The great rebuke!

  "I wasn't on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!"
                                                    -Donald Trump, 11/3/26

As of early Wednesday morning, Democrats were projected to win at least 250 House seats, with Republicans winning a minimum of 160 seats, according to the CNBC Election Desk.

A number of Democratic candidates won in House districts that were redesigned by Republican-controlled state legislatures with the intention of easing the way for GOP candidates to win.

Democrats were on track to hold at least 54 seats in the Senate, with Republicans likely to hold at least 42 seats. The big Democratic winners on Tuesday night include James Talarico in the Texas Senate election. He overcame an unprecedented flurry of $224 million in spending by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to boost the candidacy of Republican nominee Ken Paxton, the state’s scandal-plagued attorney general.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Today day is Election Day, if you haven't voted get to the polls

 According to Ballotpedia:

All 435 districts in the U.S. House of Representatives and 33 seats in the U.S. Senate are up for election. Five of the House's six non-voting members are also up for election.

There are 36 gubernatorial offices up for election in 2026. Heading into the 2026 elections, there are 26 Republican and 24 Democratic governors.

To read more CLICK HERE and HERE

Trump attacks the integrity of elections in build-up to midterms

Ahead of the midterm elections, President Donald Trump has systematically demolished institutional guardrails that prevented him from overturning the 2020 presidential election, ProPublica’s reporting has shown.

Trump has empowered his loyalists to try to transform the voting process. He launched an unprecedented — and largely unsuccessful — effort to find noncitizen voters. And he tried to restrict mail-in voting.

The reporters at ProPublica have spent much of this year covering Trump’s efforts to exert more federal control over elections. Here are five takeaways from their reporting.

1. The Trump administration has sought greater federal control over elections.

In April, Doug Bock Clark and Jen Fifield reported on Trump’s efforts to “take over” the midterm elections, detailing how the administration has discarded or diminished endeavors across the federal government to protect the voting process or block foreign interference. Those efforts have included cutting staff on election-related teams at federal law enforcement agencies and finding ways to exert greater federal control over voting. 

Our reporting led by Peter Elkind revealed that the Trump administration harnessed Homeland Security Investigations’ personnel, technology and legal authority to try to back up Trump’s unproven claim that illegal voting by noncitizens is tilting elections toward Democrats. Administration officials insisted the effort spearheaded by HSI was producing meaningful results. Our analysis of Justice Department data found, as of May, 41 alleged noncitizens were charged with voting illegally or other election-related crimes. Earlier this month, CBS reported 156 people have been charged since the beginning of the second Trump administration.

2. Trump has pushed out career officials — and is coordinating with a conservative grassroots organization to transform elections.

At least 75 nonpartisan career officials who’d held roles at federal agencies related to election integrity and safety have been fired or left the government.

Two dozen Trump appointees — including many from the election-denial movement — have been hired. Ahead of the midterms, current and former government officials and election security experts have expressed concerns that once-fringe actors who’ve espoused debunked conspiracy theories about elections are now in positions to control the narrative around the voting process. (A DHS spokesperson said it hires “experts with diverse backgrounds who go through a rigorous vetting process.”)

3. Trump officials asked a cybersecurity agency to secretly acquire a voting machine — and hack it.

A few months into Trump’s second term, political appointees at DHS asked its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to procure a voting machine, hack it and report the findings so they could be given to the White House, two former administration officials with knowledge of the request told Clark and Andy Mannix.

4. The White House floated an idea that would’ve shut down virtually all mail-in voting.

The White House initially proposed a change for the Postal Service that would’ve been even more disruptive than the rule the Supreme Court rejected in September.

As Fifield and Elkind reported, the Trump administration suggested all ballots be delivered through certified mail, meaning voters would need to be home to sign for delivery of their ballots. The Trump administration dropped this plan after the USPS said it would be too difficult to execute. It instead proceeded with the executive order that would’ve forced postal workers to serve as gatekeepers, deciding which ballots would be delivered and which wouldn’t.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump's cabinet hits the campaign trial violating the law at every stop

This summer, Attorney General Todd Blanche boasted about the drop in federal crime while stumping for the Republican candidate for New York governor at a rally headlined by President Trump.

In Michigan, Sean Duffy, the transportation secretary, personally endorsed Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate candidate, arguing that Mr. Rogers would help advance his department’s work.

And in Alaska this month, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stood with the president at a rally in which he noted the role of Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican, in securing a natural gas pipeline.

Such appearances have become commonplace as nearly all of Mr. Trump’s top deputies fanned out to promote Republican candidates facing difficult election odds. But they have alarmed government ethics experts who say administration officials are running afoul of the Hatch Act, an 87-year-old law that limits how executive branch employees can participate in political activity, reported The New York Times.

In the past few months, at least nine of 15 cabinet secretaries and several other senior Trump deputies have been formally accused of Hatch Act violations, such as using official government titles while engaging in campaign activities and using taxpayer funds to pay for political advertisements.

“We have not seen this level of violations in recent times,” said Kedric Payne, the head of ethics for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group that recently filed a Hatch Act complaint against several White House and homeland security officials over three taxpayer-funded commercials promoting Mr. Trump. Its affiliated litigation arm, Campaign Legal Center Action, is one of the groups that is also suing the Trump administration over the ad campaign.

“Officials should not be using their titles or taxpayer resources to be involved in political campaigns, yet the Trump administration continues to increase activity that goes against the letter and the spirit of this principle,” Mr. Payne said. “Now it seems as though the administration can flood the zone with potential Hatch Act violations and not suffer any consequences until after the election.” 

Representatives for the White House and government agencies contend that the complaints are politically motivated to hurt Republicans and that officials’ activities comply with the law.

The Hatch Act was intended to be a buffer against partisan politics influencing government operations. While the president and the vice president are exempt, all other civil employees of the executive branch are subject to its restrictions. Over the years, both Republicans and Democrats have been accused and found guilty of breaching the Hatch Act.

But government watchdogs contend Trump officials have been lax about observing that firewall during the 2026 midterm elections.

At the Alaska rally, Mr. Trump introduced Mr. Lutnick and Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, by their official titles. Using those titles violates the Hatch Act, two nonprofit advocacy groups charged in a recent complaint. One of them, the Democracy Defenders Fund, was founded by a former Obama administration ethics official and Trump impeachment lawyer. The other is Reporters Without Borders, a press advocacy group. They stressed that the law forbids campaigning in an official capacity.

They also accused Brendan Carr, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, of violating the law by telling the same rally crowd how Mr. Sullivan would continue to advance the agency’s work, even though he began his remarks by saying he was speaking in a personal capacity.

To read more CLICK HERE

Tough-on-immigration replaces tough-on-crime on ballots across the country

Next week, America votes in the midterms. And as Election Day approaches, a new rhetoric of crime and illegality has emerged with familiar implications, reported Slate.

While the “tough-on-crime” era of the 1980s and 1990s may have passed, similar dialogue today is anchored in “tough-on-immigration” policies. For example, Republicans and allied groups spent $53 million on immigration ads across 27 states from January to June. And even old tough-on-crime era rhetoric has reemerged as campaign strategy, with “soft on crime” being a lead attack of the Republicans, and President Donald Trump invoking the notorious 1988 Willie Horton ad at a campaign rally against Democrats. The enforcement behind this rhetoric has also grown: The Department of Homeland Security says Immigration and Customs Enforcement hired 12,000 new officers and agents last year, ICE arrests have more than doubled in 15 states and D.C. this year, and many sheriffs are partnering with ICE to perform functions of federal immigration agents through the 287(g) Program.

It is worth noting that when the public supports such rhetoric in elected officials, that rhetoric becomes real—it affects lives. My new study of elected prosecutors, published in the Journal of Public Economics, provides evidence of exactly that.

District attorneys are among the most influential actors in the criminal legal system, with nearly unfettered authority over whether to charge people with crimes and which charges to file, and in the vast majority of districts they are elected. I set out to understand whether DAs were influenced by the desire to be viewed as tough on crime. My study suggests they were, finding that across nearly 40 states during the era of rising incarceration (from 1986 to 2006), the admissions rate to state prisons increased by 3 percent during election years for district attorneys. Over those two decades, this translates to 63,000 additional prison admissions, more than a sold-out Soldier Field. But this figure only measures the election year bump; it does not capture how political incentives may have affected criminal sentencing throughout the entire election cycle.

To read more CLICK HERE

ALARM: Trump's FBI searched home of Congresswoman and political opponent three weeks before election

In a statement on X on Monday, Congresswoman Omar called the search an “attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement.”

Federal agents on Monday searched the home of Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a startling escalation in a criminal investigation that brings renewed focus to the frequent target of Trump administration derision in the final weeks of her reelection bid, reported The Associated Press.

The search of the Minnesota congresswoman’s home so close to next month’s midterm contests that will determine control of the House and the Senate was swiftly condemned by top Democrats in Congress, who raised questions about the timing given longstanding Justice Department protocol to avoid overt investigative steps involving political candidates in the direct run-up to an election. Omar, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, said she was being targeted as one of the Republican’s “political enemies.”

To read more CLICK HERE

It is a crime to send federal troops or armed federal law enforcement agents to any polling place

With the mid-term elections approaching, questions have arisen over whether the Trump administration might attempt to station federal troops at polling places. As the Brennan Center and many others have pointed out, this would be clearly illegal: Section 592 of Title 18 of the United States Code criminalizes deploying federal troops or armed federal law enforcement agents to any polling place, and multiple other federal criminal and civil laws bar military interference in an election, reported Just Security. Such laws buttress the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits federal military participation in civilian law enforcement except where Congress has expressly authorized it. 

These laws, most of which have been in force for more than 150 years, unmistakably convey Congress’s intent to bar any kind of military interference in American elections. Even so, in 1968, the Office of Legal Counsel asserted in a short, conclusory memo that Section 592’s prohibition on troops at the polls does not apply if the president has invoked the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act is the most important statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the president to use federal military forces to execute the law in certain emergency situations. 

To read more CLICK HERE

Former President Obama sounds the alarm on artificial intelligence

Former President Barack Obama warned during a recent private fund-raising event that artificial intelligence technology could be “dangerous” if not properly managed, as he implored Democrats to aggressively develop political and governing agendas to prioritize the issue in the coming years, reported The New York Times.

In his remarks, which have not been previously reported, Mr. Obama urged Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the House minority leader, to assemble a clear framework for a public conversation about A.I. policy, should Democrats win back the House in the midterm elections, according to a partial transcript provided by Mr. Obama’s office.

He also suggested that candidates running for president in 2028 ought to make A.I. one of their “central agendas” and “have a very clear plan” for responding to safety and economic concerns around the technology.

The recommendations from the former president amount to some of his most detailed comments yet about A.I. as a political issue for his party. At a moment when President Trump continues to downplay concerns about the technology, some Democrats see an opportunity for the party to draw a clear contrast in the midterms and beyond on an issue of growing significance. In a Democratic Party with no clear leader, many look to Mr. Obama for guidance, and his comments carry considerable weight.

The remarks come amid escalating worries about the risks associated with A.I. development, as well as growing calls for lawmakers and politicians to do more to tackle the topic. Some A.I. industry leaders are now calling for a slowdown after a summer in which swarms of misaligned A.I. agents broke free from their containers and proceeded to scheme against their owners, cheat on tests and hack outside companies.

At a closed-door fund raising event in Manhattan organized by the campaign arm of the House Democrats, Mr. Obama and Mr. Jeffries spoke for nearly an hour in front of party donors and lawmakers, according to four people familiar with the event, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private gathering.

“Once you are speaker, I would strongly urge that the Democrats put together a framework for a very public conversation,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Jeffries, according to the transcript. Mr. Jeffries had asked him a question about how Democrats should address A.I. in a Congress that has taken little action on the issue, according to two of the people.

“This is something that is moving very fast in private hands, and if we don’t get on top of it, I think can be dangerous,” Mr. Obama said. “If we do get on top of it, I do think it’s beneficial. I genuinely think it’s going to accelerate, for example, drug development in ways that can help us cure diseases. I do think that this can help us figure out pathways for a clean energy future.”

The former president often spoke in general terms, rather than drilling down on specific policies, according to the transcript. And he planted himself firmly in a middle ground in the heated debate over A.I., saying he considered himself neither an “accelerationist” nor a “doomer.”

One challenge facing Democrats as they chart a path forward on A.I. is speaking in one voice on the issue. The tug of war over how to regulate A.I. has been more divisive among Democrats than Republicans, who are generally more in alignment. Some Democratic politicians have called for more A.I. regulation, while others have received millions of dollars in support from groups tied to the industry’s biggest players.

A.I. is becoming a larger part of the country’s political calculus heading into the midterms. This year’s elections have been flooded with money from A.I. companies and allied groups. And anxiety about the technology, a rare issue that many Republican and Democratic voters can agree on, has peaked in recent days after a researcher at the A.I. company Anthropic loudly and publicly resigned, writing in a viral social media post that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

Mr. Jeffries explicitly mentioned the resignation in his question to Mr. Obama, according to one of the people familiar with the event.

Dario Amodei, the chief executive of the A.I. company Anthropic, called for a global slowdown of A.I. development in a 3,800-word essay published on Saturday. Sam Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive, and Elon Musk, whose SpaceX rocket company has been ramping up spending on A.I., quickly wrote in social media posts that they agreed with him.

The White House has long maintained an unabashedly accelerationist stance. Mr. Trump recently told reporters he didn’t have “any” concerns about A.I.’s risks — just about falling behind to competitors like China. He has said that those who oppose A.I. data centers must prefer to be “backwards and poor.”

“President Obama is correct that decisive action must be taken on artificial intelligence,” Mr. Jeffries said in a statement, adding that “Republicans have abdicated their responsibility to govern on behalf of the American people.”

“We will not repeat their error,” he continued.

On Capitol Hill, where little has been done to regulate A.I., some Democrats have been circulating a letter urging House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, to stop members from going home on recess until they pass A.I. safeguards.

Many Republicans want action, too. Several have introduced bipartisan A.I. legislation, and Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida has called for a special session on the topic. A growing number of Republicans are campaigning against data centers, in addition to many Democrats.

As House speaker in 2023, Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, set up A.I. learning and brainstorming sessions, stressing a bipartisan approach. After Mr. Johnson became speaker later that year, he and Mr. Jeffries announced a bipartisan task force on A.I. that produced a report in late 2024. House Republican leadership declined to renew the task force in the next Congress. In response, Democrats formed their own A.I. commission, which is now putting the finishing touches on a policy framework. That framework is expected to be released this fall after some final checks by Mr. Jeffries, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Obama has taken a special interest in A.I. in recent years, and he has offered himself as a sounding board to industry leaders, including Mr. Altman and Mr. Amodei, according to two people familiar with his conversations.

Mr. Obama sees Mr. Amodei’s essay urging an A.I. slowdown — and the affirmations by other A.I. executives — as an encouraging development, and the two are engaged in discussions about A.I. safety, according to one of the people. Representatives for OpenAI and Anthropic did not respond to requests for comment.

With many Democrats already jockeying for position ahead of the next presidential race, Mr. Obama, in his remarks at the fund-raiser, outlined what he would do on A.I. if he were one of them.

“I would talk about this, and I would say: ‘Here’s our plan for safety. Here’s our plan for making sure our kids are not corrupted by this,’” he said, according to the transcript.

He contrasted the technology with other innovations that could be dangerous in the wrong hands, saying that compared to “nuclear power, you don’t need a bunch of highly enriched uranium” to build powerful A.I.

“I would be thinking about the economic impacts in very concrete ways and understanding what does it mean if there’s going to be job displacement,” Mr. Obama said, according to the transcript, adding, “if it turns out that you’ve got a lot more people who can’t find full-time work because they’ve been rendered redundant, how are we going to respond?”

To read more CLICK HERE

Will Alabama Governor grant commutations to those on death row as the result of judicial override?

Gov. Kay Ivey made sure Alabama abandoned the process — called judicial override — by signing a law on her first day in office in 2017. But the law applied only to new cases. It did not have any effect on those people sentenced to die under the practice prior to 2017, reported AL.com.

Now, nearly ten years later, Ivey could use her last days in office to move the remaining 25 people on death row to the actual sentences their juries wanted and voted for: life in prison without the possibility of parole.

“I hope the governor is using her last few months to think about how she can leave a legacy of criminal justice reform in this state,” said A’Niya Robinson, the director of policy and organizing for the ACLU of Alabama.

Ivey’s stance is unclear.

There is no doubt she leaves a mark on the criminal justice system in this state. Alabama is building a new mega prison in Elmore County, set to be finished this fall and costing well over a billion dollars. It will be named after her.

But her record is more complicated.

Ivey set a record among Alabama governors in the modern era by approving the most executions, 26. And Alabama was an innovator of execution methods under Ivey’s watch, performing the nation’s first execution by nitrogen in January 2024.

Yet, she stopped judicial override upon taking office. She ordered a halt to lethal injection executions for several months in 2022, after the Alabama Department of Corrections couldn’t get it right. While she resumed the practice, some were astonished she had even paused it at all.

And she has also spared the most people from execution among all modern governors, too. She commuted the sentences of two men slated to die, something that does not happen often in Alabama, earning sharp criticism from fellow Republicans in the Attorney General’s office. In one case, Ivey said she had too many questions about guilt to move forward with an execution. In the other, the governor said she couldn’t “proceed in good conscience” to approve the execution of a man who wasn’t the actual shooter in the case, while the shooter was serving a life sentence.

Ivey isn’t running again, and will leave the governor’s mansion in January when the state’s new governor, either Democrat Doug Jones or Republican Tommy Tuberville, is sworn in.

‘They didn’t need a jury’

One of the people whom a jury wished to live, but a judge sentenced to die, was Robin “Rocky” Myers.

Myers was on death row from 1994 until 2025, when Ivey commuted his sentence, sending him to life in prison instead of an execution chamber because she said she wasn’t sure he was guilty. Myers has always maintained his innocence in the killing of his Decatur neighbor.

Years after Myers was sent to death row, a juror began speaking out, too.

Mae Puckett told AL.com in 2023 that she didn’t know a judge could change the sentence that she and the other jurors handed down. To Puckett, a life sentence was a compromise: She and several other jurors had agreed, in a jury room stalemate, to convict the 30-year-old father if he could be sentenced to life.

“Those of us who thought he was innocent had very strong feelings about it... (but) we knew those guys weren’t going to change their mind,” she said. “We decided to vote him guilty… the best thing we thought we could do was spare his life.”

To find someone guilty of capital murder, all 12 jurors have to agree. The decision has to be unanimous. Then, if prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, there is a second hearing following the trial to decide if the person should be sent to death row.

After hearing the testimony, jurors go back to deliberate for the second time. But a death vote doesn’t have to be unanimous in Alabama.

A death sentence can be handed down only if 10 or more jurors vote for death. If the jury can’t reach that vote, they can consider a sentence of life without parole.

But prior to 2017, Alabama had a loophole. The jury’s sentence was, technically, just a recommendation. A judge could, for a litany of different and vague reasons, disregard the jury’s sentencing decision. While a judge could alternatively overturn a death vote and send a person to prison for life, it was almost always applied the other way.

That’s what happened in the Myers case.

Puckett said she had no idea the judge could change the outcome.

“I cried,” Puckett recalled. “It was a mix of anger and sympathy and remorse. I felt like I had just fed him to the wolves when we tried so hard not to do that.”

According to information gathered by the Equal Justice Initiative, Alabama judges changed a jury’s sentencing verdict 107 times from 1976 to 2011. And 98 of those changes increased the penalty from life to death.

Jeffery Lee is set to die by lethal injection later this month, even though that’s not what his jury voted for either. He was convicted of killing two people and injuring a third during a pawn shop robbery in Orrville in 1998. His jury, in a 7-5 vote, opted to send him to live out his days in prison.

One of the people who served on that jury wants Ivey to commute Lee’s sentence and send him to prison for life.

“I didn’t know that a judge could do that,” the juror said during a phone call with AL.com. “The system just did what it wanted to do, and it didn’t matter what the jury had decided.”

The woman, who didn’t want her name used for fear of retaliation, called the issue a systemic one and said she wants her verdict honored. “If the judge was going to make the final decision, why have a trial? That was a waste of time for everybody.”

“If it was a judge’s decision, they didn’t need a jury.”

Only in Alabama

The practice of judicial override had only been legal in a few states: Alabama, Delaware, Florida and Indiana. Indiana got rid of the practice in 2002. Delaware and Florida also abolished override and made it apply to older cases, and they never routinely executed people who were sentenced under the practice.

In 2017, Alabama was all alone. And in 2026, the state still is the only place carrying out executions that resulted from a judge’s single-handed decision, disregarding a jury verdict.

Starting in 2006, Alabama State Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, introduced bills in the state legislature to outlaw the practice. They didn’t go anywhere.

“I had tried so many years because I felt that was extremely unfair,” Sanders told AL.com. “Because in effect, they were taking away the right to trial by jury.”

“There’s a unique unfairness about that.”

Eventually, Republican Sen. Dick Brewbaker took interest in the topic. Sanders said he was surprised, and glad, to have his support. Instead of co-sponsoring the bill with Brewbaker, Sanders dropped his name from the bill so it would have a better chance of passing under a Republican sponsor.

It worked.

The bill passed a vote of 78-19 and in April 2017, on her first day in the office, Ivey signed into law a ban on judicial override.

The law had a caveat: the ban on judicial override did not apply to those sentenced before 2017. Retroactivity wasn’t included in the bill, said Sanders, because it could have hurt the bill’s chances at passing.

To read more CLICK HERE

What the Flock: Tough-on-Crime v. Big Brother

The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, directed police departments last week to stop spending state money on Flock Safety cameras, the license-plate readers that have drawn bipartisan backlash around the country, reported The New York Times.

Days later in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis’s administration ordered the systems removed from state roads. Mr. DeSantis has described the surveillance technology as “out of control.”

Both governors are tough-on-crime Republicans with deep backing from law enforcement agencies. Yet their moves underscore how the political winds are shifting against Flock and other plate-reading systems that have been embraced by police departments.

The cameras, which began rapidly appearing by the tens of thousands on American roads in recent years, track vehicles and feed surveillance databases. The networks of cameras can be used to assist officers by quickly locating vehicles connected with crimes. But concerns about a sweeping system of government surveillance and about abuses by individual officers have brought mounting opposition.

Flock cameras and others like them have become a campaign issue in several states, in some cases uniting Republicans and Democrats.

The result of the actions in Texas and Florida: Police departments are falling in line behind their governors and dismantling their license-plate readers. They have begun doing so even as they extol the cameras’ crime-fighting capabilities. In Jacksonville, Fla., the sheriff, a Republican, announced on Monday he was pausing his agency’s program of 150 cameras — one week after the office released a documentary-style video lauding their role in solving a kidnapping, among other crimes.

The moves in Texas and Florida are unfolding as Republican elected officials elsewhere are mulling their own restrictions.

In Indiana, Republicans have signaled they will draft legislation to set minimum law enforcement standards for the technology. In Kansas, some Republican lawmakers now say they want to tighten restrictions and oversight after earlier legislation had made it easier for the police to deploy license-plate readers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Missouri GOP primary candidate conspired to plant drugs on opponent

A Republican legislative candidate in Joplin plotted to plant cocaine and Adderall on his primary opponent in an effort to derail her campaign, federal prosecutors allege, reported the Missouri Independent.

Thomas Ross, who won the Republican nomination for Missouri’s 161st House District by only 32 votes, was charged Wednesday with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.

A criminal complaint filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleges Ross spent weeks discussing a plan to plant the drugs on Louise Secker, his opponent in the Aug. 4 Republican primary.

Ross’ former campaign manager reported the alleged plot to the Joplin Police Department on July 30, according to a probable cause statement by FBI Special Agent Brandon Bernhardt.

The former campaign manager provided Joplin police with a nylon glove containing a plastic bag of white powder that tested positive for cocaine and a pink and white pill identified as Adderall, Bernhardt wrote.

Screenshots of text messages reviewed by Bernhardt suggest Ross and the former campaign manager discussed the plot as early as May 31 and show them referring to it in coded language as the “substance of the matter” or the “substance of it all,” according to the probable cause statement.

The former campaign manager said Ross asked him to plant the drugs in Secker’s purse or vehicle while Ross was on vacation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Bernhardt wrote.

Ross sent the campaign manager a text message on June 15 saying: “Hope you all are having success knocking doors and getting the substance of the matter sorted this week.”

Court documents quote a June 18 message from Ross that read: “Any luck with the substance of the matter? I wont be gone much longer.”

During a July 31 meeting at Ross’ house, the former campaign manager used a covert device provided by the FBI to record Ross. He told Ross he still had “the bag and addies” and asked Ross if he still wanted him to “try,” suggesting they could call in an anonymous tip about drugs in Secker’s car. 

According to court documents, Ross replied, “If you can pull it off…pull it off.”

In a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice Thursday, Matthew Price, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri, said “the American people deserve confidence in an electoral process that has served our nation for generations.”

“Candidates are expected to conduct their campaigns with integrity, honesty and respect for their opponents,” he said, “allowing voters to make informed decisions without fear of misinformation or undue influence.”

Chris Ornerod, special agent in charge in the FBI Kansas City field office, described the allegations as “substantial and serious.”

“As this case moves through the judicial process,” Ornerod said, “it’s important that it proceeds fairly, impartially and in accordance with the rule of law.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Armed man attacks Ohio Democrat candidate for governor at Canfield Fair

According to the press office for Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton, an “armed individual” allegedly lunged at Acton, injuring multiple people in the process during a visit to the Canfield Fair on Sunday, September 6, reported WFMJ-TV21.

The following statement was shared by Acton’s office regarding the alleged incident:

“While attending the Canfield Fair, an armed individual lunged at Dr. Acton, injuring multiple people. Dr. Acton and Eric are grateful for the swift and decisive action of law enforcement and are praying for the recovery of those injured. This kind of violence has no place in Ohio. Dr. Acton will always stand up to the chaos, hate and vitriol that pits us against one another,” said Addie Bullock, the Communications Director for the Acton Campaign.

The Mahoning County Democratic Party (MCDP) Chair, Chris Anderson, released a statement on behalf of the Party via social media in connection with the incident, reading:

“Moments ago during a visit from Dr. Amy Acton, an individual was arrested at the MCDP tent with multiple weapons, after knocking volunteers to the ground. Let me be clear - The Mahoning County Democratic Party abhors political violence in all forms. What happened at our tent today during today’s visit from Dr. Acton is reprehensible and should be condemned by leaders on all sides of the aisle. MCDP is grateful for the quick response by our local law enforcement officials as well as the OSHP providing Dr. Acton security. Because this is now an ongoing investigation, we will refer all questions to law enforcement.”

Mahoning County Sheriff Jerry Greene tells 21 News that the suspect is expected to be charged with two counts of assault and one count of disorderly conduct. Sheriff Greene says that two older adults were knocked over during the incident.

The suspect was holding a phone or a type of camera during the incident. However, two firearms were discovered on their person.

Officials on the scene outlined what happened during the alleged attack, stating that the suspect, identified as Patrick Havas, entered the MCDP tent and started pushing people out of the way to get to the front of the crowd, knocking two people over in the process.

Members of Acton’s security team intervened and assisted the Canfield Fair Police. Havas has been taken to the Mahoning County Jail.

To read more CLICK HERE

Deployment of National Guard in DC through 2029 will cost taxpayers $1.4 million

The extension of the National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C. until January 2029 will cost roughly $1.4 billion, according to a Defense Department estimate provided to Congress, reported The Associated Press.

The figure offers a glimpse of how much taxpayer money will be spent on a deployment that has been criticized by local officials as an infringement of their city’s autonomy and by Democrats who say it has militarized the streets of nation’s capital at the public’s expense.

The cost estimate is for fiscal years 2027-2029 and came in response to questions from Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and was provided to The Associated Press.

The deployment began last summer, when President Donald Trump issued an emergency order that launched a law enforcement surge in the city which the administration says was meant to fight crime. Hundreds of armed Guard troops have been deployed to city streets, supporting arrest operations but also helping with snow removal and carrying out beautification projects. This summer, as the city marked the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, their numbers surged to about 5,000.

To read more CLICK HERE

Former U.S. Attorney sue DOJ and AG Blanche over his firing

Less than three hours after a right-wing influencer revealed a blog post critical of Donald Trump, the DOJ fired U.S. Attorney Will Rosenzweig. He received an emailed letter signed by Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, dismissing him from his position as the U.S. attorney for Miami, effective immediately. No reason was provided, reported The New York Times.

Mr. Rosenzweig has now sued the Justice Department along with Todd Blanche, who now runs the department, and Jason A. Reding Quiñones, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, asking for financial damages and his job back. In doing so, he joined a growing list of former prosecutors and federal agents who have gone to court in an effort to fight back against the widespread purge of law enforcement officials deemed to be disloyal to the president.

During Mr. Trump’s second term, agents and prosecutors have been fired for any number of reasons. Some were seasoned veterans who lost their jobs while trying to protect subordinates from being dismissed. Others were accused, sometimes incorrectly, of having worked on criminal cases involving the president. Many worked on cases stemming from the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Mr. Rosenzweig’s firing was one of several that shared a different twist: right-wing commentators claimed to be behind them. On the morning after he was terminated, Ms. Winters reposted a message from another far-right influencer, Laura Loomer, announcing the news. Ms. Winters’s message, punctuated by a smiley-face emoji, declared: “Got this guy fired.”

Many of Ms. Winters’s posts have since been deleted, but lawyers for Mr. Rosenzweig included screenshots of them in their lawsuit. In the posts, she said that Mr. Rosenzweig had “smeared” Mr. Trump in his writings by calling him “mentally unfit” and a “white supremacist.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Tennessee moving forward with death penalty after botched execution

The Tennessee Department of Correction is scheduled to execute Anthony “Darrell” Hines on August 13, 2026, reported WPLN News.

For weeks, more and more people have been calling for a death penalty moratorium. But yet again, Gov. Bill Lee says that’s not going to happen.

“We live in a broken world where people commit horrible and heinous crimes, and victims and their families are devastated,” he said in a media availability this week. “And it’s a very difficult — those are very difficult situations… The people have chosen the death penalty for those most heinous crimes. It’s my responsibility to make sure that law is carried out.”

His statement was noteworthy for two reasons: Several unrelated groups — defense attorneys, faith leaders, doctors and Republican lawmakers — have called for an investigation into a failed execution in May, and say the state shouldn’t put anyone to death until that’s done. Lee’s statements indicate he does not want to heed that call. And Lee has maintained that during that failed attempt, the Tennessee Department of Correction had followed the lethal injection protocol. That’s a widely disputed conclusion.

This all started three months ago, when the agency tried and failed to execute Tony Carruthers. The medical staff tried to place a typical IV and failed. Per the lethal injection protocol, a doctor then tried to place a central line in a deeper vein. He also failed. After an hour, Lee called into the prison and ordered them to stop.

That cast a spotlight on whether Tennessee is finding qualified medical professionals to serve on the IV team and as the on-site physician.

Mounting concerns

First, defense attorneys for death row inmates asked for a moratorium, investigation and protocol rewrite. Then in early July, nearly a dozen Republican state senators made a similar call. Lee made his first “no moratorium” announcement then.

Last week, a group of about 40 doctors and nurses joined the call. They wrote a letter to Lee, arguing that medical ethics, including those laid out by the American Medical Association, bar participation in the death penalty.

“This means that the health care professionals who agree to take part in Tennessee’s executions are those willing to set aside their professional ethics,” the letter reads in part. “The problems that we have seen, such as in Mr. Carruthers’ case, are the predictable result of working with such unscrupulous actors.”

Then Tennessee’s Supreme Court announced it was taking up a different death row case. Next week, it will hold several days of hearings on whether the process will violate the rights of Christa Pike, who is scheduled to undergo the lethal injection on September 30. The court appointed a special master, which is a formal investigator. There’s a long list of constitutional concerns, most of them centering on Pike’s gender and extensive history of sexual trauma.

But the special master will also consider whether Pike is at risk of undergoing a cruel and unusual punishment because of her diagnosis with a blood disorder. The condition, thrombocytosis, means her high blood platelet count increases the risk of blood clotting, which can cause heart attacks and strokes. Pike’s attorneys argue this condition and her compromised veins could make delivering a lethal injection particularly difficult. Which would mean she’d likely need a central line placed, and would need a doctor on site capable of placing one.

To read more CLICK HERE

Former special counsel Jack Smith is not a criminal

Whatever one might think of Jack Smith’s performance as a prosecutor — I’ve got criticisms, and reasonable minds can differ — the guy is no criminal, wrote Elie Honig in New York Magazine.

Sure, congressional Republicans have worked themselves into a retributive frenzy — We’ve got him now! — while Donald Trump shakes pom-poms behind them. “Justice at last???” the president mused on Truth Social, expectantly. But last week’s criminal referral of Smith to the Justice Department by House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan is pure sleight of hand. On close inspection, even Jordan doesn’t quite buy into his own carnival barkery on this one.

Jordan alleges that Smith lied when he testified behind closed doors to the Judiciary Committee in December 2025. Smith was asked whether, during his investigation of Trump for 2020 election subversion, he reviewed documents containing the content of text messages sent or received by members of Congress. The key to understanding Jordan’s gambit is that there are two separate batches of documents at issue. We’re going to get a bit technical here, but we need to be precise to see through the bullshit.

It almost goes without saying at this point because it’s become so common, but this is yet another act in Trump’s political payback tour. The list of names is now familiar and seemingly endless: Letitia James, James Comey, Jerome Powell, Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, E. Jean Carroll, and pretty much anyone else who has ever glanced sideways at the president. Unsurprisingly, all of these efforts at prosecution have failed thus far.

If the Justice Department does somehow ram a charge against Smith through a grand jury, that case will fail too. Before a trial jury can even consider the fact that Smith did not actually commit perjury, he will have a powerful motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution. It’s plain that Trump and his DoJ targeted Smith because of lingering political animus over his prior investigations of Trump. In October 2025, Trump claimed that Smith and others “should be prosecuted for their illegal and highly unethical behavior!” He reiterated his request in January 2026, citing Smith’s “large-scale perjury.” And Trump openly celebrated just moments after news broke of Jordan’s referral of Smith to the DoJ.

Trump’s Justice Department has made commonplace the (previously) rarely invoked doctrine of vindictive prosecution. One federal judge already dismissed the indictment of Kilmar Ábrego García on that basis. And the cases against James and Comey likely would have gone down the same way, had they not been thrown out first because of other constitutional infirmities.

But it seems neither Trump nor the leaders of his Justice Department care much about their string of losses. As long as they get the sugar high of the investigation and (sometimes) the indictment, they don’t seem at all bothered when these cases inevitably crash and burn.

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal Judge John E. Jones: 'I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this'

Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms, reported ProPublica.

From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity.” It essentially means that judges must presume that the government — whether it be federal prosecutors, an IRS auditor or an FBI agent — did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.

Until Trump’s second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a transformative shift in priorities from issues like enforcing civil rights to instead defending a mass deportation agenda, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.

ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.

“Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like,” said John E. Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush.

“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”

In Rhode Island in May, Trump-appointed federal Judge Mary McElroy rebuked federal prosecutors’ conduct — saying they withheld information and misrepresented facts — as she quashed their requests for a subpoena in their investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children. The judge alleged the DOJ had inappropriately claimed its investigation was operating out of Texas to secure subpoenas targeting sensitive medical records of patients in another state and that it falsely claimed the Rhode Island hospital hadn’t communicated with the department.

“The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. “The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.’”

Judges have emitted a chorus of condemnations against the legal basis for some of Trump’s political agenda, including the mass firings of federal workers, an immigration dragnet that has imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens and retribution campaigns against the president’s political enemies.

In doing so, federal judges are imbuing forceful language into their orders in a way that scholars say signals to the Trump administration that the third branch of government is losing trust in the Justice Department.

To read more CLICK HERE

Acting AG Blanche meets with Epstein victims, they were not impressed

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche met  accusers of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein following a request to do so by Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, whose support is crucial to advancing his nomination to lead the Justice Department, reported CBS News.

Epstein accuser Annie Farmer said in a statement following her meeting with Blanche that she feels "even more confident in urging senators to vote against his confirmation as the United States' Attorney General."

Farmer alleged that Blanche was "abrasive, condescending, and intentionally noncommittal to survivors," which she described as "a marked contrast" from his testimony at Wednesday's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Dani Bensky, whose name and personal information were mistakenly made public in documents related to the federal investigation into Epstein that were released by the Justice Department last year, testified before the committee earlier Thursday before taking part in the meeting with Blanche. 

Bensky said in a statement that Blanche treated the meeting "as a mere 'check-the-box' exercise intended to secure votes for his confirmation."

Bensky said that Blanche "danced around his wording, repeatedly interrupted us and could not commit to anything that would demonstrate good faith or begin to restore trust." She said she believes Blanche "is not qualified to serve as attorney general."

"He did not adequately account for the release of materials that exposed survivors' identifying information and images, and he offered no credible plan to investigate and pursue accountability beyond" Epstein and longtime Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, she said.

The political firestorm over Epstein has been a persistent headache for the Trump administration, which released millions of investigative documents over the last year about the disgraced financier's crimes and connections to high-profile people. 

To read more CLICK HERE