Community activist Gabriel Thompson on Monday sued Mount Vernon, New York Mayor Shawyn Patterson-Howard over accusations that Patterson-Howard tipped off her "close associate," basketball coach Dwayne Murray, that he was about to be charged with molesting a 12-year-old girl.
Patterson-Howard allegedly summoned Murray to her office in late April to tell him about the forthcoming charges.
“I just see lawlessness,” Thompson told the New York Post. “She needs to resign. Are you kidding me? The mayor of a city reached out to someone … who she assumed was a pedophile, to warn them.
“That person cannot be given a position of public trust,” he said. “I have no political interest. I’m not running for office. This isn’t about that at all, period, full stop. This is just someone who’s disgusted, disgusted with people in power using their office like this.”
Court documents showed that Murray admitted Patterson-Howard showed him a text message she allegedly got from a supporter about Murray's actions (though it didn't name him directly).
Murray also posted denials on social media before he was charged with inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor on May 15, suggesting he knew what was about to happen.
“I want to make it crystal clear, I’ve never, ever done anything inappropriate with the players on my team, or any team for that matter,” he said in a video clip.
“This whole thing is a smear campaign to silence me, pure and simple,” he added.
Murray was executive director of the well-known Mount Vernon Junior Knights youth basketball program.
He also worked on Patterson-Howard's campaigns and previously lived with Mount Vernon School Board member Erica Peterson, for whom Patterson-Howard had campaigned.
The alleged unethical conduct is only one of several allegations in the lawsuit.
Thompson also said that Patterson-Howard campaigned for Peterson and other candidates on city time and had a taxpayer-funded police detail go everywhere with her.
Both of these accusations say that she misused taxpayer funds.
The mayor said in a statement that the lawsuit is “politically motivated and frivolous."
Former Vice President and failed Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris may think the governorship in California is the logical next step in her political career, but donors who tried mightily to push her across the finish line in 2024 are not so sure.
A new Politico report published Friday includes biting interviews with Democrat donors who are unsure whether they want to give Word Salad-Woman any more of their cash after her string of failures.
One major issue the donors had with Harris is that her losing campaign cost them a billion dollars and still ended up in debt with lingering questions about where some of the money went.
The other problem Harris faces is her presumed cover-up of former President Joe Biden's cognitive decline, the culpability for which she shares with most of the media and many other prominent Democrats.
One six-figure donor told Politico, “Kamala just reminds you we are in this complete shit storm. With Biden, we got bamboozled … I think she did the best she could in that situation, but obviously she knew about the cognitive decline too.”
He added, “I’ve written so many checks because I knew the Trump administration would be horrible, but we’re living in a nightmare because of the Democrats. I’m furious at them, truly.”
“There was more enthusiasm at first,” San Francisco-based Harris fundraiser Mather Martin said. “I think it waned a bit."
Politico reported that Harris has been quietly meeting with loyalists, some of whom have funded her campaigns since she first ran for district attorney in California 20 years ago.
She is reportedly exploring several different paths forward, including a philanthropic venture besides the governor's mansion.
While it is indeed hard to be more inept than current Governor Gavin Newsom, who came painfully close to being recalled, Harris could probably pull off that feat with one of her two remaining brain cells tied behind her back.
She really hasn't addressed Biden's cognitive decline and her part in hiding it, and now Democrat Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (also running for governor) is blasting her and Biden Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra as co-conspirators in keeping it a secret from voters until the disastrous debate against Trump last July.
Another unnamed fundraiser worried that Harris's candidacy would just bring up a specter of the Democrats' failure to win the presidency and remind voters how unsuccessful she has been.
Donors “realize it’s just going to bring up the whole pathetic last presidential, which no one wants to hear about again,” he said. “And then it’s the whole ‘Did you know Joe Biden?’ thing. She still would probably lead, but honestly, no one is incredibly pumped.”
Republican candidates in the race are already planning to use her failures against her if she runs, and possibly against other candidates who represent the Democrat party as well. Bottom line: California has a lot of problems, and donors already suspect Harris is not the one who can solve them.
The Supreme Court has chosen to uphold a fundamental provision of the Affordable Care Act, securing the preventive health care coverage crucial to many Americans, the Associated Press reported.
This decision impacts roughly 150 million people by ensuring continued access to preventive health services.
On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision in favor of maintaining a significant component of the health care policy. The law, commonly known as Obamacare, faced a challenge centered on its coverage requirements for preventive care. This component is essential to Americans who rely on it for access to various health services without extra costs.
The controversy focused on the United States Preventive Services Task Force, a volunteer panel of medical professionals. This group determines specific health services and medications that should be covered under the Affordable Care Act. The challenge raised questions about the legitimacy of the Task Force, which operates without Senate approval.
The court concluded that Senate approval was not necessary. This ruling came because the Task Force operates under the supervision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary maintains significant influence over the Task Force, including control over its membership and recommendations.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized this point, stating the Secretary has the authority to influence recommendations by changing Task Force members. This control was crucial in the decision to reject the challenge from Christian employers.
The decision holds implications for numerous medications and health services, such as those for HIV prevention, lung cancer screenings, and breast cancer medications. By dismissing the challenge, the court ensures these services remain accessible at no cost.
The legal challenge originated after an appeals court in the U.S. 5th Circuit struck down some Affordable Care Act coverage mandates. The Supreme Court's decision effectively overturns the appeals court ruling, reinforcing the health care coverage system established under Obamacare.
Alan Balch, CEO of the Patient Advocate Foundation, expressed relief, noting that the decision spares patients from losing access to vital health resources. The preservation of this coverage maintains the public's ability to receive preventive care without additional financial burden.
The case was brought forward by Christian employers, represented by conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell. Mitchell, famously known for his involvement in past legal representation for Donald Trump, argued against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's preventive coverage requirements. His arguments ultimately did not sway the court's decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged the court's duty to uphold laws, regardless of personal agreement. His voice was one of six in the decision that maintained the integrity of Obamacare's health care mandates.
The ramifications of this decision highlight the nation's ongoing political discourse surrounding health care legislation. While the ruling secures preventive coverage, organizations such as GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders caution about the potential future politicization of the Task Force.
The Supreme Court's decision fuels the broader conversation about health care access in America. Ensuring that millions of citizens continue to receive preventive care at no charge is a victory for many advocates of Obamacare.
However, the ruling also underscores the persistent debate over the role of the federal government in health care. Some view it as a necessary guarantee of public health, while others perceive it as overreach.
As the Affordable Care Act endures, the public remains attentive to how such legal challenges might evolve. The successful defense of the preventive care provision underscores its importance within the broader context of national health policy.
The feud between Elon Musk, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and President Donald Trump was rough for the MAGA world, as Musk was well-liked by many until that.
While the dust-up had died down for the most part, it could soon be reignited after Musk leveled a new round of criticism against Trump's "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is what sparked a fight between the two previously.
Musk, in an X post over the weekend, held nothing back as he launched a fresh round of attacks on the bill that he claims will have the opposite effect that the GOP is hoping for.
The Tesla and SpaceX billionaire went as far as to claim that the bill would amount to "political suicide" for the Republican Party.
Not unlike President Trump, Musk held nothing back in his criticism, making sure his tens of millions of followers understand the impact he believes the spending bill will ultimately have on America.
"The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future," Musk wrote on his X account.
The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!
Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. https://t.co/TZ9w1g7zHF
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025
In a later post citing a poll, Musk wrote, "Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party."
CBS News noted:
The criticisms reopen a recent fiery conflict between the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency and the administration he recently left. They also represent yet another headache for Republican Senate leaders who have spent the weekend working overtime to get the legislation through their chamber so it can pass by Mr. Trump's Fourth of July deadline.
Musk previously spent weeks attacking the bill before it went to the Senate, which sparked a battle with President Trump.
Users across social media weighed in on Musk's most recent criticisms.
"I’m pretty sure President Trump knows a little more than running the country and creating jobs than you do. Actually a whole lot more," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "DISAGREE. Happy that wind & solar are being taxed higher. I’m tired of seeing farmland all around me turn into solar panels. You are being selfish."
It'll be fascinating to see if Musk's latest words spark another argument with the president.
The MAGA world would love nothing more than for another Trump family member to pick up where President Donald Trump leaves off at the end of his second term in 2028.
According to The Guardian, Eric Trump, 41, could possibly be that person. The outlet reported that Eric Trump recently suggested that running in the next presidential election could be an "easy" road should he choose to pursue it.
The president's son has been a vocal advocate for his father and the Trump family and is currently co-executive vice-president of the Trump Organization. He holds a great deal of influence over his father's empire and has the same connections.
Many have suggested that Donald Trump Jr. would be the next Trump to try to hold the White House, though he's not been as forthcoming with his thoughts on actually running.
Eric Trump revealed his thoughts on the matter during a recent interview with the Finacial Times, noting that there would be many deep considerations before he would choose to campaign and essentially upend his family's life.
"The real question is: ‘Do you want to drag other members of your family into it?… Would I want my kids to live the same experience over the last decade that I’ve lived?'" Trump told the outlet.
Eric Trump made it clear that he believes his father's last name could carry him to the White House but noted that he believes other Trump family members could have the same pathway if they wanted it.
"You know, if the answer was yes, I think the political path would be an easy one, meaning, I think I could do it," the middle Trump son added. "And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too."
The Guardian noted:
Unlike his other siblings, Donald Jr and Ivanka Trump, the 41-year-old has mostly stayed away from politics, focusing instead on running the family business since his father entered the Oval Office in 2017.
However, he seems to have kept one eye on politics this whole time, saying he found himself “wholly unimpressed by half the politicians” he sees and that he could do the job “very effectively”.
The next presidential election will be stocked full of frontrunners, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among others.
When asked if the 2024 election would go down as the last one with a Trump on the ballot, Trump dropped a major hint in the eyes of some .
"I don’t know … Time will tell. But there’s more people than just me," he said.
He added, "The question is, do you want to do it? And do you want to subject the people that you love to the brutality of this system? And I’m not sure if I can answer that question yet."
Only time will tell if Eric Trump -- or another Trump family member -- goes down that path.
Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't often make public comments on the state of the high court, but he did recently at a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he made his thoughts clear on those who have criticized the court's decisions.
According to The Hill, Chief Justice Roberts said that some of the criticism leveled at the high court is "not terribly helpful," adding that he believes much of it can be chalked up to "venting" by the side that loses.
While he wasn't speaking about any particular case, the comments came shortly after the high court handed the Trump administration a significant victory regarding the federal judiciary's ability to rule against the president's orders.
Federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions was significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court this week, and it was a stunning victory for the Trump administration.
At the conference, Roberts spoke with Albert Diaz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s chief judge, and made his thoughts clear.
"It would be good if people appreciated it’s not the judge’s fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don’t get to do this," Roberts said.
"And it may be an incorrect interpretation," he added. "But if that’s their criticism, then, of course, they can explain that, and maybe the court of appeals will take a different view."
Roberts went on to imply that some of the criticism can be classifed as "venting" when a decision doesn't go the way a group or person wanted it to go.
"But if it’s just venting because you lost, then that’s not terribly helpful," he said.
WATCH: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sounds the alarm on heated rhetoric aimed at judges from politicians on "both sides." pic.twitter.com/Aqt3NZg8Af
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 29, 2025
Users across social media had their own idea as to why the rhetoric involving the federal judiciary is heated these days.
"I think the rhetoric is mainly caused by judges overstepping their authority... as clearly pointed out by SCOTUS," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Roberts is responsible for some rhetoric of his own."
Roberts has made several statements defending the judiciary in recent months, especially as the heated rhetoric continues.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued its final -- and for some, controversial -- opinions of the current term, and not long after, the topic of threats to the judiciary reared its head in public debate once more.
As Breitbart reports, Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday cautioned politicians and others to remain mindful of the fact that incendiary words about judges and their rulings can lead to serious threats of violence that, in a worst-case scenario, may even be acted upon.
Speaking at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judicial conference over the weekend, Roberts echoed familiar themes about the risk to judges of heated discourse regarding the exercise of their duties.
Though he refrained from singling out any political figures by name, it was clear to most that many of Roberts’ comments referenced President Donald Trump as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), both of whom have caught his attention in recent years due to their criticism of the judiciary.
Roberts lamented, “It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who’s doing his or her job is part of the problem. And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that.”
He continued, “And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges simply for doing their work.”
The chief justice added, “So I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind."
Roberts, on more than one occasion in recent years, has seen fit to speak out against comments made by Trump critical of particular judges and rulings.
In 2018, Roberts reacted harshly to Trump’s characterization of a jurist who ruled against him as an “Obama judge,” and just this year, he took issue with the president’s suggestion of impeachment for a judge who issued a decision unfavorable to the administration's deportation plans.
It is not just Trump who has drawn Roberts’ ire, however, as the chief justice also took note when Schumer seemed to threaten consequences for any justice who sided with pro-life arguments in a then-pending case before the high court, suggesting that they would “pay the price” for such an outcome.
Likely underpinning Roberts’ position on threats to members of the judiciary is the 2022 arrest of an armed man who traveled to the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with plans to assassinate him due to reports that the abortion precedent of Roe v. Wade was poised for reversal.
In light of recent developments at the high court, it seems unlikely that the political rhetoric -- and potentially dangerous language -- will abate anytime soon.
Last week, the majority opinion in a case dealing with the validity of nationwide injunctions, Justice Amy Coney Barrett laid bare her -- and perhaps other justices’ -- skepticism about Joe Biden-nominated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ability to do her job, as the Daily Wire noted, suggesting that her colleague’s dissent was startlingly unmoored to any consideration of statute, precedent, or “to any doctrine whatsoever.”
As valid as those concerns may well be, in an environment where there is already speculation that Jackson’s ascent to the court could potentially be negated if it was the product of Biden’s allegedly hijacked autopen, the potential for new -- and possibly -- dangerous political battles to open up appears limitless.
A scandal has emerged within one of Europe’s best-known royal families, involving serious criminal charges of sexual misconduct.
As Fox News reports, Marius Borg Hoiby, stepson of Crown Prince Haakon of Norway, and the eldest son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit, has been charged with several counts bodily harm, rape, and sexual assault.
According to the outlet, the formal charges emerged after a probe of a series of arrests involving Hoiby last year.
In the words of Oslo Police attorney Andreas Kruszewski, the alleged number of victims in Hoiby’s crimes totals in the “double-digits,” making the situation all the more jarring for the royals to whom he is closely linked, even though the total of individuals related to the eventual charges was reduced to seven.
Charges now pending against the 28-year-old Hoiby include rape with intercourse, rape without intercourse, several counts of sexual assault, and another two counts inivolving bodily harm,
Despite the severity of the claims against him, it is reported that Hoiby remained cooperative while undergoing questioning by police.
The probe of Hoiby was said by authorities to have included interviews with a “large number” of witnesses, premises searches, as well as a comprehensive review of “digital material.”
Hoiby, who, as the New York Post notes, was once referred to in the press as “Little Marius,” has admitted his prior addiction to cocaine.
His defense lawyer, Petar Sekulic, stated that his client is “absolutely taking the accusations very seriously.”
With that said, however, Sekulic added that Hoiby “doesn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing in most of the cases -- especially the cases involving sexual abuse and violence”
Hoiby, at one time, resided with the Crown Prince and Princess as well as their two younger children, though he now lives in another home in the vicinity.
The royal palace declined to comment on the situation as the case progresses through “normal procedures.”
Though Hoiby received all the wealth and privilege of his siblings, Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Prince Sverre Magnus, his life has been a rocky one due in part to the aforementioned battles with addiction.
Morton Borg, Hoiby’s biological father, previously served prison time for offenses involving drugs and violence, suggesting that perhaps, if the allegations are true, despite his son’s vast opportunities and resources, the apple did not fall far from the tree.
Ivanka Trump, the daughter of President Donald Trump, and her husband attended the glamorous wedding of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in Venice, Italy, on Saturday.
Ivanka Trump, who has been a friend of Bezos and his new wife, Lauren Sánchez, for some time, attended Saturday night's final wedding bash wearing a black Carolina Herrera dress and reinforcing the Trump family's connections with the world's elite.
Accompanying Trump was her husband, Jared Kushner, who has also been another important figure in maintaining the Trump family's connection with the rich and powerful despite the political tensions that exist between the Trumps and many of the world's rich and famous.
By all accounts, Ivanka Trump's looks turned heads at the star-studded event that featured names like Tom Brady, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bill Gates, and Kim Kardashian.
The wedding of Bezos was an opportunity for the billionaire CEO to flex his power and wealth in a wedding weekend that began on Thursday, ending with Saturday night's bash.
The wedding was held at the Arsenale, a former medieval shipyard responsible for much of Venice's historical naval power. The event was moved there over security concerns caused by protestors who targeted Bezos' wedding over the extravagant wealth on display.
Those protestors gathered at the city’s train station for a march protesting Bezos saying “Bezos, f**k off,” and “Out of our lagoon!"
Another protester yelled into a loudspeaker saying, "Bezos goes hand-in-hand with (US President Donald) Trump, who’s fueling more money in war. We are for peace.” These few hundred protestors prompted enough of a security concern to get the wedding venue moved.
Other protestors were upset with the decadence of Bezos's wedding, considering the conditions that many Amazon workers endure to make Bezos one of the world's most powerful men.
However, the city of Venice has benefited greatly from Bezos' wedding as Venice’s Ministry of Tourism says the three-day wedding, which cost in the region of $55 million, will boost the city’s annual tourism turnover by a smashing 68%.
But that likely won't matter to many normal Italians who witnessed another star-studded gathering of the rich and famous at a time when wealth and glamour are resented in a world experiencing economic downturn and falling quality of life.
While Ivanka Trump turned heads and stood out among the world's wealthy, many are wondering what her future will be like, considering her father is the President of the United States.
Ivanka Trump served in an advisory role in her father's first term in the White House but has seemingly rejected working at the White House again because of the vicious and backhanded nature of working in American politics.
However, it is highly likely that Ivanka Trump is using her non-affiliation with the White House to her advantage in maintaining connections and drumming up support for the administration.
If nothing else, her continued visibility is a thorn in the side of the powerful who bear irrational hatred for the Trump family.
James E. Ryan, the University of Virginia’s president, has decided to resign under pressure from the Department of Justice regarding allegations surrounding the school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, the Daily Caller reported.
Ryan's resignation aligns with federal scrutiny over UVA's alleged violation of civil rights laws concerning diversity practices.
The impetus behind Ryan's decisive step was pressure from the Department of Justice urging him to step aside to address an ongoing inquiry into the university's purported illegal use of DEI procedures. The investigation, which began in April, followed claims that the UVA chose to disguise its DEI efforts rather than dismantle them as mandated.
Ryan informed the university's board of visitors that he would be stepping down. Although he originally intended to resign later in the year, mounting pressure from the Trump administration pushed him to expedite his decision. Ryan reportedly described his choice as one made "with deep sadness" given the circumstances.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon emphasized the federal government's zero-tolerance stance on illegal discrimination at universities that receive public funding. She remarked on the risks university leaders face if they fail to comply with federal civil rights laws, implying support for the shift in UVA's leadership.
Allegations from America First Legal, made in May, echoed concerns about UVA’s compliance. They claimed that the university was deliberately masking its DEI framework with euphemistic terminology to avoid legal consequences.
A civil rights complaint catalyzed the scrutiny when it accused UVA of rebranding, not abolishing, its DEI infrastructure. In response to these allegations, the Department of Justice demanded Ryan's resignation to facilitate a resolution to their inquiry.
Previously, the Department of Education had sent reminders to schools regarding adherence to civil rights laws. A failure to comply could lead to funding repercussions, a pressure point that may have contributed to UVA's and Ryan’s responses.
Ryan's departure leaves questions regarding how the University of Virginia will navigate the current investigation and adjust its initiatives to comply with federal mandates.
Despite the resignation's critical implications, UVA and its Board of Visitors did not address queries from the Daily Caller News Foundation about the unfolding situation. This lack of response has left room for speculation concerning the university’s next steps.
The civil rights landscape in higher education continues to evolve, with increased emphasis on reforming practices that may inadvertently perpetuate discrimination. This context surrounds UVA's ongoing challenges in navigating the investigation.
Concerns from federal bodies underscore a broader dialogue on how American campuses incorporate and implement diversity, equity, and inclusion frameworks while respecting legal boundaries.
University leadership at UVA and beyond faces the challenge of ensuring practices meet legal standards while fostering inclusive environments. This shifting regulatory atmosphere requires schools to tread carefully as they align their policies with federal expectations.
The University of Virginia now faces a critical period under new leadership as it seeks to resolve the investigation and ensure compliance with civil rights laws. The outcome may influence not only internal policies but also set precedents for other institutions.
For now, Ryan's resignation signals a pivotal change, reflecting the complex interplay between educational policies and federal regulations regarding discrimination and inclusion efforts. The university’s subsequent actions will undoubtedly be closely monitored by educational and legal stakeholders alike.