Democratic leaders condemn Florida Republican's ‘Islamaphobic' attack on Omar
'The unhinged, racist and Islamophobic comments made by Randy Fine about Rep. Ilhan Omar are bigoted and disgusting. We are just weeks removed from heinous acts of political violence targeting elected officials in Minnesota for assassination,' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said in a Wednesday release.
'This is an incredibly difficult time for our nation and Members of Congress should be solving problems for the American people, not inciting violence. Randy Fine must apologize immediately,' they added.
On Tuesday, Fine slammed Omar for criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's third visit to Washington this year.
'War criminals should not be welcomed by any president or Congress. He should be held accountable for his crimes, not platformed. Beyond shameful,' Omar wrote in a post on X.
Fine shot back moments later.
'I'm sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists,' Fine wrote in a Wednesday post on X.
'The only shame is that you serve in Congress,' he added.
Three days prior, Fine commented ' Muslim terrorists hang out together,' under a picture of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Minn.) and New York City Democratic mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani, who are both Muslim.
Omar, Tlaib and Mamdani have faced scrutiny for supporting Palestine's efforts to be recognized as a sovereign state while criticizing President Trump's close-knit relationship with Netanyahu.
GOP lawmakers have called for both Mamdani and Omar to be deported and denaturalized following their remarks.
President Trump has also chimed in, threatening to remove elected officials who oppose his immigration policies.
'The President of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported. Not because I have broken any law but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city,' Mamdani said in a statement on the matter.
'His statements don't just represent an attack on our democracy, but an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: if you speak up, they will come for you.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
New Hampshire judge to hear arguments on class action against Trump's birthright citizenship order
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire will hear arguments Thursday on whether to certify a class-action lawsuit that would include every baby affected by President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants, is among numerous cases challenging Trump's January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, the plaintiffs are seeking to have their case certified as a class action and to block implementation of the order while litigation continues. 'Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order's myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,' lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in court documents filed Tuesday. At issue is the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The Trump administration says the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century. 'Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country's sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,' government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case. 'The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to … the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.' Legal battles continue in multiple states Several federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump's order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it. New Jersey and the more than dozen states joining its case in Massachusetts federal court have asked the judge to determine if the nationwide injunction in their case could still apply under the high court's ruling. The judge has scheduled a hearing for July 18. 'Everybody knows there's a 30-day clock, so our hope is that we get an answer prior to the end of the 30-day clock,' New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin told The Associated Press in a recent interview. In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge. As in New Hampshire, the plaintiff in a Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization. Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic. 'No one has to move states right this instant,' she said. 'There's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.' New Hampshire plaintiffs include parents, babies The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs. 'I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,' she wrote. 'I fear our family could be at risk of separation.' Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife's father is a U.S. citizen. 'My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,' he wrote. ___ Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
New Hampshire judge to hear arguments on class action against Trump's birthright citizenship order
Advertisement At issue is the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The Trump administration says the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country's sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,' government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case. 'The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to … the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.' Advertisement Legal battles continue in multiple states Several federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump's order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it. New Jersey and the more than dozen states joining its case in Massachusetts federal court have asked the judge to determine if the nationwide injunction in their case could still apply under the high court's ruling. The judge has scheduled a hearing for July 18. 'Everybody knows there's a 30-day clock, so our hope is that we get an answer prior to the end of the 30-day clock,' New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin told The Associated Press in a recent interview. In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge. As in New Hampshire, the plaintiff in a Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization. Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic. 'No one has to move states right this instant,' she said. 'There's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.' Advertisement New Hampshire plaintiffs include parents, babies The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs. 'I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,' she wrote. 'I fear our family could be at risk of separation.' Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife's father is a U.S. citizen. 'My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,' he wrote. Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.
33 minutes ago
Appeals court overturns right-wing influencer's conviction for spreading 2016 election falsehoods
NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned a self-styled right-wing propagandist's conviction for spreading falsehoods on social media in an effort to suppress Democratic turnout in the 2016 presidential election. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ordered a lower court to enter a judgment of acquittal for Douglass Mackey, finding that trial evidence failed to prove the government's claim that the Florida man conspired with others to influence the election. Mackey, 36, was convicted in March 2023 in federal court in Brooklyn on a charge of conspiracy against rights after posting false memes that said supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton could vote for her by text message or social media post. He was sentenced to seven months in federal prison. 'HALLELUJAH!' Mackey wrote on X after the 2nd Circuit's decision was posted Wednesday. In follow up messages, he thanked God, his family, wife, lawyers and supporters, and threatened legal action over his conviction. One of Mackey's lawyers on his appeal was Yaakov Roth, who is now principal deputy assistant U.S. attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's Civil Division. The federal prosecutors' office in Brooklyn that brought the case declined to comment. In charging Mackey, prosecutors alleged that he conspired with others between September and November of 2016 to post memes, such as a photo of a woman standing in front of an 'African Americans for Hillary' sign. 'Avoid the Line. Vote from Home,' the tweet said. 'Text 'Hillary' to 59925.' About 5,000 people followed the meme's instructions, according to trial testimony. Nearly all of them received an automated response indicating that the social media posts were not associated with the Clinton campaign, and there was 'no evidence at trial that Mackey's tweets tricked anyone into failing properly to vote,' the 2nd Circuit found. Mackey, who had 58,000 followers at the time, posted under the alias Ricky Vaughn, the name of Charlie Sheen's character in the movie 'Major League.' In overturning Mackey's conviction, a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel wrote, 'the mere fact" that he "posted the memes, even assuming that he did so with the intent to injure other citizens in the exercise of their right to vote, is not enough, standing alone, to prove a violation' of the conspiracy law. 'The government was obligated to show that Mackey knowingly entered into an agreement with other people to pursue that objective,' Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Judges Reena Raggi and Beth Robinson wrote. 'This the government failed to do.' Livingston and Raggi were appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. Robinson was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. At Mackey's sentencing, the trial judge, Ann M. Donnelly, said that he had been 'one of the leading members' of a conspiracy that was 'nothing short of an assault on our democracy.' The 2nd Circuit disagreed, ruling that the prosecution's primary evidence of a conspiracy was flimsy at best. At Mackey's trial, prosecutors showed messages exchanged in private Twitter groups that they said proved an intent to interfere with people exercising their right to vote. However, the three-judge panel ruled that prosecutors 'failed to offer sufficient evidence that Mackey even viewed — let alone participated in — any of these exchanges.' 'In the absence of such evidence, the government's remaining circumstantial evidence cannot alone establish Mackey's knowing agreement,' the judges wrote.
