammunition, body armor, an AR-15 rifle, parachute flares, medical kits, firearm components and military-style equipment. He was cited and released, the FBI said.

On September 11, 2021, McKillips was stopped by police in Tiffin, Ohio, and officers said he “seemed very nervous and had bloodshot eyes,” according to the FBI. “The officer asked if he had any weapons in the vehicle and he pointed to a rifle in the back seat. The officers determined McKillips was improperly carrying the rifle and seized it. McKillips became angry and started yelling from the back of a patrol car.”

After the September incident, McKillips talked about the traffic stop in messages with other members of his group, saying, “Yeah! So guess what, in about two weeks I’m going to f***** shoot some cops so be f***** ready when you see it on the f****** news.” He also said he wanted to “commit war crimes,” according to the FBI.

4. Aron McKillips Posted a Meme on Facebook Mocking the Attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Husband Paul Pelosi a Day Before His Arrest

FacebookA meme posted on Facebook by Aron McKillips.

A day before his arrest, Aron McKillips posted a meme mocking the attack on Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi. The meme shows a photo of the couple with the words “Any plans for tonight?” above Nancy Pelosi’s head and “I think I’ll stay home and get hammered,” above Paul Pelosi’s head.

His Facebook page also includes several posts criticizing the federal government and the tax system. He wrote in an October 2022 post, “If federal tax got removed, and went back to just being voluntary State tax , we’d have less corruption and everyone’s needs would be able to be met , based on paying into an area you’d actually get use from i.e. medical, roads, schooling , what have you, and only put higher taxes on franchise companies (state wise as in Walmarts, Dollar general’s,etc.) And lessened taxes on ma and pa shops and the common individual, we’d have a happier society.”

According to court documents, McKillips also talked about using a pipe bomb on a child support office because they charged a processing fee and didn’t give all of his money to the mother of his children.

5. McKillips Has a Detention Hearing Set for November 9 to Determine if He Will Remain in Federal Custody, Federal Court Records Show

McKillips waived his right to a preliminary hearing on November 1, 2022. He will remain in federal custody at least until a detention hearing that is set for November 9, 2022, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay in the Northern District of Ohio, court records show.

McKillips was appointed a federal public defender as his attorney at his first court hearing on November 1, records show. His lawyer could not be reached for comment by Heavy. Prosecutors sought and obtained a temporary order of custody during the hearing. The case will be presented to a grand jury, records show.

Several people associated with the Boogaloo Bois movement have been sentenced to federal prison in recent years. In April 2022, a 24-year-old Texas man received 52 months in prison after being convicted of rioting in connection to the civil unrest in Minnesota following George Floyd’s death, prosecutors said. A 24-year-old North Carolina man was sentenced to 48 months in prison in June in connection to the same case, prosecutors said.

Also in June 2022, a California man, Steven Carrillo was sentenced to 41 years in federal prison on a murder charge for his role in the drive-by shooting of a security guard at a federal courthouse, according to a press release. He also faces state charges. The driver in the shooting, Robert Alvin Justus Jr., also faces federal charges.

Read More From Heavy

Steven Carrillo: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Twitter is flooded with people assuming as a fact that David DePape and/or Paul Pelosi were in their underwear when San Francisco police arrived at the scene of the October 28 hammer attack. But is that true? What’s the evidence?

Police have now released body cam video showing the Paul Pelosi attack. It shows Pelosi in a shirt and wearing some kind of shorts. You can see it here.

A state complaint charging suspect David Depape with the attack says Pelosi was wearing a pajama top and boxer shorts because he was startled awake.

According to the federal affidavit released on October 31, 2022, DePape was wearing shorts during the attack.

The only credible media outlet to report that DePape was in his underwear has retracted it. No credible media outlet has reported that Pelosi was in his underwear, and authorities have not confirmed that information. Even removing the subjective judgment of what is credible from the equation, no news outlet that is repeating the claim has offered evidence or named its sourcing.

The claim appears to have ignited when a single news organization, KTVU-TV, a Fox News affiliate in Oakland, California, reported that DePape was wearing only his underwear when police arrived. The news organization, which is generally regarded as  credible, later posted a correction and removed the erroneous information about the underwear from the article.

The article was written by investigative journalist Evan Sernoffsky, who has had a long career in investigative reporting in the Bay Area, having worked as a San Francisco Chronicle criminal justice reporter before coming to KTVU in 2020.

He also retracted the underwear claim on Twitter, writing, “I’m now told by other sources that DePape was NOT dressed only in his underwear. Working to clarify.”

There was no credible evidence that either DePape or Pelosi was wearing his underwear when police arrived. Other sites appear to be citing the original KTVU story without telling readers it was retracted or are making the underwear claim without offering evidence to support the claim. (In order to fact-check the underwear claim, Heavy has contacted the San Francisco Police Department’s public affairs unit to ask about what the men were wearing. We will update this story if response is received.)

Googling the phrase “paul pelosi underwear” points to the KTVU article, with reference to underwear in the SEO title. However, the information is no longer in the story, and a correction has been placed at the bottom.

A separate, unrelated claim about Paul Pelosi relating to comments about DePape’s being a “friend” of Paul Pelosi is supported by police dispatch audio, which you can listen to later in this story. The San Francisco Chronicle confirmed that audio is authentic but wrote, “The dispatcher was relaying that DePape — not Paul Pelosi — had ‘advised that his name is David and that he is a friend.'”

It’s not clear how the Chronicle came to the above conclusion, though, because it did attribute its sourcing. The comment in the audio is: “He states there is a male in the home and that he is going to wait for his wife. He stated that he doesn’t know who the male is but that his name is David and that he is a friend. He sounded somewhat confused.” Police have not clarified it, but they have praised the dispatcher for elevating the incident after perceiving it was serious.

DePape, who knocked Pelosi unconscious in the attack, has now been charged federally with assault and attempted kidnapping. A press release from the U.S. Department of Justice says the suspect brought with him “a roll of tape, white rope, a second hammer, a pair of rubber and cloth gloves, and zip ties from the crime scene.” Pelosi said DePape, whom he said he had never seen before, entered his bedroom looking for Nancy, the release states. The affidavit describes how DePape broke into the home through a glass door and surprised Pelosi, who was in bed. Pelosi then managed to call 911.

You can read the affidavit here.

“DEPAPE explained that he did not leave after Pelosi’s call to 9-1-1 because, much like the American founding fathers with the British, he was fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender,” the affidavit says. It makes it clear that DePape confessed he was motivated by a belief that the Democratic Party was telling lies. It reads:

DEPAPE stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DEPAPE the ‘truth,’ he would let her go, and if she ‘lied,’ he was going to break ‘her kneecaps.’ DEPAPE was certain that Nancy would not have told the ‘truth.’ In the course of the interview, DEPAPE articulated he viewed Nancy as the ‘leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party.

DEPAPE also later explained that by breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions. DEPAPE also explained generally that he wanted to use Nancy to lure another individual to DEPAPE.

Here’s what you need to know:

The Correction Says the Story ‘Misstated What Clothing the Suspect Was Wearing’

GoogleHow the SEO title still appears on the now retracted story.

The headline on the KTVU story originally read, “Alleged Pelosi intruder found in underwear….” But when you click on the story now, the headline reads instead, “Alleged Pelosi intruder has manifesto of conspiracy theories: sources.”

The story says nothing about underwear or what the men were wearing. Instead, it is about DePape’s alleged conspiracy theory filled manifesto. And it contains this correction at the bottom:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated what clothing the suspect was wearing when officers found him.

There is body camera video of the incident; it has not yet been released. Heavy has requested that footage.

The New York Post sought comment on the underwear detail as well but said it had received no response: “Local police, who said they’re working with the US Capitol Police and the FBI to investigate the attack, also declined to comment on a report from a California television station, later retracted, that DePape was clad only in underwear during the attack.” Police did not mention what the men were wearing in their news conferences.

Some prominent personalities, including a former GOP congressman, and a lot of regular people have tweeted or commented about the Paul Pelosi underwear claim.

New Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeted an article repeating the claim at Hillary Clinton on October 30, but the underlying article, by a site called Santa Monica Observer, simply attributes the underwear claim to an anonymous “source” and labels it a “theory.” Musk later deleted the tweet.

According to NBC News, “The Santa Monica Observer has also published other fake stories that falsely reported that former Secretary Clinton died in the September 11, 2001 attacks and had been using a body double since then, and that Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, was appointed to a non-existent position in the Department of the Interior under former President Donald Trump.” NBC reported that the site was down after the Musk tweet, but we were still able to access the story. News Guard has raised concerns about the Observer site, calling it a partisan operation.

Journalist Tom Winter told NBC News that DePape was able to get into the Pelosi bedroom where Paul Pelosi was; he is talking to police. San Francisco police say DePape and Pelosi did not know each other before the attack, he tweeted.

He added: “The SFPD also says that there were only TWO people inside the Pelosi home (Paul Pelosi and DePape) when they responded, clarifying statements made at Friday’s press conference which seemed to indicate there was a third person inside the home who opened the door.” CNN reported that DePape was carrying zip ties and duct tape.

Dispatch Audio Has Emerged

Paul Pelosi managed to make a secret 911 call from the bathroom after a Berkeley man broke into his house, and newly released dispatch audio captured the police response to the scene.

TMZ confirmed the dispatch audio of the police response to the Pelosi home.

Pelosi spoke in code during the 911 call and said: “What’s going on? Why are you here? What are you doing to me?” alerting the dispatcher that something was wrong, according to TMZ, which published the audio here.

According to Politico, Pelosi made the secret 911 call after telling suspect David DePape he needed to use the bathroom. His phone was charging in the bathroom.

That started an urgent police response to the scene after an alert dispatcher thought something might be wrong, according to the police chief, in a news conference.

“He states there is a male in the home and that he is going to wait for his wife. He stated that he doesn’t know who the male is but that his name is David and that he is a friend. He sounded somewhat confused,” the dispatcher told an officer, according to the audio.

The suspect threatened to tie up Pelosi, CNN reported.

The New York Post also noted, “Aerial photos of the Pelosi property appeared to show shards of broken glass littering the brick walkway outside a shattered French door, as if it had been broken from the inside out.”

There are photos of that shattered door.

Police have said that DePape broke into the Pelosi home.

They described the incident as a “home break-in.”

The Suspect & Paul Pelosi Were Grappling for a Hammer When Police Arrived

GettyWhat is Paul Pelosi’s net worth for 2022?

DePape is accused of attacking Paul Pelosi, the husband of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with a hammer in the couple’s home on October 28, leaving Paul with serious blunt-force trauma.

On a blog and website, he was fixated on censorship and made antisemitic comments. In one post, he ranted about government attempts to control information, calling for the arrest of journalists from prominent news organizations. He also posted COVID and election conspiracy theories online and made posts about QAnon. Online records give DePape’s age as 42. DePape, who has been involved in the pro-nudity movement, wrote about former President Trump on his website. You can review some of his social media posts here. He has a history of drug use.

According to The New York Post, DePape was “living in a dilapidated yellow school bus on the street in front of” the home of nudity activist Gypsy Taub in Berkeley. “A Black Lives Matter sign and a flag combining pot-leaf symbols and the LGBTQ rainbow decorate the debris-strewn property. Out front, an unpainted wooden fence sports a hand-lettered sign: ‘News Reporters Go Away,'” the Post recounted.

After receiving the 911 call from Paul Pelosi and being dispatched on an “A-priority wellbeing check” in the early morning hours of October 28, 2022, San Francisco police officers encountered an “adult male and [Nancy] Pelosi’s husband, Paul” in the Pelosi home, Chief Bill Scott said in a news conference.

Chief Scott said in a later news conference that when officers arrived and knocked on the door of the Pelosi home, the door was opened “by someone inside.” Officers observed Pelosi and Depape inside the entryway of the home. The officers remained outside the home’s threshhold. They observed both men, each “with one hand on a single hammer.” Officers gave commands to both men to drop the hammer. Depape pulled the hammer away from Pelosi and “violently attacked him with the hammer,” Scott said. Pelosi was struck at least one time. Officers entered and tackled the suspect and took him into custody. He said that Depape “forced entry” through a rear door of the Pelosi home.

“This was not a random act. This was intentional. And it’s wrong,” Scott said, noting that elected officials’ families “don’t sign up for this… Everybody should be disgusted about what happened this morning.” He praised a dispatcher as a hero for sensing more was going on than Paul Pelosi said in the 911 call; he was talking in “code,” CNN reported.

The motive is still being determined, according to police. Both men were transported to a hospital for treatment, Scott said. DePape is being booked on attempted homicide, elderly abuse, burglary and other charges, Scott said.

READ NEXT: Read More About David DePape’s Blog Posts & Writings