Rep. Tim Burchett says Trump's request to release some Epstein grand jury documents is a ‘good start'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jessica Tarlov also wasn't the least bit concerned about Barack Obama's prosecution.
Fox News host Jessica Tarlov shut down the Trump administration's 'preposterous' attacks on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others amid questions about the president's relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On The Five, Tarlov first dismissed co-host Kennedy's suggestion that the former president may have to 'worry' about being prosecuted. 'No, I actually don't think that anybody is sweating any piece of this,' Tarlov said, citing the protection that former presidents have from prosecution thanks to the Supreme Court.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Columbia University to pay $200 million, ban DEI in deal with Trump administration to restore federal research funding
NEW YORK — Columbia University has agreed to pay the Trump administration $200 million over the next three years as part of a broader deal to restore federal research funding, government and school officials announced Wednesday. The resolution agreement also bans racial preferences in hiring and admissions and other diversity, equity and inclusion programming, according to the feds. The implementation of the agreement — which caps off months of uncertainty since $400 million was revoked over allegations Columbia had not done enough to combat antisemitism — will be overseen by an independent monitor. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' said Columbia Acting President Claire Shipman. 'Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.' In reaching a resolution, Columbia does not have to admit any wrongdoing. However, the statement said Jewish students and faculty have experienced 'painful, unacceptable incidents' and 'reform was and is needed.' The agreement codifies the original deal Columbia announced in March, which included oversight of Middle Eastern studies and gave some campus security personnel the power of arrest. Over the last couple of weeks, the university has also moved to adopt a definition of antisemitism that recognizes some criticism of Israel as discriminatory against Jews, and suspend or expel dozens of student protesters. U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon described the deal as a 'seismic shift' to hold universities that benefit from American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitism. 'Our elite campuses have been overrun by anti-Western teachings and a leftist groupthink that restricts speech and debate to push a one-sided view of our nation and the world,' McMahon said. 'Columbia's reforms are a road map for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public.' In addition to the $200 million settlement, Columbia will also pay $21 million to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A Columbia spokesman declined to answer questions about a resolution monitor. In the original statement, the university said the monitor is 'jointly selected' by both parties and will receive 'regular reports' from Columbia on its compliance with laws related to 'admissions, hiring, and international students.' Despite the deal, a portion of Columbia's federal research funding will not be reinstated, which was canceled through a separate process from the antisemitism investigation, according to the school's announcement. While the university did not offer any specifics, the Trump administration has terminated grants nationwide related to diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender people, for example. _____
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional, appeals court says
A federal appeals court said Wednesday that President Trump's executive order curtailing birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The policy, which has been the subject of a complicated monthslong legal back-and-forth, is currently on hold. But Wednesday's decision appears to mark the first time that an appellate court has weighed in on the merits of Mr. Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship for many children of undocumented immigrants by executive order. A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote that Mr. Trump's order is "invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'" White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to CBS News: "The Ninth Circuit misinterpreted the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated on appeal." On the first day of Mr. Trump's second term, he signed an executive order that said people born in the United States should not automatically get citizenship if one parent is undocumented and the other isn't a citizen or green-card holder, or if both parents are in the U.S. on temporary visas. The order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents within 30 days to people who fall into those categories. The order drew a flurry of lawsuits, as most legal experts have said the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 — automatically offers citizenship to virtually everybody born within the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, with extremely narrow exceptions. The Trump administration argues the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to people whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily — citing a clause that says citizenship is granted to those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those parents do not necessarily have "allegiance" to the country, the government argues, so they therefore aren't "subject to the jurisdiction." The 9th Circuit disagreed. It wrote Wednesday that a plain reading of the 14th Amendment suggests that citizenship was meant to be granted to anybody who is "subject to the laws and authority of the United States." "The Defendants' proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868," the judges wrote. "Perhaps the Executive Branch, recognizing that it could not change the Constitution, phrased its Executive Order in terms of a strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution," the opinion said. The issue reached the 9th Circuit after a lower court in Washington state blocked the birthright citizenship executive order in February, responding to a lawsuit from several Democratic states. The Trump administration in March appealed that ruling. It reasserted its arguments about who the 14th Amendment applies to, called the ruling "vastly overbroad" and argued the states did not have standing to sue over the order. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit said the states did have the right to sue, pointing to the risk that states would be financially harmed by a federal policy that narrows who qualifies for citizenship. The appellate judges also upheld the district court's finding that the states are likely to succeed in showing the order violates the Constitution. The 9th Circuit's ruling was written by Clinton-appointed Judge Ronald Gould, and joined by Obama-appointed Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. A third member of the panel — Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Mr. Trump in his first term — dissented in part, writing that the states don't have standing and adding "it's premature to address the merits of the citizenship question or the scope of the injunction." Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on merits of birthright citizenship — yet The birthright citizenship issue reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, but not in a case involving the merits of the Trump administration's policy. Instead, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether the district courts that issued nationwide blocks against Mr. Trump's executive order were exceeding the scope of their power — a perennial topic of debate in legal circles that has frustrated presidents of both parties. The high court's ruling last month limited the use of nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 decision, it granted a request by the administration to narrow the injunctions against the birthright citizenship order, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief." That doesn't mean the birthright citizenship order will take effect. Shortly after the ruling, a New Hampshire court paused the executive order nationwide in a lawsuit that was brought as a class action, after the Supreme Court's decision left the door open to that option. The Supreme Court also did not directly address whether states can still sue over the order. In the case that the 9th Circuit ruled on Wednesday, the government has argued that courts can just block the birthright citizenship order for residents of the states that sued, rather than issuing a nationwide injunction. But the states argue that would provide them with incomplete relief because people move from state to state. Bryan Kohberger sentenced to life in prison for murders of Idaho students Trump reacts to DOJ reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer on Jeffrey Epstein files Ozzy Osbourne, heavy metal pioneer, dies at age 76
