According to The Express Tribune, in a striking legal move, Isaac Hayes' family has initiated a lawsuit against Donald Trump for unauthorized music usage at his political rallies.

The family seeks an injunction and $3 million in licensing fees for the use of the song "Hold On, I'm Coming" from 2022 to 2024.

Isaac Hayes III, representing his late father's estate, took to Twitter to announce the lawsuit directed at former President Trump, stirring significant attention online.

Isaac Hayes, a legendary soul musician, wrote "Hold On, I'm Coming" which has been used without the family's permission at various political events featuring Trump.

This legal action pinpoints a continuing issue of artists' rights versus political campaign practices in music usage.

Emergency Court Hearing Scheduled for Hayes Family

The Federal Court reacted swiftly, scheduling an emergency hearing for September 3, 2024, to address this pressing copyright infringement claim.

With the hearing date set, the legal teams prepare for a confrontation that could set precedents for copyright law in the political arena.

This court date aims to resolve the dispute over whether Trump's campaign and associated organizations had the right to use the iconic track without consent.

Multiple Defendants Listed in Lawsuit

Beyond Donald Trump himself, the lawsuit names several major conservative organizations as defendants.

The Republican National Committee (RNC), Trump for President Inc. 2024, Turning Point, and The National Rifle Association (NRA) are all implicated in the unauthorized use of the song.

This broad targeting hints at a widespread practice of using popular music without securing proper rights, a common issue in recent political campaigns.

Other Artists Also Affected by Unauthorized Use

The issue is not isolated to Isaac Hayes' music. Other renowned artists have voiced similar complaints regarding Trump rallies.

Celine Dion, Johnny Marr of The Smiths, and the Foo Fighters have all reported unauthorized uses of their music in political settings, echoing Hayes' grievances.

This collective frustration among artists points to a larger systemic issue that transcends individual incidents.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), currently a vice-presidential candidate, has come under scrutiny for allegedly inflating his credentials and misrepresenting his background, according to a recent report by the Washington Free Beacon.

According to Breitbart, The report alleges that Walz claimed connections to Harvard and misrepresented his military and personal history.

The report cites archived data from Walz's 2006 congressional campaign website, highlighting several instances where Walz's claims did not match public records or verified information.

Claims of Educational and Personal Achievements Examined

Among the contentious claims, Walz purportedly stated on his campaign site that he was named the "Outstanding Young Nebraskan" by the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and had an affiliation with a Harvard-led teaching program in China.

Further scrutiny reveals that these claims might be overstatements. Walz's biography indicated that he taught in China through a program offered by Harvard, a point now disputed by the evidence.

Additionally, Walz claimed that his military service included carrying "weapons of war" in combat and retiring as a "command sergeant major," although records show he retired as a Master Sergeant.

Discrepancies in Professional Background Highlighted

Walz's involvement with the WorldTeach program, which he linked to Harvard, was a central point of contention. The program was indeed initiated by Harvard students in 1986 but operated independently as a non-profit and was not an official arm of the university.

According to the report, while WorldTeach had funding from a Harvard association and its operations were housed under Harvard’s Center for International Development at times, it was not a direct Harvard University program as Walz had suggested.

This misrepresentation has sparked significant discussion and criticism on social media platforms, with many calling into question Walz's honesty and integrity.

Social Media Outcry and Public Reactions

Comments from notable figures and the general public on social media have amplified the scrutiny on Walz. Donald Trump Jr. expressed his outrage on X, accusing Walz of fabricating his Harvard connection.

An unidentified user sarcastically noted the frequency of Walz’s alleged fabrications, suggesting they were plentiful enough to have significant financial value.

Matthew Boyle, the Breitbart News Washington Bureau Chief, described Walz as a "pathological liar," criticizing his alleged tendency to falsify achievements unnecessarily.

Impact of Allegations on Political Career

The implications of these allegations could be far-reaching for Walz, especially given his current role in the national political landscape as Kamala Harris's running mate.

With the vice-presidential campaign in full swing, the veracity of Walz's claims and his credibility are under intense scrutiny, potentially impacting voter trust and his effectiveness on the campaign trail. As the story unfolds, further investigations and public discussions are likely to continue, shaping the narrative of Walz's political journey and the upcoming election.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has opted not to expedite hearings in the case against former President Donald Trump over election interference, adapting to a recent Supreme Court ruling, according to Breitbart. 

In a significant development, Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed to investigate election interference allegations, has shifted his prosecutorial approach.

Originally seeking expedited hearings, Smith aimed to clarify which of Trump’s actions during his presidency could be legally challenged.

The Supreme Court’s decision on July 1, granting presidents partial immunity for actions taken in official capacities, has reshaped legal interpretations. This ruling directly influenced Smith’s decision to adjust his strategy, moving away from rapid legal proceedings.

Impact of Supreme Court Ruling on Legal Proceedings

The legal landscape changed when the Supreme Court ruled that presidents could not be fully prosecuted for actions deemed part of their official duties. This has introduced complexities in distinguishing between personal and official actions in legal challenges against former presidents.

Following this ruling, Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the case, had initially set hearings for the fall. These hearings were intended to determine which of Trump’s actions during the election could face legal scrutiny.

However, the necessity to reevaluate prosecutorial strategies in light of the Supreme Court’s decision has led to a postponement of these determinations until after the upcoming election.

Reelection Scenario and Legal Implications

If Donald Trump is reelected, the ongoing legal challenges and Smith’s position as Special Counsel could be jeopardized. This is due to the potential for a shift in administration and its subsequent impact on judicial appointments and prosecutorial authority.

The case has encountered several hurdles, not least of which was a Florida court’s decision that deemed Smith’s appointment unconstitutional.

This has added another layer of complexity to the proceedings, questioning the validity of the prosecutorial effort against Trump.

Amidst these challenges, a significant hearing scheduled for September 5 by Judge Chutkan is anticipated to shed light on the future direction of the case.

Trump Campaign’s Reaction to Legal Developments

Trump’s campaign has been vocal about the proceedings, with spokesman Steven Cheung issuing a statement criticizing the Democratic opposition. Cheung’s statement encapsulated a strong dismissal of the legal efforts against Trump, framing them as politically motivated attacks by Democrats.

"The Comrade Kamala Harris-Crooked Joe Biden witch hunts against President Trump have imploded just like their failed campaign and should all be dismissed in light of the Supreme Court’s historic decision on immunity and other vital jurisprudence," Cheung argued.

He continued, "It is now abundantly clear to everyone that dangerously liberal Democrats like Kamala Harris weaponized the justice system against their chief political opponent in order to interfere in the election. The lies of the liberal lawfare pursuit of President Trump have blown up spectacularly. President Trump’s team will continue to fight and defeat the hoaxes at every turn. Only President Trump and JD Vance can save our Constitution and Make America Great Again."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has once again made headlines by upholding a significant decision on gun control laws in Minnesota.

The court's refusal to rehear a pivotal case preserves the ruling that Minnesota's age-related restrictions on concealed carry permits are unconstitutional.

This legal saga began when the Eighth Circuit was presented with the case, titled Worth v. Harrington, which challenged the state's prohibition against issuing concealed carry permits to individuals aged 18 to 20. The challenge was rooted in constitutional concerns, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which set new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment.

Background of the Controversial Gun Permit Ban

In July, a three-judge panel comprising Judges Lavenski Smith, Duane Benton, and David Stras, struck down the age-based ban. The judges, appointed by Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump respectively, found the law to be out of step with the constitutional rights affirmed by the Bruen decision.

The panel's decision was met with both acclaim and opposition, highlighting the ongoing national debate over gun control and constitutional rights. The plaintiffs in the case, including the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, argued that the ban infringed upon the rights of young adults to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The Legal Journey of Worth v. Harrington

The case's denial for an en banc rehearing, which would involve all judges of the Eighth Circuit rather than just a panel, was formally announced on August 21, 2024. This decision effectively solidified the panel's ruling, leaving the state with the option to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, expressed satisfaction with the outcome. "We are gratified by the Eight Circuit’s decision, and now we will see whether Minnesota submits a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. For the time being, we have notched another victory in our ongoing effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time," he stated.

Implications of the Court's Decision

The decision of the Eighth Circuit is seen as a benchmark in the evolving landscape of gun rights in America, particularly for young adults. It underscores a growing judicial trend of scrutinizing and often overturning gun control measures that are deemed inconsistent with historical precedents and constitutional protections.

Legal experts suggest that the decision could pave the way for similar challenges across the country, where state laws may face reevaluation under the scrutiny of the Bruen standard. This could lead to significant changes in how states regulate the issuance of gun permits to younger citizens.

What's Next for Minnesota's Gun Laws?

As the case concludes at the circuit level, attention now turns to the potential actions of Minnesota's legal team. The decision to appeal to the Supreme Court is not merely a legal question but also a political one, reflecting broader state and national attitudes toward gun control and constitutional rights.

The impact of the Eighth Circuit’s decision extends beyond the courtroom. It affects legislative approaches to gun control, the legal framework for interpreting the Second Amendment, and the political landscape surrounding gun rights debates.

Community and Political Reactions to the Ruling

The ruling has elicited varied responses from different sectors of the community. Advocates for gun rights view this as a victory for constitutional liberties, while proponents of stricter gun control measures express concerns about the implications of lowering age restrictions for concealed carry permits.

This judicial decision not only affects those directly involved but also sets a precedent that will influence future debates and legal challenges related to gun control and Second Amendment rights in the United States.

Thomson Mayor Benjamin "Benji" Cary Cranford is now facing felony charges after a controversial incident involving state prison inmates and alcohol, Fox News reported. 

Mayor Cranford was indicted for allegedly placing alcohol in a path routinely used by inmates, questioning his future in office.

The scandal began on June 3, when Cranford allegedly bought a bottle of Seagram's Extra Dry Gin and strategically placed it in a ditch along Cobbham Road. This location is known to be on the route of a state prisoner work crew, suggesting that Cranford intended for the inmates to find the bottle.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) took over the case on June 6 following a request from the Thomson Police Department to look into the allegations. This move highlighted the severity of the accusations against the mayor.

Shortly after the GBI’s involvement, agents arrested Cranford at Thomson City Hall immediately following a city council meeting. He was then booked into McDuffie County Jail and later released on a $5,000 bail.

Mayor Faces Legal And Political Repercussions

Cranford, aged 52, is now battling felony charges of furnishing prohibited items to inmates and attempting to commit a felony, as stated in the indictment issued by McDuffie County Superior Court.

The charges have stirred not only legal troubles but also political ramifications. According to local officials, if a panel finds it necessary, Cranford could be suspended from his duties until the resolution of the case.

This situation is not unique as history shows other officials in similar predicaments have been suspended under analogous circumstances.

Public Reaction And Mayoral Duties Questioned

Despite the charges, the city spokesperson, Jason Smith, commented, "As we understand the charges in this case are not related to Mr. Cranford's duties as an elected official, we do not have a comment." This statement attempts to separate Cranford’s alleged actions from his responsibilities as mayor.

Nevertheless, the public and political observers are closely watching how this case might influence Cranford’s ability to govern, especially given the nature of the charges.

Added to the mix is Cranford’s background as a former paving contractor and a recent lawsuit related to his business before he took office. Earlier this month, he settled a lawsuit that accused him of attempting to hide assets from a bonding company involved with his company’s debts.

Cranford's Political Career At A Crossroad

Elected earlier this year after defeating incumbent Kenneth Usry, Cranford’s tenure as mayor of Thomson has been short but eventful. His administration is now under a cloud of controversy that could affect his political future.

The potential for suspension stems from a protocol that applies to elected officials who face serious charges unrelated to their official duties but could still impact their capability to perform in office.

This protocol aims to maintain public trust in the governance of the city, ensuring that those in power are not only effective but also beyond reproach regarding legal matters.

A recent report highlights significant failures in the Secret Service's handling of the Capitol riot, revealing deeper issues within the agency, The Daily Caller reported.

The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General has detailed the Secret Service's severe lapses during the January 6 Capitol riot, including a near-miss incident involving Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and an undetected pipe bomb.

On July 31, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report criticizing the Secret Service for inadequate preparation and coordination with other law enforcement agencies during the Capitol riot. This event marked one of the most significant breaches of security in recent U.S. history.

The report stemmed from a thorough investigation into the events surrounding January 6, 2021, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol. The chaos resulted in a dire security situation that was exacerbated by poor communication and coordination among federal agencies.

According to the OIG report, there were significant lapses in intelligence gathering and sharing, particularly concerning the potential threats that day. This included an overlooked intelligence packet that failed to reach the Secret Service, highlighting a communication breakdown.

Former Agents Critique Agency's Preparedness

Dean Peterson, a former Secret Service agent, expressed concerns about the agency’s readiness and the miscalculation of necessary manpower, which he attributed to both the Secret Service and the Capitol Police. "The bottom line that caused it all is, whether it’s a combination of the Capitol Police and the Secret Service or ultimately, the entity responsible for protection, were not prepared, or did not anticipate accurately, the necessary manpower," Peterson told the Caller.

This sentiment was echoed by other former agents who observed that the day's failures highlighted critical vulnerabilities within the agency’s structure and leadership. Michael Matranga, another former agent, criticized the 72-hour rule for deploying the Explosives Ordnance Disposal team as illogical, especially in urgent protection scenarios.

Close Call for Vice President-Elect Harris

On the day of the riot, two pipe bombs were discovered near the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Alarmingly, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris came within 20 feet of one of the bombs at the DNC, underscoring the grave security risks that were not adequately addressed.

The Secret Service's Operations Unit’s failure to request immediate Explosive Ordnance Disposal support was heavily criticized. The purported requirement for a 72-hour advance notice hindered a swift response, even though there had been instances of last-minute approvals in the past.

"Regardless if it’s 72 hours or not, the job still needs to get done. If we’ve got a protectee that’s traveling to a location, the whole 72-hour thing, to me doesn’t make sense," Matranga emphasized in an interview with the Daily Caller.

Insufficient Coordination and Delayed Responses

The OIG report also noted a delayed deployment of additional officers to assist the Capitol Police. An email timed at 3:47 p.m. from the Secret Service claimed that 100 officers were dispatched to the Capitol with another 100 to follow. However, there was nearly an hour-and-a-half delay in their deployment, which was critical in the rapidly unfolding events.

Despite the agency's claim of full cooperation with the investigation and the implementation of most of the OIG's recommendations, the Secret Service rejected the proposal to develop protocols for providing emergency support during civil disturbances.

This decision has sparked further debate among law enforcement experts and former agency personnel about the necessity of revising current policies.

Intelligence and communication breakdowns were a recurring theme in the inspector general’s findings, indicating a need for the Secret Service to take on a more prominent role in intelligence sharing to prevent similar failures in the future.

In a surprising turn, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch allied with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court in a recent decision involving Title IX rules, Newsweek reported. 

The high court upheld a lower court's injunction against new Title IX regulations intended to expand protections for gender identity and sexual orientation, with Gorsuch dissenting to partially lift the blockade.

The Biden administration introduced new Title IX rules on August 1, designed to reverse previous policies and broaden protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. These regulations were set to replace those established under the Trump administration.

However, the implementation faced immediate legal challenges. A group of Republican-led states filed lawsuits against these regulations, which led to a temporary injunction in 26 states by federal courts, effectively blocking the new rules.

This legal battle escalated to the Supreme Court, which on a Friday decided not to lift the injunction while the appeals process was ongoing. This decision left the Biden administration's expanded protections in limbo.

Conservative Gorsuch Breaks With Majority

Justice Neil Gorsuch, known for his conservative views, joined the Court's liberal justices in a dissenting opinion. Gorsuch argued that the injunction should be applied only to the provisions that were directly challenged, not to the entirety of the new rules.

This stance by Gorsuch is notable considering his historical perspective on similar issues. In 2021, he was part of a majority that affirmed protections for gender identity and sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, highlighting his sometimes progressive views on civil rights.

The majority's decision maintains a broad injunction that affects not only the disputed provisions but also other unrelated aspects of the Title IX rules.

Broad Impact on Educational Protections

Among the blocked provisions are several critical protections, as outlined by the Biden administration. These include measures against discrimination based on pregnancy and breastfeeding, accommodations for breastfeeding students, and rights for foster parents and authorized caregivers to represent minors.

Additionally, these rules provided safeguards against retaliation for those who file Title IX complaints, aiming to ensure a safer and more equitable educational environment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, aligning with Gorsuch, expressed her disagreement with the broad scope of the injunction, writing, "I would grant most of the Government's stay requests and leave enjoined only its enforcement of the three challenged provisions."

Reactions From Advocates and Opponents

Responses to the Supreme Court's decision were mixed. A Department of Education spokesperson stated, "While we do not agree with this ruling, the Department stands by the final Title IX regulations released in April 2024, and we will continue to defend those rules in the expedited litigation in the lower courts."

On the other hand, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed the decision, commenting, "I am grateful that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that no part of the Biden administration's Title IX rule should go into effect while the case proceeds."

Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights expressed disappointment and concern. Ria Tabacco Mar from the ACLU criticized the decision, stating, "Attacking trans people does nothing to address the real problems women and girls face." Similarly, Cathryn Oakley from the Human Rights Campaign remarked, "It is disappointing that the Supreme Court has allowed far-right forces to stop the implementation of critical civil rights protections for youth."

Donald Trump has revealed the lineup for his potential presidential transition team for 2025, spotlighting both family and key political allies, The Post Millenial reported.

Should he win the upcoming election, the former president has already set plans in motion for his administration.

The announcement was made this Friday, with Trump naming figures who will help lay the groundwork for his administration if re-elected. This team dubbed the Trump-Vance 2025 transition team, will have significant roles in shaping the forthcoming administration’s policy and personnel decisions.

Diverse Leaders to Chair Trump's Transition Efforts

Linda McMahon and Howard Lutnick have been selected to co-chair the transition team. McMahon, a former head of the Small Business Administration under Trump, currently leads the America First Policy Institute. Her extensive background also includes co-founding World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE).

Howard Lutnick, another co-chair, is the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, a prominent financial firm. Lutnick also recently hosted a fundraising event for Trump in the Hamptons, highlighting his close ties and financial support for the campaign.

Vance and Trump's Sons to Serve as Honorary Chairs

JD Vance, Trump's running mate and current Senator from Ohio, along with Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are set as honorary chairs. This inclusion underlines the family's ongoing influence within Trump's political operations and his broader strategy for a potential second term in office.

The primary responsibility of a transition team is extensive, ranging from vetting potential cabinet members to drafting a comprehensive policy agenda for the incoming administration. The effective setup of this team is critical to ensure a smooth handover of power should the election results favor Trump.

Trump's Commitment to 'Make America Great Again'

"The 2024 GOP Platform to Make America Great Again is a forward-looking agenda that will deliver safety, prosperity, and freedom for the American people. My administration will deliver on these bold promises," Trump stated during the announcement.

He further emphasized the readiness of his team, asserting, "We will restore strength, competence, and common sense to the Oval Office. I have absolute confidence the Trump-Vance Administration will be ready to govern effectively on Day One."

Such statements underline his campaign's focus on presenting a robust and organized team capable of managing the country's affairs from the outset.

Strategic Implications of the Transition Team's Composition

The composition of the transition team reflects Trump’s strategic choices, aiming to blend political experience with proven loyalty and business acumen. The roles assigned to figures like Linda McMahon and Howard Lutnick signify a clear intention to merge political governance with business-oriented approaches to policy-making.

This approach is anticipated to resonate with Trump’s base, which often lauds his business background as a template for effective governance. Moreover, the involvement of family members and close political allies like JD Vance suggests a continuity in Trump's political and governing style, marked by a tight circle of trusted advisers.

Preparation for Governance on Day One

As the 2024 election approaches, the formation of this transition team is a critical step for Trump, indicating not only his readiness to return to the presidency but also his strategic foresight in planning for potential governance. The roles and individuals chosen for this team are poised to be pivotal in shaping the direction of a second Trump administration, with an emphasis on readiness and strategic governance.

The transition team’s groundwork reflects a commitment to ensuring that the administration, if elected, can hit the ground running, addressing both domestic and international challenges with a prepared and cohesive team.