BPD: Argument leads to stabbing in Binghamton Monday night
At around 9 p.m. on April 28, officers of the BPD responded to the area of a reported assault. Officers found the victim who had sustained several stab wounds to his upper body. The man was taken to a local hospital and is currently listed as stable.
Through further investigation, police believe the incident was not random in nature, and may have stemmed from an argument at the transportation center at 81 Chenango Street just prior to the reported assault.
BPD did not mention a potential suspect and is continuing to investigate the situation.
Anyone with information to please contact the Binghamton Police Detective Bureau at 607-772-7080.
'We're citizens!': Family traumatized after ICE raids home, but they weren't suspects
'I can't do that': Teen flees Saigon as city collapses
What's next for Space Command?
BU Forum: How AI and higher education work together
Democrats push bill to ban discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Top Vaccine Official Leaves F.D.A. After Right-Wing Pressure
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and all seven Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting that it turn over its files on Jeffrey Epstein. Senate Democrats on Wednesday moved to compel the Trump administration to release material connected to the investigation into the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, invoking a little-known law in a bid to force Republican leaders to confront the growing furor over the case. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and all seven Democrats on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting that it turn over its files on Mr. Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in federal prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Under a section of federal law commonly referred to in the Senate as the 'rule of five,' government agencies are required to provide relevant information if any five members of that committee, which is the chamber's chief oversight panel, request it. That provision — which became law in 1928 and sets a seven-member rule for the House's oversight committee — effectively offers a way for members of the minority party to compel information from the executive branch because they cannot issue congressional subpoenas. But it has been infrequently used, and it has not faced significant tests in court, raising questions over whether it can be enforced. Still, in invoking it, Democrats were trying to draw Senate Republicans into the debate over the release of the Epstein files, which has bitterly divided the House G.O.P. and wrought havoc in that chamber. If the Trump administration were to ignore the Democrats' request, the resulting legal battle would likely force Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, to decide whether to choose between backing the administration or defending the Senate's constitutional prerogative for congressional oversight. Since President Trump returned to the White House this year, Congress has ceded much of its oversight power, with Republicans showing little willingness to hold hearings or otherwise demand answers from Mr. Trump or his administration. But the Justice Department's recent decision to backtrack from its promises to release new material in the Epstein investigation ripped open a rift in the party that led several rank-and-file Republicans to break from the president. Though Mr. Trump has urged his supporters to move on from the issue, several House Republicans have joined Democrats to try to force a floor vote on releasing the files. Last week, several close Trump allies joined with Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to issue a subpoena to the Justice Department for its files. The committee has not yet sent its subpoena, though it is required to do so. Exploiting the rift, House Democrats repeatedly threatened to force additional votes on the Epstein files before Republicans could debate unrelated bills. Facing conflicting demands from angry constituents and the White House, House Republicans were so sharply divided on the issue that Speaker Mike Johnson opted to send lawmakers home for the summer slightly ahead of schedule rather than risk having to vote on the matter. The Senate has thus far not faced similar tumult, even as polls show growing dissatisfaction and division among Republicans over Mr. Trump's handling of the release of the Epstein files. The Democrats' letter is aimed at forcing Republican senators, including members of the governmental affairs panel, to confront the issue and is likely to needle Mr. Trump. 'Americans have every right to wonder, why he is breaking this promise?' Mr. Schumer said in a statement. 'What is Trump hiding? Trump campaigned on and promised Americans that he'd release the Epstein files. We're demanding he keep that promise. ' In their letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, the eight senators cited Mr. Trump's backtracking on the release of the Epstein files and called on the Justice Department and F.B.I. to give them to the committee by Aug. 15. 'After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump administration provide full transparency,' the senators wrote. The letter was signed by Mr. Schumer; Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee; and Senators Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Andy Kim of New Jersey, Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan. Lawmakers from both parties have previously invoked the nearly century-old provision that Senate Democrats are now using. But its enforcement has been a continued question. During the George W. Bush administration, House Democrats twice sued the executive branch to enforce the rule, but no clear resolution was ever reached. More recently, House Democrats sued the General Services Administration in 2017, during Mr. Trump's first term, after the agency refused to comply with a seven-member request for the release of documents relating to the Trump International Hotel in Washington. After several years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in May 2023, promising to weigh in on whether lawmakers could sue a government agency for information. But the case was never argued, after the House Democrats decided to dismiss their lawsuit.
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Quickest Route to a Plum Judicial Appointment
Emil Bove has had a busy six months at the Department of Justice. Appointed to a leadership role by President Donald Trump almost immediately after the inauguration, Bove quickly set about establishing himself as a feared enforcer of presidential will. He personally fired attorneys involved in prosecuting January 6 rioters, pushed other prosecutors to resign rather than go along with what they considered to be unethical orders, and accused FBI officials of ' insubordination ' for refusing to hand over a list of FBI agents to fire for political reasons. According to a whistleblower, Bove played a key role in encouraging the administration to defy court orders, suggesting that the department should consider telling judges, 'Fuck you.' Under any previous administration, revelations of behavior like this would probably have been enough to get Bove fired. They might even have been enough to bring down the attorney general, if not the presidency as a whole. But this is the second Trump administration, so instead of being punished, Bove was rewarded with a nomination to a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On Tuesday, the Senate confirmed him to that seat, 50 to 49, with all Democrats voting against the nominee. (Republican Senator Bill Hagerty did not vote; his GOP colleagues Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski cast their votes against Bove.) As an appellate judge, Bove, who is 44 years old, will have a hand in shaping the law for decades to come. Even more significant is the message that his confirmation sends to bright young lawyers seeking to get ahead. During Trump's first term, the president was able to tilt the courts to the right with a slate of judicial nominees hand-selected by the leadership of the conservative Federalist Society. Many of these judges were ideologically extreme, but their road to a nomination came through a legal movement that, whatever its flaws, had developed a distinct culture and set of jurisprudential principles that sometimes conflicted with devotion to Trump or the MAGA movement. Bove's confirmation suggests that, in Trump's second term, the route to a plum judicial appointment may be distinguishing oneself as a bruiser willing to do anything for Trump himself. When, in late November, the president-elect announced that he would pick Bove to help run the Justice Department, Bove was best known for his role as a member of Trump's criminal-defense team. Even so, his résumé seemed relatively normal for an appointee of the new administration. Over the course of the New York hush-money trial in spring 2024, he'd appeared regularly in the Manhattan courtroom alongside Todd Blanche, whom Trump would later nominate as deputy attorney general. Bove was a capable litigator with a light touch in front of the judge that seemed at odds with his dour appearance: a shaved head and a long, saturnine face that, together with his dark suit, led some journalists watching the trial to joke about his resemblance to Nosferatu. Listen: The wrecking of the FBI Even in this period, Bove gave no public signs of being a MAGA diehard. His legal pedigree is respectable, without any obvious ideological tilt one way or the other. He went to Georgetown Law School and spent years as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, a famously hard-charging corner of the Justice Department, before leaving in 2021 to work in private practice. Bove's time in the Southern District was not without controversy. He was reportedly reprimanded for abusive management and left the office not long after a judge excoriated a unit he led for hiding exculpatory evidence in a terrorism trial. His job as Trump's lawyer, meanwhile, raised the potential for conflicts of interest. But he was not an obviously bad pick to serve as the deputy attorney general's lead adviser—especially compared with the slate of conspiracy theorists and unqualified media figures chosen to lead various crucial departments. This soothing notion did not persist for long. On January 31, when Bove fired attorneys involved in prosecuting January 6 defendants, he quoted Trump's assertion that the lawyers' work constituted a 'grave national injustice.' The choice of language was particularly striking because Bove himself, as NBC News would soon report, had pushed aggressively during his first stint at the DOJ to be involved in investigating the insurrection. This hypocrisy did not seem to trouble him. Bove continued to establish himself as Trump's hatchet man, the avatar of a new order under which the Justice Department's guiding star was not even-handed enforcement of the law but immediate assent to whatever Trump said. In February, Bove forced his old office in the Southern District to end the corruption prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for Adams's assistance with immigration roundups. This was so jaw-droppingly inappropriate that it ultimately led 10 department lawyers, including the acting head of the Southern District, to resign rather than carry out the order. The judge in the case reluctantly acknowledged that his only choice was to dismiss the charges, but he did so in a manner that blocked the government from dangling a future prosecution over Adams's head, decrying the apparent scheme as ' grave betrayal of the public trust. ' Trump, however, was pleased. He announced Bove's nomination to the federal bench on May 28, in a Truth Social post. 'He will end the Weaponization of Justice,' the president wrote of the new nominee. 'Emil Bove will never let you down!' Shortly afterward, whistleblower testimony surfaced from yet another fired Justice Department lawyer who alleged that Bove had played a significant role in encouraging the government to defy court orders in multiple immigration cases. According to the whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, Bove was a key driver behind the government's decision to send Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act despite a court ordering it not to. At his confirmation hearing on June 25, when he was asked directly whether he had suggested potentially defying the court, Bove did not quite deny the allegations. Instead, he said he had 'conveyed the importance' of the flight to El Salvador and did not recall the specifics of which words he used. In the days before the confirmation vote, another whistleblower announced that they had alerted the Senate Judiciary Committee of additional information corroborating Reuveni's report. News also broke of a third whistleblower who had attempted to warn Republican senators that Bove had lied in his confirmation hearing concerning his role in tossing out the Adams prosecution. Bove's nomination produced a flood of opposition. More than 80 retired judges and more than 900 former Justice Department lawyers signed letters urging the Senate to reject his appointment. 'It is intolerable to us that anyone who disgraces the Justice Department would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land,' the former government attorneys wrote. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board voiced concern. Other prominent supporters of Trump's first-term efforts to shift the courts to the right dissented as well. 'I have serious doubts that Bove has the character and integrity to be worthy of confirmation as a federal judge,' warned Ed Whelan, a conservative strategist known for his work shepherding the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. Republican senators, apparently, were not swayed. Nor could a series of last-minute revelations—including that the Justice Department Office of Inspector General said it had 'lost' the second whistleblower's complaint, and that the Adams whistleblower had recorded audio of Bove making the incriminating statements—change their minds. Speaking on the Senate floor after the vote, Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, where Bove's new judgeship is based, lamented the chamber's 'abdication of its responsibilities.' How Judge Bove will comport himself on the bench is not obvious. During his confirmation hearing, he seemed to support an aggressive vision of unilateral presidential power in line with arguments that the Trump administration has pursued in court. There is widespread speculation that Bove will use his spot on the Third Circuit to audition for the Supreme Court. Or perhaps he will be satisfied with his achievement, taking advantage of a lifetime appointment to drop his pro-Trump posturing. Whatever approach Bove takes from here, his path so far has demonstrated that total sycophancy to the president can be a fantastic career move for ambitious lawyers—especially those for whom other avenues of success might not be forthcoming. During Trump's first term, the president essentially outsourced his judicial nominations to Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society. With the administration pushing to appoint as many judges as possible to reshape the federal bench, affiliation with the conservative legal movement was the smart play for up-and-coming attorneys dreaming of a judicial appointment. Now, though, the alliance between the president and the movement is splintering, as some of the administration's tactics prove too much even for judges on the right. In May, after a panel of three judges—including one whom Trump himself had appointed during his first term—blocked tariffs from going into effect, Trump raged against Leo and the Federalist Society. Leo, the president wrote on Truth Social, was a 'bad person' and a 'sleazebag.' From the January/February 2024 issue: A MAGA judiciary Trump's alignment with legal conservatives was never entirely stable. In the long term, Trump couldn't accept an equal partnership with a community whose primary fealty is to a system of reasoning that does not orbit entirely around his whims. Although many Trump-appointed judges are all too willing to go along with his plans, every exception is, to Trump, a personal insult. Still, even as cracks showed between Trump and Leo, there was always the question of where Trump would find his next batch of judges. Now we have an answer: enforcers like Bove. The newest member of the Third Circuit does not appear to have been an ideologue. Instead, his résumé suggests an ambitious lawyer who was looking to get ahead. When he had a chance to distinguish himself by pushing hard on investigating January 6, he did that. When the winds changed, he changed with them. What is striking about Bove is just how normal he once was, and how normal his path to the bench may soon come to seem.
Indianapolis Star
3 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indianapolis councilor Nick Roberts denies claims he groped 18-year-old woman against her will
Another Indianapolis city councilor is pushing back on accusations of sexual misconduct after a woman alleged that he groped her while she tried to push him away during a second date. An 18-year-old woman filed a report with Fishers police accusing City-County Council member Nick Roberts, 24, of grabbing her breasts and butt as she tried to pull away during a kiss on July 12 in downtown Fishers, according to allegations reported by Mirror Indy. Roberts, who has not been charged with a crime, denied the allegations in a Facebook video posted July 29, saying he did "absolutely nothing wrong." "I just wanted to completely deny the allegation of doing anything inappropriate," said Roberts, a Democrat. "Quite frankly, I'm not sure why this slanderous post was made about me, but it's incredibly hurtful not just to me but to my entire family and everyone who knows my character. I was raised to respect all people and I would never engage in unwanted physical contact with a woman without her consent." The allegation against Roberts — lauded by the Indiana Democratic Party as the youngest councilor to win in any major American city after his election in 2023 at just 23 years old — is the latest in a series of sexual misconduct claims made against Democrats in city and state politics. Roberts represents District 4, comprising parts of Castleton and Geist in northeast Marion County. Perhaps the most salient allegations are three women's accounts to IndyStar that Thomas Cook, a former top aide to Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett, pressured them into unwanted sexual encounters while dangling career growth before them as their superior. Two of the women have also criticized Hogsett himself for sending text messages that made them uncomfortable and allowing Cook to work as an unpaid adviser during a 2023 mayoral campaign despite his knowledge of past issues. More recently, City-County Council member Keith Graves was accused of physical and sexual assault by a woman 30 years younger than him, according to an IndyStar investigation. Council Democrats have promised to make reforms to the city's sexual harassment policies and reporting systems, including an overhaul of the human resources department and the creation of an inspector general to independently investigate alleged policy violations. Critics have said they doubt their intentions, however, after Council President Vop Osili ordered the forcible removal of one Cook accuser from a council meeting. Indy politics: Joe Hogsett wants to move past harassment scandal. Many aren't sure he can The accounts from Roberts and the woman, whom Mirror Indy did not name because she claims she's a victim of sexual assault, are aligned in some respects. But what differs starkly is their interpretation of a kiss during a second date. The two agreed to meet for brunch on July 5 after they matched on the dating app Hinge, Roberts said. Both say the first date went well, according to her text messages and comments to Mirror Indy. As they prepared to leave, Roberts hugged her and kissed her on the cheek. She later texted Roberts to say she "had a really good time" and "especially appreciate[d] the kiss on the cheek," according to Roberts. Roberts responded that she could get another "(and maybe more)" next time, by which he says he meant a kiss on the lips. Although the woman told Mirror Indy the remark made her uncomfortable, she responded, "I hope so, I'd like that :)" — meaning another kiss on the cheek. The two met in downtown Fishers a week later, on July 12, for ice cream and an evening stroll along the Nickel Plate Trail. During that walk, Roberts admits that he kissed her on the lips for a few seconds. The woman claims that Roberts pulled her off onto a side trail, where he began kissing and groping her while she pushed him away and told him to stop. He eventually loosened his grip, she said, apparently because someone walked by along the main trail. Roberts denies her account of those events, he said. He told Mirror Indy that the pair walked onto a side trail and kissed for a few seconds. He claims only to have put his hands on her hips. "While on our walk, because of those text messages, I kissed her on the lips for a few seconds," he said in a written statement reviewed by IndyStar. "During the kiss, she did not push me away or ask me to stop. If she had done either, I would have stopped immediately. We then walked for approximately another 30 minutes, and we had a conversation with nothing out of the ordinary." While Roberts described the following moments as unremarkable, the woman told Mirror Indy she was visibly shaken afterward. When they arrived back at their cars, Roberts said, "she leaned in so I could give her a kiss on her cheek and we said goodnight." The woman decided to file a police report soon after the date. Fishers police told Mirror Indy that the investigation is ongoing and refused to comment further. Roberts said he's cooperating fully with the police investigation and will continue to focus on his work as a councilor. "I have faith in the process and believe the facts will prove my innocence," Roberts said in the Facebook video, "and I remain committed toward working for our council district in the meanwhile."
