Former President Donald Trump paid special tribute to the person who produced the chart that caused him to turn his head away from a would-be assassin's bullet, the New York Post reported. Trump called the unnamed woman a "computer genius" and invited her on stage during his rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Wednesday.
During a July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks fired a shot likely aimed at the former president's head. However, a split-second change in the position of his head to review the chart saved the former president's life.
"I love that chart. I’m going to sleep with that chart for the rest of my life," Trump, who is the GOP presidential nominee, quipped at Wednesday's rally.
TRUMP: "This chart saved my life." 🙏 pic.twitter.com/7VrnXAoZnH
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 1, 2024
At Wednesday's event, Trump began speaking about illegal immigration and asked for the same chart showing the numbers that became his saving grace earlier this month. "You know, this chart saved my life," Trump said as the crowd cheered.
"Where is that chart? I love that chart," he added. "I’m going to sleep with that chart for the rest of my life. That chart … you know the amazing thing? You know, the people that operate the computers and all the brilliant equipment we have backstage," Trump said.
He then invited the young woman, who he credits for the chart, to come up on stage. "She’s never done this before. She saved my life in a sense," Trump said.
"I said you saved my life. Here she is. Wow," the former president added. It appeared Trump asked her if she wanted to say anything to the crowd. She shook her head no, but then Trump whispered into her ear. The woman then approached the microphone and said, "Hi."
"She’s a computer genius. She saved my life," Trump said.
It's amazing what a difference a split-second movement made for Trump. Instead of taking a kill shot to the head, Trump's ear was clipped by Crooks' bullet only because the former president turned to look at the chart at the last moment.
Aaron Cohen, veteran of the Israeli Special Operations, later explained to Fox News' Trace Gallagher exactly how close to death Trump was that day. "God must have been watching down on the president," Cohen said.
"Snipers are typically trained to shoot into the cerebral cortex of the cerebellum at the top of the brain stem. It incapacitates you, it keeps your hands from moving," Cohen explained. Crooks had an easy and direct shot, which Cohen called "a putt," but he missed it.
"It's very clear to me that had the president's head been straight, and if that round had gone into the ear, it would have been lights out. The fact that he just happened to be turned this way with that shot coming in is what saved his life," Cohen added.
It was a miracle that Trump's life was spared that day. Despite all of the security failures and the determination of one dangerous young man, Trump lived to tell the tale because he turned his head just in time.
Vice President Kamala Harris is on record stating she'd like to end private health insurance, Breitbart reported. This extremely unpopular position is one of many that will be problematic for the newly-minted presidential candidate.
In 2019, Harris championed all-out socialism as the senator representing California on her way to a presidential run. When asked about her plan for healthcare, Harris said she felt "very strongly" about switching completely to a government single-payer option.
"We need to have Medicare for all," Harris said. "We have to appreciate and understand that access to health care should not be thought of to be a privilege. It should be understood to be a right," Harris added.
Harris seemed adamant when giving her answer the first time she was a presidential hopeful. However, now that she's the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Harris must answer for that record.
In 2019, GovTrack named her the most liberal senator, ranking her above avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). She and Sanders co-sponsored the "Medicare for All" bill, which would have eliminated the private health insurance option.
It was wildly unpopular with Americans and, therefore, rejected. This is an inconvenient fact in her past, as is GovTrack's concussion about her record that year.
In an effort to rehabilitate her image, the organization retracted its previous assessment of Harris that year. This comes as the vice president has also backpedaled on her radical plan for allowing a government takeover of the healthcare system.
Recently, campaign staffers told the New York Times that she doesn't support the single-payer option after all. This is just one of the many radical positions Harris is attempting to disavow just in time for the presidential election in November.
Harris leaned into her leftism while vying for a spot as the presidential nominee in 2020. It made her unpopular then and is sure to be her undoing this time around as well.
There are many problematic positions Harris took that she can't run from, even with the media and others changing history. Some of those include her tacit support of defunding police, her promise to "think about" dismantling Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and a "mandatory buyback program" for certain guns.
However, the one her opponent, former President Donald Trump, is hammering her with lately could have a profound impact on her chances in Pennsylvania. Harris is on the record saying she wants to ban fracking, which is an important industry in the Keystone State.
"She pledged to ban fracking — no fracking, oh, that’s going to do well in Pennsylvania, isn’t it? Remember, Pennsylvania, I said it. She wants no fracking. She’s on tape. The beautiful thing about modern technology is when you say something, you’re screwed if it’s bad," Trump said at a rally in Minnesota last weekend.
Harris will try her best to distance herself from her previous record on these issues to garner more votes. However, Trump is correct that it's all out there for the world to see, regardless of how Harris tries to pivot away from them.
Fox News Sunday host Shannon Beam hammered Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Democrats' mishandling of illegal immigration, the Daily Caller reported. Buttigieg and others are attempting to rewrite history on the issue for presumptive presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.
Shortly after his inauguration, President Joe Biden put Harris in charge of fixing the illegal immigration problem at the U.S.-Mexico border. She did nothing to stop migrants flowing in by the millions, and Democrats have paid the price.
Now that Harris has replaced Biden as the Democratic candidate for president, party surrogates have been out in full force to convince Americans that she never really was in charge anyway. Buttigieg was following those marching orders when he downplayed migrant crime, but Beam schooled him on Sunday's program.
In an attempt to steer away from talking about Harris' part in the crisis, Buttigieg disputed a point about migrant crime made at the Republican National Convention earlier this month. Buttigieg tried to say claims about crime caused by illegal immigrants are overblown, to which Beam shot back that victims would "still be alive" if criminals weren't allowed in to begin with.
“I saw something else really important happening at the Republican National Convention on the border and the talk about immigration, which we all recognize as a problem. Which is, they try to paint this narrative that if you live somewhere far from the border and immigration hasn’t impacted you personally, you need to think that immigration is a driver of crime," Buttigieg claimed.
"That was the real message. Immigration leads to crime," Buttigieg added.
“Well, there are blue state governors and mayors who say that every state is a border state now. That’s Democrats," Beam shot back while Buttigieg tried to talk over her.
"Yeah, now they’re saying, but what the false message of the RNC was that this was leading to an increase in crime," Buttigieg claimed, trying to pivot to statistics that can be manipulated. Instead, Beam plainly said that if these criminal migrants had "not been in this country illegally, people would still be alive."
The Democratic Party knows that Americans are frustrated with the problems brought on by illegal immigration. They also know that it falls squarely at the feet of Harris, who was charged with fixing the problem.
Fox News reported that in March 2021, Biden tapped Harris to determine why there was mass migration from Central and South America in hopes of stopping it. From then on, Harris was known as the "border czar."
Though the administration rejected that moniker, friends and foes alike used it when referring to Harris. However, with her new role as electoral savior of the Democratic Party after Biden dropped out of the presidential race, the media has launched a coordinated effort to rewrite history.
One of the news outlets that tried and failed was Axios which claimed that "the Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the 'border czar' title — which she never actually had." Unfortunately, the internet is forever and people quickly found examples from their own reporting using that title.
Democrats are weak on the border issue as it is, but especially Harris who was specifically tasked with fixing it. She may have Buttigieg and all of the rest in her corner, but what she doesn't have on her side is the truth.
The 2024 Summer Olympic Games are underway in Paris, France, and amid the excitement of global competition on Friday, tragedy struck one of the national teams in attendance.
As Fox News reports, Lionel Fatu Elika, coach of the Samoan boxing team, died due to an apparent cardiac arrest at the age of 60 at the Olympic Village where athletes are housed.
Reports suggest that though Elika received emergency treatment on-site in the Olympic Village after collapsing in what was later determined to have been cardiac arrest, he was unable to be saved, and his cause of death has since been attributed to “natural causes.”
A statement was subsequently released by the Samoa Association of Sport and National Olympic Committee (SASNOC) confirming Elika's tragic and unexpected passing.
The official release included reactions from Pauga Talalelei Pauga, president of the Samoa National Olympic Committee, who praised the late coach.
“Lionel was one of Samoa's top boxing coaches and a great believer in the Olympic ideal,” Pauga declared.
Pauga went on, “Our thoughts and those of the entire Samoan sporting community are with Lionel's family, his boxers, and friends. He will be greatly missed.”
The International Boxing Association also issued a statement in the wake of the sad event, extending “heartfelt condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of Lionel Elika Fatupaito, the national boxing coach of Samoa, who tragically passed away during the Paris 2024.”
According to People, the well-respected coach had traveled to Paris to support the competitive efforts of boxer Ato Plodzicki-Faoagali, who has since offered words of tribute for his beloved mentor.
Taking to Instagram to express his emotions, Plodzicki-Faoagali write, “No words can express how I feel but rest in love coach Lionel.”
The boxer also posted a photo depicting a smiling Elika to his account, which he captioned, “Our last picture together before you passed yesterday Grand Master.”
In a more detailed post to Facebook, Plodzicki-Faoagali detailed his relationship with the late coach, saying, “I first met coach Lionel when I was 15 trialling for Samoa's Youth team. He was a kind and generous coach, not only with his time, material things, but also his knowledge.”
Referencing the joint support he felt from the coach and his own father throughout his competitive endeavors, Plodzicki-Faoagali said, “You will be sorely missed coach, your dream was to attend an Olympics with me and dad, now you've left too early."
The grief-stricken athlete added, “Rest well old man, gonna miss you out there, you were the calm one and dad the storm of our corner.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is urging a New York State judge not to toss former President Donald Trump's conviction in his hush-money case, The Hill reported. Trump's legal team has requested a review in light of a recent favorable U.S. Supreme Court decision for presidential immunity.
Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in May. Sentencing was set to take place this month, but New York State Judge Juan Merchan has delayed it until September.
The judge will have to consider how the Supreme Court decision in favor of Trump's presidential immunity could impact the verdict. The high court ruled on the issue in relation to a separate trial.
However, Trump's legal team believes that the decision still nullifies the guilty verdict since some of his conduct, now protected by the office thanks to the immunity decision, was brought up during the trial. Merchan countered that the high court's decision does not provide sufficient justification for his New York case.
Trump's attorneys contended that because of the Supreme Court's decision, any "impermissible official-acts evidence" that made it into the Manhattan trial was inadmissible if it was adjacent to the "core" of his official capacity as president. For example, they argued that Trump's conversation with then-White House Communications Director Hope Hicks was improperly included.
Trump had discussed topics such as his activity on Twitter as president and his pardon power with Hicks. "In order to vindicate the Presidential immunity doctrine, and protect the interests implicated by its underpinnings, the jury’s verdicts must be vacated and the Indictment dismissed," the legal document argued in light of those discussions being included in the trial.
To rebut Trump's position, Bragg's office submitted a 69-page response that was released publicly Thursday. As NBC News reported, Bragg said in the filing that the immunity decision "has nothing to say about the defendant’s conviction" in the Manhattan case.
"At issue in the Supreme Court’s decision was whether defendant could be federally prosecuted ‘for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.’ The criminal charges here, by contrast, exclusively stem from defendant’s ‘unofficial acts’ — conduct for which 'there is no immunity,'" Bragg's filing said.
The district attorney went on to say that "the evidence that he claims is affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling constitutes only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered in finding him guilty of all 34 felony charges beyond a reasonable doubt." It remains to be seen whether the court will agree with Bragg or Trump.
Regardless of how this particular matter is settled, the conviction itself was unprecedented. Trump is not only a former president but also a current Republican candidate for president.
Moreover, Trump also has the distinction of being the subject of four separate criminal cases, though the New York case is the first to turn up felony convictions, Reuters reported. These facts already hinted at a politically motivated justice system that was trying to keep Trump out of the running.
The former president warned that booking him into jail would be the final straw. "I'm not sure the public would stand for it. I think it'd be tough for the public to take. You know, at a certain point, there's a breaking point," Trump said in June.
This all came before what Fox News confirmed was an attempted assassination against Trump in July. After seeing Trump's enemies attempt to kill him, seeing him jailed might be a bridge too far indeed.
There are many angles Trump's attorneys can use to dismantle this sham conviction. If the immunity angle fails, perhaps one of the others would do the trick in a case that stands on shaky legal ground.
Former President Donald Trump's campaign refused to schedule a debate with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Breitbart reported. The campaign said it would be "inappropriate" to do so until it becomes official.
After an abysmal performance in his only debate against Trump this campaign, President Joe Biden announced Sunday that he was giving up on his reelection bid. He immediately endorsed Harris as his replacement, but nothing becomes official until the Democratic Party nominates her.
Trump campaign communications director Steven Cheung explained that this has led to the decision to hold off on confirming a debate. "Given the continued political chaos surrounding Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, general election debate details cannot be finalized until Democrats formally decide on their nominee," Cheung wrote in a statement Thursday.
"There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party — namely Barack Hussein Obama — that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone ‘better.’ Therefore, it would be inappropriate to schedule things with Harris because Democrats very well could still change their minds," the statement said.
Harris is certainly Biden's pick, but many felt that she would be on shaky ground until she received the blessing of former President Barack Obama. The fact that he took his time doing so had likely caused Harris to panic in the meantime.
Sources close to the matter said that Obama was reluctant to do so and was shocked by Biden's decision to name Harris as his replacement. Obama was reportedly not convinced that Harris would be able to win in this contentious election.
Still, Barack and Michelle Obama finally gave their nod to Harris in a video released Friday, Fox News reported. Of course, it was a full five days after Biden made his announcement.
"I can’t have this phone call without saying to my girl Kamala: I am proud of you. This is going to be historic," Michelle Obama told Harris in the call that was clearly scripted.
"We called to say Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office," Barack Obama chimed in after the former first lady. Even with their formal endorsement, Harris has a way to go.
Having the Obamas' support is certainly a positive sign that Harris will be the Democratic Party nominee. Yet it isn't a done deal until the official nomination process wraps up.
The standard process would be to move toward an open convention next month when the Democratic Party convenes in Chicago. However, recently approved changes will allow for a virtual roll call that could come as early as Aug. 1, CBS News reported.
The call will only happen if Harris remains unchallenged. If anyone wishes to go against her, they must have 300 delegates sign an online petition by July 30 to be considered for the spot. If not, Harris could be named the candidate through the virtual option.
Even with this momentum behind her, the Trump campaign is still wise to wait for the process to play out. In the meantime, Harris is getting the full treatment from the establishment media to prop up the unpopular vice president as the next president.
When the time comes, Trump will have no trouble crushing Harris or any other candidate in the debate. However, the time has not yet come as the Democratic Party still works out Biden's replacement.
President Joe Biden said he would follow through with "Supreme Court reform" during his speech on Wednesday, The Hill reported. The president addressed the nation from the Oval Office days after quitting his reelection bid.
Biden spoke about his decision to exit the presidential race from behind the resolute desk in the short address. He also laid out his plans for what has now become a lame-duck presidency.
"Over the next six months, I’ll be focused on doing my job as president," Biden said. He listed off many things he would fix that he was also responsible for breaking, but also pledged that he would "call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy."
For decades, the left had zero problems with how the Supreme Court operated. Not so coincidentally, this was also during a time when liberals had the majority in the court.
Now that the court is 6-3 in favor of the conservative judges, Democrats seem to have homed in on perceived flaws in the Supreme Court system that has decided against some of their pet causes. They were outraged that the court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022.
The left also lost the battle over affirmative action as the court outlawed race-based admissions in higher education. Most recently, the high court found in favor of granting presidential immunity for former President Donald Trump, which may have sealed the deal for Biden.
Until now, Biden has been reluctant to tackle these initiatives because of the danger of politicizing the Supreme Court. However, several media reports state that Biden is ready to make changes, such as imposing an ethics code on justices.
This comes after Justice Clarence Thomas received scrutiny over high-value trips and gifts he received but did not report, which could become the rationale for Biden's change. The president also wants to impose term limits on the justices rather than lifetime appointments.
With Biden officially out of the running, he may be free to do more without worrying about scrutiny as an incumbent running for reelection. This could include the changes to the court and other issues he's promised to tackle in his final months.
Yet, Democrats have more to worry about than just what Biden does before he leaves office. With Harris now his replacement as the new presumptive Democratic nominee, they'll have to convince the American people that she is the person for the job.
To combat these succession woes, the establishment media has begun scrambling to change the narrative surrounding Harris. Fox News reported that the effort includes erasing unflattering news from her past.
One of the most striking examples is deleting a GovTrack report that pegged Harris as the "most liberal" senator in 2019. Like something out of George Orwell's 1984, that page was scrubbed sometime earlier this month, even as recently as the day after Biden left the race.
Whatever Biden does in his last few months can't be as horrible as what he's done with the rest of his term. Unfortunately, it still might backfire for his successor who already faces electoral challenges of her own.
Trump's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the transfer of funds from the president to the vice president was improper, CBS News reported. Vice President Kamala Harris is running in place of President Joe Biden after the elderly Democrat dropped out of his reelection campaign.
Despite several assurances that the 81-year-old would remain in the presidential race, Biden announced over the weekend that he was stepping aside. He endorsed Harris, who has become the presumptive Democratic nominee in his place.
The FEC complaint named Harris, Biden, and their campaign treasurer, Keana Spencer. The dispute concerns millions of dollars raised for the Biden/Harris campaign while the president was still in the running, which is now under Harris's discretion.
The complaint alleges that they are "seeking to perpetrate a $91.5 million dollar heist of Joe Biden's leftover campaign cash — a brazen money grab that would constitute the single largest excessive contribution and biggest violation in the history of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act")." This comes after an unprecedented candidate swap.
Former President Donald Trump's campaign attorney, David Warrington, accused Biden and Harris of "filing fraudulent forms with the Commission purporting to repurpose one candidate's principal campaign committee for the use of another candidate." It's as if Harris simply crossed out Biden's name and wrote her own instead of filing a Statement of Candidacy as is required.
"There is no provision in federal campaign finance law for Kamala Harris to take over Joe Biden's candidacy now by quite literally attempting to become him via an amendment of his Form 2, assuming control of his campaign by amending Form 1, and making off with all of his cash," Warrington wrote in legal filings. The Harris campaign will likely disagree.
The rationale is that the original campaign was filed naming the "principal campaign committee" with both Biden and Harris. The original fundraising committees have changed names to reflect Harris' new role, such as Harris for President and Harris Victory Fund.
Trump's case also seems questionable in light of FEC commissioner Dara Lindenbaum's statement to X, formerly Twitter. "I agree with @HvonSpakovsky, if @KamalaHarris becomes the Democrat Party presidential nominee, she gets access to the @JoeBiden campaign funds," Lindenbaum wrote on Sunday.
I agree with @HvonSpakovsky, if @KamalaHarris becomes the Democrat Party presidential nominee, she gets access to the @JoeBiden campaign funds. @FEC https://t.co/53HAXugefl pic.twitter.com/oxCp1KwUVM
— Dara Lindenbaum (@DaraLind) July 21, 2024
The Harris campaign experienced a fundraising bonanza in the days after she became the de facto nominee. From the time Biden dropped out Sunday until Monday night, Harris reportedly received $100 million in campaign contributions.
However, Warrington argued that the transfer of campaign funds from Biden to Harris also amounts to a donation and should be treated as such. "This is little more than a thinly veiled $91.5 million excessive contribution from one presidential candidate to another, that is, from Joe Biden's old campaign to Kamala Harris's new campaign," Warrington said.
"This effort makes a mockery of our campaign finance laws," he added. "Contributions by federal candidate committees to other federal candidates are limited to $2,000," Warrington pointed out.
"Yet, Biden for President is seeking to make an excessive contribution over approximately $91 million dollars — more than 45,000 times the legal limit," he added. Warrington also asserted that since Biden dropped out before transferring the money, he technically should have had to return it.
Democrats think just because their voters accepted this switcheroo that, the FEC will, too. However, the matter will have to be litigated as this is an unprecedented situation involving millions of dollars in campaign funds.
Former President Donald Trump has a double-digit lead against newly minted Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Breitbart reported. Harris took over as the presumptive nominee after President Joe Biden stepped down from the race Sunday, thanks in part to pressure from former President Barack Obama.
Biden responded to calls from his own party to get out of the presidential race. After several assurances that he would stay, Biden abruptly announced via X, formerly Twitter, that he was dropping out Sunday.
Now, a Harris X/Forbes poll conducted before the announcement shows that 52% of likely voters choose Trump compared to 42% for Harris. When adjusted using the "leaning" question of the 6% who were undecided, the advantage still went to Trump with 54% to Harris' 46%.
🇺🇲 2024 GE: Among 2,169 likely voters by @Harris_X_ for @Forbes
🟥 Trump: 52%
🟦 Harris: 42%
⬜ Undecided: 6%With leans
🟥 Trump: 54%
🟦 Harris: 46%
—
#161 (1.6/3.0) | July 19-21 | 2,169 LVhttps://t.co/aftIVaQhd4 https://t.co/gK9W0GpOYK pic.twitter.com/eQG2zGoD5P— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) July 22, 2024
According to Politico, Obama had a role in getting Biden to step down from the race. In the aftermath, he has refrained from endorsing Harris while others in the party decided to do just that.
It's clear that Obama saw that Biden's campaign was faltering, and he, along with other prominent Democrats, leaned on Biden to give up his reelection bid. Harris became the logical choice, but Obama did not publicly support Harris immediately.
"We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges," Obama said in a statement Sunday, Fox News reported.
"I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond," Obama added.
Meanwhile, Harris has received the backing of the Clintons, Biden, and other Democrats. After having such an active role in convincing Biden to leave, Obama likely didn't want to seem as if he staged a coup and handpicked his replacement.
Even if Harris is not the most popular choice to replace Biden in the presidential election, she's the most logical at this late stage. According to The Hill, the Democratic convention is less than four weeks away, limiting the time for vetting and choosing a candidate.
Harris has name recognition and the infrastructure already in place to run a campaign since she was part of Biden's reelection bid. Rather than building from scratch, Harris can pick up where Biden left off.
Furthermore, as USA Today pointed out, endorsing Harris as his successor means that the money raised for the Biden/Harris ticket can seamlessly become a Harris war chest. The Biden campaign added another $127 million to its coffers in June, which Harris would then take over.
"If Harris remains on the ticket, as either the presidential or vice presidential candidate, the new ticket would maintain access to all the funds," campaign attorney Saurav Ghosh, who is affiliated with the Campaign Legal Center, explained. Fundraising wouldn't be so easy for a newcomer.
As her track record demonstrates, Harris is nobody's first choice for anything. However, the unprecedented situation Democrats face seems to justify choosing her even with such profound unpopularity.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday to order a new trial in a case where the lower court allowed closed-door meetings about whether to buy new voting machines from Dominion Voter Systems in 2020 and 2021.
The law allows closed-door executive meetings for three reasons: “To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, the sale of property at competitive bidding, or the sale or other disposition of unneeded, obsolete, or unfit-for-use property in accordance with (state law), if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general public interest.”
The court said it used grammar to decide the ruling.
“We apply the ordinary rules of grammar – specifically, the rules of punctuation – to determine the plain meaning of (the ORC provisions on executive sessions),” Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote in the opinion. “In doing so, we conclude that the premature-disclosure clause applies to all the permissible reasons listed in the provision for entering executive session.”
The appeals court had said the premature disclosure clause only applied to the third reason--the disposition of obsolete property.
With this new interpretation, the supreme court sent the case back down to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to be looked at again.
The county did buy the machines after a judge in a separate lawsuit ordered them to.
The lawsuit was brought by Look Ahead America, a group in D.C. that has also advocated for January 6 defendants.
Dominion Voting Systems has been the target of accusations that its voting machines got President Joe Biden elected by allowing votes to be changed fraudulently.
Full disclosure, they won over $700 million dollars in a defamation lawsuit from Fox News, so at least one court felt they were maligned unfairly.
Other lawsuits are still pending.
But millions of Republicans still believe something is fishy there, and a lot of them would oppose their county buying new ones. Hence the secrecy--but that's not how local government is supposed to work.
Just because one party believes the other one is misinformed doesn't make it right for the other one to go behind their backs and do what they want anyway.
Time for a do-over--but how many more times are the courts going to have to correct these overreaching, tyrannical regimes before they change their ways? That's the question.