<There was some good news and some bad news for former President Donald Trump and his legal team Friday in a pair of decisions from an appellate judge in New York.

New York appeals court Associate Justice Peter Moulton issued a temporary stay that halted the breakup of a number of Trump-owned businesses, CNN reported Friday, but refused to throw out the fraud trial that had brought that decision about in the first place.

That stay, however, may prevent the dissolution of much of Trump's business empire for no longer than a month.

Trump's legal team argued that the businesses shouldn't be broken up because, if Trump were to win an appeal against Judge Arthur Engoron's decision to do so, it would be too late to reverse some of those actions.

Trump's team hopes to see at least some parts of Engoron's ruling reversed on appeal.

They also hope that some of or even most of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case against Trump could be tossed because of an appeals court ruling from June that could be interpreted to mean that many of her accusations had passed the time allowed by the statute of limitation before they were filed.

Christoper Kise, one of Trump's attorneys, argued that taking action against the companies before those decisions are finalized could harm 1,000 current employees, or possibly more.

"Engoron had ordered Trump to propose potential receivers by October 26, which would begin the process of dissolution," CNN reported .

“[Engoron] clearly does not comprehend the scope of the chaos its decision has wrought,” Trump’s legal team argued in a court filing Friday before Moulton's decision.

Some of the private homes occupied by Trump and some of the other defendants are are actually owned by limited liability corporations that could be affected by Engoron's ruling, which Moulton said put them at risk of being sold out from under their occupants.

Trump's team had also sought to delay the trail [sic] overall, but Moulton declined to intervene on that count.

The plaintiffs claimed that Trump's attorneys had been unable "to point to any purported irreparable harm from proceeding with a trial that has already begun." Apparently, Moulton agreed.

James' team argued that delays in this trial could then bump it into conflict with other cases pending against Trump, causing domino effect that would make scheduling any of them problematic.

“If the trial here is delayed at all, there is a significant risk that defendants will request further delays of trial based on the deadlines in these other cases. Indeed, defendants already appear to be attempting to play one court against the other,” the motion read.

They also claimed that they had offered to enter into an agreement with Trump's legal team to delay enforcement of the order canceling the business certificates for many of Trump's businesses, but that Trump's team had refused to discuss it with them.

Another factor weight against any trial delay, James' team argued, were all the special arrangements the court had had to make, given the high profile of the proceedings.

The attorney general's office noted "special security arrangements outside and inside the courthouse, many additional security and other court personnel to conduct those security arrangements, and special arrangements to ensure access for the press and public," among the accommodations the court had already had to make.>

<Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody of Florida asked the state Supreme Court Monday to review language for a proposed abortion amendment that would enshrine the practice up to viability, according to The National Desk.

The amendment was submitted by Floridians Protecting Freedom (FPF) and has amassed 0ver 400,000 of the 891,523 signatures needed by Feb. 1 to get the amendment on the November 2024 ballot, according to The National Desk. Moody has been vocal in her opposition to the amendment and told the court Monday that she felt FPF’s proposed language did not “satisfy the legal requirements” for a spot on the ballot.

“I submit that the aforementioned initiative does not satisfy the legal requirements for ballot placement,” Moody wrote. She said that she would detail her full objections in a follow-up brief to be submitted soon, according to The National Desk.

The ballot summary of the amendment, which would be presented to voters, states that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider,” according to the text. The amendment would not change Florida law which requires minors to notify their parents or guardians before having an abortion.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law in April that bans abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy or after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The law has limited exceptions of up to 15 weeks in cases of rape, incest, human trafficking or to protect the life of the mother.

Moody had explained that she was staunchly pro-life but that her objections to the amendment’s language were based solely on concerns that in its current form, the amendment would “mislead” voters, in an article that she wrote for Florida’s Voice. She explained that the term “viability” can mean around 12 weeks when a pregnancy is expected to continue normally or when a child can survive outside the womb, around 21 to 25 weeks.

“As any mother knows, ‘viability’ has two meanings when it comes to pregnancy,” Moody wrote. “When it comes to viability, even the pro-choice-aligned American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes the two medical definitions and urges that ‘[t]he concept of viability of [an unborn baby] is frequently misrepresented or misinterpreted based on ideological principles. This perpetuates incorrect and unscientific understandings of medical terms.'”

FPF and Moody did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.>

<Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) is already facing an uphill battle for reelection despite not announcing her 2024 plans, as polls show Arizona voters may be ready for new blood.

A poll from Public Policy Polling shared with the Hill found that Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is dominating early numbers, receiving 41% of voter support compared to Republican Kari Lake's 36%. Sinema is trailing at 15% in a hypothetical three-way matchup, with 8% saying they weren't sure.

Even without the presence of Lake, Sinema is falling behind, according to the poll. In a three-way race with Gallego and Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, Lake's top Republican primary opponent, Gallego still leads with 40% of the vote. Lamb followed behind with 31%, and Sinema received 16%, with 13% saying they were not sure.

Sinema, who switched political affiliations from Democratic to independent shortly after the 2022 midterm elections, has remained silent on her plans for the next election cycle. However, polling shows that securing her seat for another term may be difficult.

While 23% said Sinema should run again for Arizona Senate, 58% of the poll's respondents said she should not. Her favorability rating lands around 26%, compared to her unfavorability rating of 52%.

Sinema's campaign has reportedly been circulating a plan outlining ways she can appeal to voting blocs across Democrats, independents, and Republicans, but Lake's candidacy is likely to hinder the Arizona senator's election chances.

The former Arizona gubernatorial candidate filed paperwork on Oct. 3 to run for Senate in 2024 after months of rising speculation. She ran as a Republican against now-Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) in the 2022 midterm elections and has yet to concede her loss, pushing claims of election interference.

Lake's hard-line conservative views have caused establishment Arizona Republicans to fear a repeat of 2022, when several hard-line Republicans beat centrist GOP candidates in the primaries but lost to Democrats in the general elections. Several of those who lost their elections push claims of voter fraud, similar to former President Donald Trump's reaction when he lost the 2020 election.

Though she lost to Hobbs, Lake has built a loyal following among Trump's supporters in the state, which she is hoping will help her in a Senate matchup.

This could also draw some Republican and independent voters away from Sinema, particularly the 13% and 8% in the hypothetical matchups who have yet to select a candidate. The seat is rated as a "toss-up" by CookPoliticalReport.

The Public Policy Polling poll, commissioned by Gallego's campaign, was conducted between Oct. 6 and Oct. 7 with 522 Arizona voters surveyed. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.>

<Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe walked through the latest revelations that Donald Trump leaked classified information about U.S. nuclear sub to an Australian businessman – and said there is no excuse or downplaying of that charge.

Speaking on the "Jack" podcast with Allison Gill (of Mueller, She Wrote), McCabe targeted the statement Trump's office put out downplaying the seriousness of the actions.

Trump's spokesperson said that the claim about the "leaks" lacks "proper context and relevant information."

"President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner, according to the law," the spokesperson told ABC.

Trump allegedly shared the information with Australian businessman Anthony Pratt of Pratt Industries, who then told others. In fact, Pratt said the number of people he told was likely close to 45 and includes a dozen or so foreign officials, several of his own employees and a handful of journalists, Gill explained.

The scene unfolded when Pratt, looking to make conversation at Mar-a-Lago, told Trump that he thought the Australian government should buy its subs from the U.S. Trump then "leaned forward" and told the man the number of nuclear warheads that can be held on such subs and just how close they can get to a Russian sub without being detected.

McCabe explains that most classified information is delegated to be handled by executive order, but not when it comes to nuclear information. Trump has claimed that much of the information that he took from the White House was "declassified' by him before leaving office and that he had a "standing order" to declassify things when they left the West Wing.

Nuclear secrets don't work that way. McCabe explained that the legal statutes determine the classification of nuclear information and not even the president can unilaterally declassify and disseminate that defense intelligence.

"I'm sorry, what context makes it OK to share classified information — nuclear information?" McCabe said in response to Trump's spokesperson. "You could easily argue [it's] the most sensitive information we have."

If you're Trump, McCabe quipped, "You can just share it with your friends at Mar-a-Lago after a well-done steak and a bowl of vanilla ice cream."

Gill, who briefly served on a nuclear ship, said that she knows people on such subs and that even they aren't aware of that information.

"That's what kills me," McCabe said. "People in the defense community, the intelligence community, you spend your life collecting this information and perfecting it. Sharing it with decision-makers under rigorous controls, understanding and living by the rules necessary to preserve these secrets the nation's secret to preserve our safety and dominance in the world, certainly in areas like the High Seas in terms of nuclear-aided defense weapons.

"And to see a former president just blithely run past these requirements, to handle this information so incredibly irresponsibly, it's just sickening. It really is.">

<A moderate and well-funded network led by the former 2012 Republican presidential ticket of Sen. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Paul Ryan is teaming up to influence the 2024 election and today’s politics.

With an eye on pushing former President Donald Trump to the sidelines, the duo’s allies of donors and influencers are meeting in Park City, Utah today to push for new GOP leadership and hear from a series of Republican presidential candidates that apparently agree.

The candidates slated to speak to about 250 are Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, former Vice President Mike Pence and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.

Ryan told Secrets that the E2 Summit, named for “experts and enthusiasts,” is his way to jazz up Republicans looking for a new party leader.

“There's a vacuum of leadership right now which underscores the importance of bringing together an array of key voices for serious and substantive conversations about the challenges we face and how they can be addressed,” he said of the summit that he is hosting.

“The individuals speaking at E2 this week -- from elected officials, political candidates, top policy minds, military and national security experts, leading CEOs, and others at the forefront of their respective fields -- all offer unique perspectives and innovative ideas that will allow us to work towards solving these problems and improving the country's future outlook,” Ryan added.

The summit was once a Romney affair and Ryan has revived it. The two were the 2012 Republican presidential ticket. They lost to former President Barack Obama who won a second term. Romney has said that he does not plan to run for reelection.

In his comments to Secrets, Ryan focused on Biden not Trump, who he has criticized, as has Romney.

"Joe Biden's agenda is holding America back. His policies have led to soaring debt and higher inflation, hurting families and undermining confidence in our economy. Republicans have the opportunity to defeat him in next year's election if our party follows the lead of the candidates who are attending this summit and focuses on sharing an optimistic, pro-growth, conservative vision for America in the mold of Ronald Reagan that is rooted in serious leadership and responsible governance,” said the former House speaker.

The summit, held behind closed doors, is a Ryan bid to expand the party’s consideration of policy beyond just conservative solutions. The comments are considered “off-the-record” to allow candidates and others to speak freely.

It comes at a time that Trump is dominating the 2024 race and Democrats are looking for alternatives to Biden.

Among the non-candidates speaking are Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, former Attorney General Bill Barr, former Trump national security advisor Robert C. O'Brien and Scale AI CEO Alex Wang.

Ryan is a partner at Solamere Capital, a private equity firm founded by Eric Scheuermann, Tagg Romney, and Spencer Zwick that helped organize the summit.

He said, “It's an honor for me to be hosting this important summit alongside my good friend Mitt Romney, the team at Solamere Capital, and the esteemed network of supporters who are industry leaders in their own right and carry significant influence in determining the future direction of the country.”>

<When House Republicans in January chose Rep. Kevin McCarthy as speaker, that was bad enough: The highest ranking official under the Capitol dome was someone who’d been complicit in then-President Trump’s stoking the worst attack on that very building since its burning by the British in 1814.

Replacing the Bakersfield Republican with Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan would be so much worse.

Here’s the key difference between them: Trump’s “My Kevin” McCarthy played along as the defeated president spun up his MAGA militia with false claims of Democrats’ election steal. But Jordan — he plotted along with the insurrectionist in chief.

Jordan’s name appears 44 times in the final report of the House committee that investigated the tragedy of Jan. 6, 2021, and the conspiring that led up to it. The report documents his White House meetings and repeated calls with Trump, including during the Capitol attack, and his contacts before and after with Trump’s lackeys. The committee recommended that the Justice Department investigate Jordan, along with McCarthy and several other House Republicans, and that the House Ethics Committee consider sanctioning him for ignoring its subpoenas.

You read that right: The man who wants to lead the House refused to voluntarily tell one of its committees what he knew about its desecration, then scorned a subpoena and trumpeted his defiance in a fundraising campaign.

Jordan’s effrontery is pretty rich. Now, as chair of the House Judiciary Committee and its anti-Biden “weaponization of government” subcommittee, he’s been only too happy to subpoena people, including Biden Cabinet chiefs and administration officials.

But what could be ahead is more egregious: If Republicans choose Jordan over the other speaker candidate, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, the person second in line to the presidency would be a guy who actively sought to overturn a presidential election that even Trump administration officials deemed "the most secure in American history."

Two days after the 2020 election, Jordan starred at a “Stop the Steal” rally at the Capitol in Pennsylvania, one of the pro-Biden states central to coup plotters’ scheming. On TV, he repeatedly claimed that the election was stolen. He was in cahoots with Trump officials about goading then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject some Biden electoral votes when Pence presided over the certification of the election in Congress on Jan. 6. Jordan attended a pivotal White House planning meeting on Dec. 21, and that month Trump cited the “fighter” Jordan’s support in haranguing Justice Department leaders to back the false voting fraud allegations....>

<....There’s more: On Jan. 2, 2021, Jordan led — led! — a conference call with Trump and a few other Republicans to strategize about the certification vote as well as a social media effort to mobilize a simultaneous MAGA “march to the Capitol.” Trump and Jordan then spoke privately for 18 minutes.

In the hours after the insurrection, with several people dead and scores of police injured, Jordan continued to coordinate with Trump and Co. to upend the election certification. And after Jan. 6, he spoke with Trump advisors about pardons for implicated Republicans.

On Jan. 11, Trump cheapened the esteemed Presidential Medal of Freedom, intended to recognize "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States," by privately awarding it to his accomplice, Jordan.

You can read it all in the Jan. 6 committee report, thanks to other Republicans’ sworn testimony, texts and phone records. No thanks to Jordan: The loudmouth remains uncharacteristically mute about his and Trump's roles on Jan. 6. The would-be speaker won’t speak.

As former Rep. Liz Cheney, the Republican vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, told a Minneapolis audience last Thursday: “Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for Jan. 6 than any other member of the House of Representatives.”

Should Republicans choose him as speaker, Cheney added, “There would no longer be any possible way to argue that a group of elected Republicans could be counted on to defend the Constitution.”

Of course Trump, the would-be Terminator of the Constitution, has endorsed Jordan.

You might think that the moderates among House Republicans — there are a few — would be repelled by that endorsement and, fretful of a backlash in their swing districts, unite to prevent Jordan from winning. Why not take a page from the eight McCarthy mutineers, who allied with Democrats to oust him?

Instead, indications are that the so-called moderates will fall in line behind Jordan if he wins most other Republicans’ votes. The caucus could vote Wednesday. However, to avoid a repeat of the party’s embarrassment in January, when it took 15 ballots to select McCarthy, Republicans say they won’t hold a full House vote until they’re sure that Jordan, Scalise or someone else — on Monday, McCarthy said he'd be open to being recycled as speaker — has the necessary majority to win.

The wrangling to get to that point could take days. At the same time, the international crisis ignited by the war between Israel and Hamas has given Republicans a sense of urgency to pick a leader, as unleadable as they are. Until they do, the headless House is all but paralyzed.

After the 2006 congressional elections that brought Jordan to Washington, I met with a top aide to the House Republican leadership for a background briefing on the newcomers. He quickly brought up Jordan: “Watch out for that guy, he’s bad news.” His reputation as a self-promoting attack dog in Ohio’s legislature preceded him.

Neither I nor my source could have imagined back then that Jordan might one day be the favorite for House speaker. And after he’d joined an effort to overturn a presidential election.

What? Overturn an election? We were such innocents.>

<This weekend, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) took to X to complain about the latest gas prices in her home state, but she was caught in a "lie." "Over $4/gallon in South Carolina today," she posted.

But Patrick De Haan, the nonpartisan head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, was quick to point out on Monday that not only was her figure way off, she lives in one of the cheapest states to buy gasoline.

"Hi Nancy, time to download GasBuddy. Hundreds of stations in SC are at $2.99/gal or below, and not a single station has been reported to GasBuddy over $3.79/gal today in SC, it's amazing how you might have managed to find the most expensive BY FAR. Is your head in the sand?" wrote De Haan. He added, "It's weird you can't figure out how low SC really is right here: http://prices.gasbuddy.com where ANYONE can immediately see through your lies."

Mace is one of eight House Republicans who voted to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) last week — the first time this has happened in U.S. history.

After years of cheap fuel costs due to the shale oil boom creating an unexpected glut, gas prices surged in 2022 to around $5 a gallon, driven partly by geopolitical instability like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and partly by oil companies facing pressure from Wall Street to cut supply and boost profit margins.

Prices have eased somewhat this year, but have ticked up again modestly at the end of the summer. Despite this, the United States remains one of the cheaper nations to buy gas, with strong domestic production of fossil fuels ensuring prices stay lower than throughout Europe.>

<A new poll of Ohio voters delivered a blow to Democrats' chances of holding the Senate in the 2024 elections, showing Republicans with a slight lead over incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown.

Brown is facing reelection in Ohio, a state with an increasingly Republican-friendly electorate, next November. The race is viewed as a must-win for Democrats, who need to win critical races in conservative-leaning states next year to maintain their narrow Senate majority. Democratic incumbents in Ohio, Montana and West Virginia are viewed as the most vulnerable, as former President Donald Trump carried each of those states in 2020.

Brown, first elected to the Senate in 2006, will face Ohio votes for the first time since 2018 when a "blue wave" carried Democrats to victory in Republican areas across the country. Brown won by just under 7 points.

But new polling numbers released Tuesday suggest that Brown could be in for a tight reelection race next November. An Emerson College poll found two of his most likely challengers leading him, though many voters remained undecided and the race remains close.

The poll, which surveyed 438 registered voters, found State Senator Matt Dolan with the strongest lead over Brown, leading by two percentage points. Secretary of State Frank LaRose led by one point, according to the poll. Polls have shown LaRose with a consistent lead over his opponents, though the Emerson poll did not include primary numbers.

Meanwhile, Brown maintained a 2-point lead over Bernie Moreno, a former Senate candidate and ally to former President Donald Trump.

Notably, the poll found a significant number of voters remained undecided as to who they plan to vote for. In the matchup between Brown and LaRose, 23 percent of voters remained undecided, meaning Brown could still win those voters. The poll had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Other surveys have found stronger numbers for Brown. A USA TODAY Network/Suffolk University poll in July found Brown leading LaRose by 0.4 percentage points, Dolan by 3.4 percentage points and Moreno by 7.2 percentage points.

The Cook Political Report, an organization that tracks elections across the U.S., rates the race as a "toss-up," meaning that either party has a chance at winning.

Newsweek reached out to Brown's campaign for comment via email

Should Brown lose reelection, Democrats would need to hold their seats in Montana and West Virginia, both more reliably Republican states than Ohio, which was won by former President Barrack Obama twice, or flip a GOP-held state. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is viewed as the most vulnerable Republican in the state that has drifted toward Democrats in recent years, but he is still seen as favored, polls show.

Meanwhile, Democrats are also aiming to flip Arizona's seat currently held by Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat-turned-Independent. Sinema has not announced whether she plans to run for reelection, but polls generally show Democrat Ruben Gallego, expected to be the nominee, with an edge in a three-way race against Sinema and a Republican.>

<Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk is pitching donors on raising a whopping $108 million for a get-out-the-vote effort in key swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia next year.

But veteran conservative activist Erick Erickson tells the Associated Press that he's skeptical all of that money will really go toward getting conservatives out to the polls next year.

“Any donor who thinks an organization needs $108 million for a three-state grassroots get-out-the-vote campaign is being taken advantage of,” he said. “It sounds like a grift.”

Records reviewed by the AP provide some evidence to justify Erickson's suspicion, as it found "top Turning Point officials collected pricey salaries, enjoyed lavish perks and steered at least $15.2 million to companies that they, their friends and associates are affiliated with."

Kirk himself has personally benefited from his leadership of Turning Point, as he owns a "$4.75 million Spanish-style estate" that is "tucked away in a gated Arizona country club that charges nearly a half-million dollars for a golf membership."

Added to this, notes the AP, Turning Point has largely failed in its mission to elect conservatives in its home state of Arizona, where Democrats swept major elections in 2022 and where former President Donald Trump went down in defeat to President Joe Biden in 2020.

Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet defended his groups [sic] efforts in a defiant statement to the AP.

"“If the so-called ‘experts’ know what it takes to build successful ballot chasing teams, why are conservatives apparently so bad at it?” he said. “Why are we getting lapped by progressives in spending and in (get-out-the-vote) operations in key states and counties?”>

<Virginia's two Democratic senators are urging the Justice Department to launch a Voting Rights Act investigation into Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin after his administration was accused of improperly removing hundreds of people from the commonwealth voter rolls, reported The Washington Post on Tuesday.

The letter, signed by Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine as well as several other lawmakers on Friday, urges Attorney General Merrick Garland to probe why 270 fully qualified Virginia voters were "purged," saying, “This widespread error creates an enormous barrier to the democratic process for these affected Virginians while early voting has already begun for this November’s election.” This comes after several other Virginia officials have demanded an investigation.

Election officials working in the Youngkin administration have said that the removals were an innocent mistake and that the voters will be restored before the November 7 legislative elections in Virginia, which will decide control of both chambers and determine how much power the Republican governor has to enact a more culturally conservative agenda in the last two years of his term.

The problem came about because Youngkin's administration removed over 10,000 people from the voter rolls earlier this year due to a disqualifying felony conviction that was not caught by the state's electronic systems. Virginia is one of the only states that permanently disenfranchises some people with felony convictions even after completion of their sentence; many have their rights restored by the governor, but the system update the Youngkin administration pushed forward was designed to catch errors where voters had their rights restored but committed a second felony afterward.

The changes, however, mistakenly counted some people who had been flagged for simple probation violations as having been convicted of a new felony, improperly canceling their voter registrations. The previous three governors before Youngkin, including one Republican and two Democrats, implemented policies where at least some people had their voting rights restored automatically on completion of their sentence. Youngkin, however, has rolled this back, requiring everyone to apply individually for a restoration of rights and deciding case by case with no transparent criteria.>

<A noted scholar on fascism and authoritarianism issued a dire warning Tuesday in response to remarks made by Donald Trump at his most recent rally in New Hampshire.

In response to the video (below), New York University professor of history and Italian studies, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who writes about fascism, authoritarianism, propaganda, and democracy protection, observed that Trump “is ramping up his Fascist reeducation of Americans to see violence and cruelty as positive.”

Trump in the clip says, “And now it even pertains to Israel. What happened yesterday was incredible. I mean, whoa, so many people killed I don’t know you can hear but the number was much bigger than they reported even this morning. It’s a very big number very, very big number and vicious, young children just slaughtered. It’s terrible what’s going on. So this is ‘The Snake’ and people love it. and I do it if people want to hear it. Some people have heard it. some people haven’t. but we’ll do it right. ‘On our way to work one morning, down the path along the lake, a tenderhearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake…'”

Former Crooked Media editor in chief, Brian Beutler, also responded to the video, writing: “With this, and Ronna Romney McDaniel declaring the attacks a ‘great opportunity’—and really everything since Benghazi—it could not be clearer that the GOP salivates for barbarism and human calamity when the president is a Democrat. Utterly ghoulish party.”>

<A handful of Georgia Senate Republicans filed a complaint against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis with the state’s Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission, a new state-run panel with authority to investigate and oust local district attorneys that officially formed at the beginning of the month.

The commission was created when it was signed into law earlier this year on the heels of a broader movement by Republican governors last summer, who pushed for new policy to enact control over district attorneys whose enforcement they didn’t like. The trend began in Florida when Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) fired a local prosecutor for, among other things, stating publicly he wouldn’t prosecute people seeking abortions.

But in Georgia, the panel initiative was pushed into law over the course of the last year for a bigger, riper purpose, too: as a line of defense for Donald Trump, who, at the time of the bill’s introduction in the state legislature, was being investigated by Willis. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) said as much of the bill’s introduction.

While the complaint against Willis filed by eight Georgia Senate Republicans does not specifically mention Trump, the Republican lawmakers linked a recent uptick in deaths in the Fulton County Jail to Willis’ 2020 election investigation and decision to “empanel a special grand jury to investigate her political adversaries,” a line straight out of the Trumpian playbook.

“The integrity of our justice system is at stake, and the trust of the community in the District Attorney’s Office has been severely eroded,” the Republicans wrote, according to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, which obtained a copy of the document. The letter was signed by Georgia Senate Majority Leader Steve Gooch and state Sen. Jason Anavitarte, per the AJC.

As one of the few Republicans who has managed to survive the wrath of Trump after he refused to embrace his 2020 election overturning efforts in the state, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has repeatedly refused to disparage Willis for her investigation. But he did in recent weeks suggest that her timing was bad.

“I haven’t seen anything that she has done that has broken the law or the procedures that we have. And I’ve been very honest with people about that,” Kemp told AJC in a recent interview. “It may be a political action she’s taken in some ways, with timing and other things, but it doesn’t mean it’s illegal.”

I wrote about this particular long game Trump retribution crusade here a few months back, but the.... Despite Kemp’s hands-off approach to the Willis investigation, he’s backed the creation of this panel — with its anti-Willis intentions that other Georgia Republicans have long acknowledged more candidly — from the start.>

<After Ohio Republicans bolstered their statehouse majority last year due to their dominating showing in the midterm elections, they split into rival camps over who should lead the lower chamber.

The division between younger, more impatient conservatives and more traditional ones was only settled when Democrats crossed party lines to end a standoff over who would become speaker of the Ohio House.

Since then, despite their power over all levels of state government, Ohio Republicans have been convulsed by infighting as party leaders censured everyone who had voted for their new speaker, Republican Jason Stephens. Amid the divisions, the Legislature managed to pass only 10 bills this year.

“Childish would be my word,” said Republican state Rep. Sara Carruthers of her colleagues who persist in opposing the speaker or refuse to attend caucus meetings. “We’re on the right path, doing the right things, wanting to get good legislation passed and he's helping them do that. And then, bam, it blows up.”

From Columbus to Phoenix to the halls of Congress, the Republican Party has been stuck in a prolonged internal conflict, with power struggles and primary challenges becoming as much of a GOP staple as tax cuts and tough-on-crime rhetoric.

In Michigan, the chair of one county party told police he was “kicked in the crotch” by a rival during a party meeting. In Arizona, Democrats last year swept four statewide races after insurgent Republicans won their party's nomination. In Texas, the Republican attorney general, after successfully fighting off removal from office following his impeachment by the GOP-controlled state House, this week suggested he could request criminal charges against some in his own party for allegedly violating state privacy laws.

The party scuffling peaked last week when a small group of conservative U.S. House members banded with Democrats to depose Speaker Kevin McCarthy, leaving the post vacant just as war broke out in the Middle East.

The internal tussle over who will become House speaker — a position that is second in the constitutional line of succession to the presidency — exemplifies the perpetual chaos inside GOP ranks. McCarthy was the fifth member of his party to hold the speaker's position in the 19 years the GOP has controlled the House of Representatives since 1995, and the first to be ousted in a vote. In contrast, during the eight years Democrats controlled the House during that time, they had a single speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Democrats have plenty of their own internal conflicts too — currently New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez has rebuffed calls from some inside his party to step down after his indictment on corruption charges last month, triggering multiple primary challenges. But Democrats have seen nothing like the perennial GOP internal clashes.

Republicans have had an aggressive wing of activists who have challenged the establishment ever since former congressman Newt Gingrich moved from being a congressional backbencher to House speaker in 1995, after he targeted members of his own conference for not being conservative enough.

“On the right, there's been a push, certainly since the Tea Party movement, to shift how Washington operates,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a veteran activist who runs Tea Party Patriots Action, which has repeatedly clashed with the GOP establishment. “To get a shift like that to happen, you need to push against the people on your side who support the status quo before you confront the other side.”

Many Republican politicians also cite a media environment, especially on the right, that rewards polarizing, grievance-filled rhetoric. On Monday, McCarthy blamed his ouster on "a few individuals that love a camera more than they love the American public.”.....>

<....But, in the end, the conflict comes from the party's base. Repeated polls have shown Republican voters are more opposed to compromise than Democratic ones, laying the groundwork for repeated struggles.

“You have a party consisting of constituencies that see themselves as under siege — white Christians who see a country that is less white Christian, working-class people who see a country where all advantages go to the college-educated,” said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California.

In contrast, Democratic constituencies — immigrants and their children, African Americans and younger college graduates — see themselves as having brighter prospects.

“It's the coalition of the ascendant versus the coalition of the resentful,” Pitney said.

The fight played out nationally in 2022, as a wave of insurgent Republican candidates, often backed by former President Donald Trump, beat party picks in key swing state primaries, only to fall short on Election Day.

Most dramatically, in Arizona, insurgent Republicans who castigated the more moderate members of their own party — who had once supported the late Sen. John McCain — won nominations for governor, U.S. Senate, secretary of state and attorney general. All of them lost to Democrats last November.

Arizona is one of several states where hardline activists forced out established Republican leaders as the party struggled in elections. That also happened in Michigan, where activists only increased their hold on the state party after a disastrous midterm cycle when their own insurgent candidates got crushed by Democrats. One of those candidates, secretary of state nominee Kristina Karamo, became party chair as feuding became so intense that a physical fight broke out at a party gathering earlier this year.

In Ohio, some contend the Republican dysfunction is a product of the party's new dominance in the state.

“It’s easy to agree and compromise when you need each other to overcome the Democrats,” said Ryan Stubenrach, a GOP strategist in the state. “But when there are no real Democrats in power, you don’t have to agree with each other and you start fighting with each other.”

It's not just the House speakership that's pitted Republican against Republican. After the state supreme court rejected seven rounds of new legislative and congressional maps as illegally favoring the GOP, some legislative Republicans threatened to impeach then-Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, a member of their own party who had cast key swing votes in the cases.

When the state redistricting commission reconvened last month to fix the maps, business was stymied for days by Republican infighting over who should be the panel's co-chair.

“This is a civil war that has been happening since 2015,” said David B. Cohen, a political science professor at the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. “It began in earnest when Donald Trump entered the fray and when he became the party's nominee. Then, when he became president, there was a transformation that took hold across the country and a lot of old-school Republicans were forced out.”

Carruthers said she ran for state office to pass policies that would improve the state, but the party feuding is getting in the way.

“Nobody gets 100% of what they want. You have to negotiate," she said. “And it’s not that we’re doing liberal bills, I mean, my god. But it's still not good enough.”>

<The Supreme Court rejected a case Monday that would have allowed justices to make it easier to sue for defamation, though Justice Clarence Thomas said he still wants the court to consider the issue—and argued against letting the media “cast false aspersions” on public figures as he’s come under heavy criticism in public reports.

Key Facts

The court declined to take up the case Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, brought by former Massey Energy CEO and West Virginia Senate candidate Don Blankenship, who sued media organizations for allegedly defaming him by calling him a felon after he was convicted for conspiring to violate federal safety standards, though he didn’t serve enough prison time for it to be considered a felony.

If the court had taken it up, the case would have let justices overturn the court’s precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan, which made it relatively difficult to sue public figures or media organizations for defamation, requiring that statements are only defamatory if they’re made with “actual malice”—meaning the person who made the statement knew the claim was false.

The court denied the case without any explanation, but Thomas issued his own separate opinion, saying that while he agreed the court shouldn’t take up this specific case, it should still reconsider its precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan because it isn’t sufficiently based in the Constitution.

Continuing to leave the precedent in place, Thomas wrote, “comes at a heavy cost, allowing media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

Thomas has repeatedly criticized New York Times v. Sullivan in the past, similarly writing in July 2021 that the precedent has a “lack of historical support” and blasting its “real-world effects” because “lies impose real world harm.”

The justice’s latest comments against media organizations and interest groups comes as he himself has come under fire through a series of media reports taking aim at alleged ethical conflicts involving Thomas’ wealthy friends, which have spurred calls among Democrats and advocacy groups for ethics reforms at the Supreme Court and for Thomas to recuse from cases or resign.

What To Watch For

The court could still decide to take up a defamation case in the future even as it rejected Blankenship’s case and other cases challenging the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent, though SCOTUSblog notes it’s unlikely, given the court has recently relied on the case for its rulings. In addition to Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch has also signaled he’d like to reconsider the precedent, writing in 2021 the case has become “an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods” that’s facilitated the rise of disinformation on the Internet.

Key Background

ProPublica has been publishing a series of reports detailing Thomas’ associations with the wealthy since April—particularly his friendship with real estate magnate Harlan Crow, who the publication reported has treated Thomas to scores of luxury vacations, bought real estate from him, paid his grandnephew’s school tuition and more. The justice has also come under fire for his wife Ginni Thomas’ right-wing activism, and ethics experts have criticized Thomas’ failure to disclose gifts from his wealthy friends on financial disclosures or recuse from cases that could present a conflict of interest. (Thomas has since disclosed some travel with Crow on his latest financial disclosure and recused from a case involving former law clerk John Eastman.) The controversy has led Thomas’ defenders to sharply decry the media for its reporting on the justice, with former Berkshire Hathaway executive David Sokol telling ProPublica its reporting is “a clear attempt to impune [sic] the integrity of Justice Thomas” and a spokesperson for the Koch network saying ProPublica’s reporting on Thomas’ association with the group was “advocacy journalism intended to discredit and undermine the Supreme Court.”

Tangent

<Former President Donald Trump is arguing to a judge in Colorado that he was not required to "support" the Constitution as president, reported Brandi Buchman from Law & Crime.

The argument came as he seeks to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the state by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), seeking to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment. The Insurrection Clause of the amendment prohibits those who have "engaged in insurrection" against the United States from holding a civil, military, or elected office without unless a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate approve.

But Trump's lawyers are arguing that the specific language of the Constitution argues that this requirement only applies to people in offices who are bound to "support" the Constitution — and the presidency is not one of those offices.

"The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution — not to 'support' the Constitution," said the filing by Trump's attorneys. "Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to 'support' the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President."

The former president has already tried to remove the 14th Amendment case to federal court, but this motion was denied.

State lawsuit aims to remove Trump from the ballot

Other lawsuits are trying to disqualify Trump on the same grounds in other states, including Minnesota. However, these cases face obstacles, chiefly that the 14th Amendment doesn't lay out a clear enforcement mechanism, according to experts.>

<oday’s Republican Party is dedicated to destroying what they call the “deep state” and the rest of us call the American government. From Trump followers in MAGA hats at rallies to Republican US Senators, they’ll all tell you this without a moment’s hesitation.

Steve Bannon even proclaimed it as the main goal of the Trump presidency in their first months in the White House, saying Trump’s goal was the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” Talking about government regulations that protect the environment, punish companies and con men who rip off consumers, and provide for a safe workplace, Bannon said in March, 2017:

“That’s all gonna be deconstructed and I think that that’s why this regulatory thing is so important.”

In this, the GOP, Putin, and fossil fuel billionaires are all working toward the same goal: to do away with or at least fatally weaken the institutions of our government that prevent the morbidly rich and wannabee strongman autocrats from taking over America.

They’re doing this because they don’t believe democracy is a good or even viable idea. Seven thousand years of the history of civilization, they’ll tell you, show that the one constant has been autocracy and strongman rule. Democracy is merely an experiment to protect the weak and “average” people from predation by the “supermen” among us, and that, they argue, violates the basic laws of nature.

In that, they’re wrong. Nature very much runs by democratic principles, as I detail at length in The Hidden History of American Democracy. Study after study of animals ranging from gnats to geese to fish to mammals all find that most species use majority-rule voting systems for group decision-making and to protect the young, vulnerable, and elderly.

For democracy to work in human societies isn’t some magic or organic thing; it depends on institutions and systems to function and remain free of corruption.

Without those administrative state functions, countries and states devolve into Third World status with corrupt leaders who steal everything that’s not nailed down, hand government and business functions off to their cronies, and suppress dissent or calls for democracy with violence and prisons.

The transformation of America from a modern “social democracy” with strong protections for the environment and the working class into strongman rule is exactly what Trump, Putin, and some of the billionaires who own the GOP want. Being answerable to the people is bothersome and inconvenient for them.

Conservative thinkers from Plato to William F. Buckley to Russell Kirk have denigrated democracy, claiming that it’s merely “mob rule.” Rightwing billionaires look over their shoulders at the teeming masses and shudder, remembering a time in America when the top income tax bracket was 90 percent for the morbidly rich and 50 percent for the most profitable corporations.

It was also a time of the greatest prosperity for the American middle-class, the highest levels of social mobility, and the strongest social cohesion.

Rather than submit to such “onerous” taxation, regardless of the social benefits it conferred, they’d rather burn the entire system down.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith recently said of Trump:

“Like his previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election, the defendant’s recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the court, the jury pool, witnesses and prosecutors.”

While most people believe Trump is ranting about our justice system to deflect attention from his many crimes, in fact he’s all-in on the program to Putin-ize America.

He knows — from his own experience in the White House — that the main barriers to a president declaring himself the king of America with rule-by-decree are the systems of checks-and-balances built into every modern democracy.

It was exactly those systems — legislative, judicial, and administrative — that Putin in Russia and Orbán in Hungary corrupted and then seized control over to achieve and maintain their iron-fisted rule....>

<.....Similarly, the next steps in the GOP’s plan to turn America into a single-party state — that mirrors what they’ve achieved in a dozen or so Red states — explicitly involves damaging, corrupting, and then controlling the systems of the US federal government.

In most fully GOP-controlled Red states:

— Low-income working people don’t have access to Medicaid, so if they or their kids get sick they either go bankrupt or die.

— Public education is under attack in those states with voucher programs designed to fully privatize and profit-ize schools.

— There are few scholarship programs for higher education, so students go deeply into debt.

— Women are denied the right to an abortion.

— Districts are so gerrymandered that voting is a largely symbolic exercise.

— Union rights are non-existent.

— Guns have more protections than children.

This is why in Blue states:

— Women live as much as 2 years longer.

— Overall life expectancy is as high as in Denmark (Connecticut), while in Red states it’s as low as Serbia or Brazil (Oklahoma).

— Cancer rates are lower (358 per 100,000 people in California) than Red states (504 per 100,000 in Kentucky).

— Heart disease can be as much as five times lower than in Red states.

— Children are less likely to die from gunfire (a child in Massachusetts is one-tenth as likely to die by gunfire as in Mississippi).

— People have measurably higher levels of primary school graduation and achievement.

— The vast majority of people are fully insured for healthcare.

— Babies and new mothers are far less likely to die than in Red states.

— Food insecurity (hunger) is rare, compared to Red states.

— Obesity and chronic disease rates are much lower than in Red states.

— Rates of hypertension are much lower than in Red states.

The lists go on and on. Do a search on just about any measurable index of quality-of-life and you’ll find that Democratic-controlled states are doing better than Red states. The only area where Red states do better is cost of living and taxation, but living cheap has its own problems as you can see above.

Which is exactly why Red states and their forms of governance appeal to the morbidly rich; their tax “burden” is lower than in Blue states. And it’s also why American oligarchs are working so hard to transform the entire country into Red state forms of governance.

The war against American institutions — and, thus, American democracy — is now going full-bore.

— The GOP is considering putting the man the January 6th Committee said played the largest role among members of Congress in that insurrection in charge of Congress as Speaker of the House.

— To cripple our government, Republicans in the Senate are blocking confirmation of our diplomats (including to Israel), promotions for our military, and appointees to the Departments of Energy, State, Veterans Affairs, and Justice.

— Republicans in the House are refusing to move forward appropriations legislation to keep our government operating past November 17th.

— Republicans in Red states are purging city-dwelling voters from the rolls by the millions and passing legislation making it harder to vote in every way they can imagine.

— Republicans on the Supreme Court have stripped away protections against politicians being corrupted by wealthy people and corporations.

— Republicans are taking to the media to tell outrageous lies, some so bad that even Fox “News” hosts can’t stomach them.

The difference between Republican and Democratic visions for America are as clear as the difference between Russia and Norway (or California and Mississippi).

Will we have rule by “We, the People” or by an elite group of autocrats? A high standard of living for all, or riches for a few and poverty for everybody else? Quality healthcare and education for all, or “you’re on your own if you weren’t smart enough to be born into a wealthy family”?

The next 15 months will determine which will ultimately prevail and, perhaps for the last time in the history of America, anybody who chooses to vote can have a say.>

<Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene outlined a list of demands to Republican candidates on Wednesday as the House prepared to vote for a new speaker.

House Republicans were set to meet Wednesday in hopes of agreeing on which person to vote for to replace California Representative Kevin McCarthy, who drew conservative revolt after working with Democrats on a short-term bill to avert a government shutdown. The House last week voted to remove McCarthy after Representative Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, introduced a motion to vacate, sending Congress into chaos as it has only a matter of weeks to pass a full appropriations bill.

GOP Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio are running for speaker, and Republicans hope to unite to support someone and hold a quick vote on the House floor to fill the role. But it remains unclear whether either candidate would be able to secure 218 votes.

Greene, a Georgia Republican, gave her list of demands to potential speakers in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

A staunch conservative, Greene wrote that she has several "red lines" for any potential Republican speaker on a range of cultural issues that have divided the country and the party. While the GOP's conservative base has rallied around opposing LGBTQ+ rights, the Russia-Ukraine war and the COVID-19 pandemic as key conservative social issues, more moderate Republicans have avoided taking conservative positions on these issues. "No matter who the next Speaker is my issues and red lines do not change. Stop funding a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. No money for COVID anything. Stop the weaponized government. Stop transgender surgeries on kids. Secure our border. Put America First!" Greene posted.

Her demands reflect the challenge for a Republican speaker—maintaining support from the GOP conference's right-wing flank while also appeasing more moderate members from districts with a Democratic lean who may find themselves at odds with their constituents if the party veers too far right.

Meena Bose, the executive dean of Hofstra University's Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs, told Newsweek that she is not sure it's possible for a speaker to navigate that challenge, and that "an absolute binding resolution" could make the position untenable as there is no clear resolution in sight.

She said House Republicans would need to agree that leadership is needed, regardless of individual demands, to reconcile their differences, noting that the difficulty of building a coalition within the GOP is daunting and that it is not clear Republicans will be able to select a speaker this week.

"Intraparty divisions for Republicans make clear that majority control is no path to governance, even in a single chamber. We're in an uncertain time for American politics where the business of federal government is being brought almost to a standstill," she said, noting that the Senate and White House continue to function.

Grant Davis Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, told Newsweek that the speaker battle will likely end with Republicans picking someone "who is able to nod enough toward the right-wing Republicans without sounding too far out there."

Reeher said whichever Republican is selected will still face some challenges from the conference, which remains divided.

"He or she will have to be acceptable to enough members of the right wing of the party. What will that mean? What promises will have to be made? It's become clear that the provision allowing for one member to move to vacate the chair was a mistake, so I think one important item on the to-do list in the negotiations is to remove that," Reeher said.

Under House rules, any single member could file a motion to vacate, as Gaetz did to McCarthy, forcing a vote on removing the speaker. Because of the GOP's narrow majority, it doesn't take many Republicans voting alongside Democrats to remove the speaker. Eight Republicans voted to remove McCarthy.

Some House Republicans, however, have called for a change in the rule to raise the threshold of the number of lawmakers needed to call a vote to vacate the speaker's office following McCarthy's ouster. Representative Carlos Gimenez of Florida wrote on X: "The person who wants my vote for Speaker must commit to reforming the motion to vacate. The threshold must be raised to 50% of the Republican Conference. A Speaker cannot govern under constant threat by fringe hostage takers."

Although Greene has voiced different opinions on issues such as Ukraine, she supported McCarthy's leadership and was not one of the eight Republicans who voted to remove him.

<In reply to my dissenters below…

GM Carlsen has more power than any player in history (including Fischer) to contractually set his terms of play. This issue is between him and the organizers. For example the time delay issue was also in round one - why not complain then?

As a professional player and former World Champion by making this complaint public and right after the game, Magnus put a very unfair dark cloud over the play and his opponent.

GM Alisher Suleymenov created a beautiful game and should be able to celebrate his win. The kid is just 23 and only this year achieved the GM title. He probably put on his watch as part of his best suit knowing he would be sitting across from the former World Champion. Instead of a day in the sun as a payoff for many years of hard work he instead faces controversy.

Magnus is right about fair play - but publicly destroying the achievement of another chess professional is not OK. IMO>

These insinuations are ridiculous, the more so given Carlsen's immense power in the chess world and--as we have seen in the aftermath of his celebrated loss to Niemann last year--ability to influence others' careers.

<The Republican leader of Wisconsin’s Assembly refused to back down Thursday from possibly impeaching a newly elected liberal state Supreme Court justice over her refusal to step aside in a redistricting case, even after two former conservative justices advised him against the unprecedented move.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos originally threatened to impeach Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she did not recuse from the redistricting challenge, which is backed by Democrats seeking to throw out Republican-drawn electoral maps. But Protasiewicz said last week she's staying on the case.

Now, Vos is tying possible impeachment to how she rules on the case, emphasizing the importance of following past precedent.

“If they decide to inject their own political bias inside the process and not follow the law, we have the ability to go to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Vos said, “and we also have the ability to hold her accountable to the voters of Wisconsin.”

Oral arguments in the redistricting case are set for Nov. 21. A ruling likely won’t come until after the Dec. 1 deadline for calling a special election to replace Protasiewicz, if she were removed from office or resigned. That means Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would appoint her replacement, who would almost certainly be another liberal.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said Vos's comments are a signal that Republicans are backing off from impeaching Protasiewicz “and moving the goal posts.” He called the impeachment threat “an outrageous attempt at political extortion.” “Time will tell if it’s just an attempt to save face," Wikler said. "But right now, it’s a climb-down.”

Vos first floated the possibility of impeachment in August after Protasiewicz called the Republican-drawn legislative boundary maps “rigged” and “unfair” during her campaign. Impeachment has drawn bipartisan opposition and two former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, asked by Vos to investigate the possibility, told him in the past week it was not warranted. Vos refused to say what advice he got from the third retired justice.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an Associated Press analysis.

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Republicans adopted maps last year that were similar to the existing ones.

The lawsuit before the state Supreme Court asks that all 132 state lawmakers be up for election in 2024 in newly drawn districts.

Vos also said Protasiewicz’s acceptance of nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party would unduly influence her ruling.

Protasiewicz last week rejected those arguments, noting that other justices have accepted campaign cash and not recused from cases. She also noted that she never promised or pledged to rule on the redistricting lawsuit in any way. A state judiciary disciplinary panel has rejected several complaints against Protasiewicz that alleged she violated the judicial code of ethics with comments she made during the campaign.

Other justices, both conservative and liberal, have spoken out in the past on issues that could come before the court, although not always during their run for office like Protasiewicz did. Current justices have also accepted campaign cash from political parties and others with an interest in court cases and haven’t recused themselves. But none of them has faced threats of impeachment.>

<Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron tried pushing national politics to the forefront of the governor's race in GOP-trending Kentucky, while Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear played up the state's record-setting economic growth under his leadership as the rivals squared off at a forum Thursday.

In the first of several crucial faceoffs before the Nov. 7 election, Cameron repeatedly tried linking Beshear to Joe Biden while denouncing the Democratic president for his handling of the economy and for his energy polices. As the onslaught continued, Beshear quipped: “Well everybody, if you had Joe Biden or the far-left on your bingo card today, congratulations, you just won."

“The reason that you hear that is to create fear," Beshear said while sharing the stage with his rival in Paducah in western Kentucky. “This attorney general knows that if this race is about me versus him, that you know who I am and how I’ve led and how I’ve shown up every day.”

Cameron tried putting Beshear on the defensive on Kentucky issues including taxes and crime. But the challenger spent much of his time blasting away at Biden in hopes of eroding support for Beshear.

He blamed Biden's policies for fueling higher inflation, putting a strain on family budgets. And he portrayed the president as an opponent of coal production, vowing that if elected governor, he would "fight against Joe Biden the same way that I’ve been doing as attorney general.”

The coal industry is still viewed by many as a cornerstone of Kentucky's economy, though it has declined considerably. A decade ago, mine workers in Kentucky’s underground and surface mines totaled around 20,000, but that has now declined to about 4,500, according to state statistics.

Beshear and Cameron fielded questions on the economy, taxes, education and transportation issues, but the conversation often turned to Cameron's efforts to nationalize the statewide race — a well-worn Republican strategy in red states.

The candidates stuck to their often-used campaign pitches during the hourlong event. Beshear offered an upbeat assessment of the state, while Cameron pounded away at the governor's record.

Beshear pointed to his role in leading recovery efforts in tornado- and flood-stricken parts of Kentucky. Mayfield, about a half-hour away from Paducah, took a direct hit from a tornado in late 2021.

The governor also touted the state's record-high economic development growth and record-low unemployment rates during his term, building on a theme he has made a cornerstone of his reelection bid. He vowed that the fast pace of new economic projects would continue if he wins a second term.

“We are on an economic win streak the likes of which we have never seen, with a true opportunity to turn our brain drain into a brain gain and to leave a legacy of more opportunity for our kids and grandkids than we ever thought was possible," he said.

Cameron pointed at restrictions the governor placed on businesses and others during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virus-related school closures led to significant learning loss among many Kentucky students, Cameron said. Beshear says his actions saved lives and mirrored those in other states, reflecting guidance from then-President Donald Trump's administration....>

<.....Cameron vowed to keep Kentucky on course toward eliminating its individual income tax.

“The difference between me and Andy Beshear is that he thinks government is in the best position to utilize your money," Cameron said. “I think you are in the best position to make choices about how to spend your money.”

Beshear signed a bill this year that was another step toward phasing out the income tax. The Republican-led legislature revamped the state’s tax code last year to gradually phase out individual income taxes while extending the state sales tax to more services. The governor said again Thursday that he vetoed the original bill last year because of those sales tax provisions.

Cameron also reaffirmed his support for requiring some able-bodied adults to work in exchange for health coverage through Medicaid. It's become one of the campaign’s starkest policy differences. Beshear halted an attempt by the state’s previous GOP governor, Matt Bevin, to create a Medicaid work requirement that Beshear says would have stripped coverage from about 100,000 Kentuckians. Cameron said the work requirement would bolster the state's workforce participation.

Meanwhile, Cameron accused Beshear of failing on core issues most important to families while trying to take credit for accomplishments related to actions by the Republican legislature.

“On issue after issue, whether it is education, whether it is crime, whether it is protecting the family unit, he has put his head in the sand,” Cameron said.

But the sharpest exchanges came as Cameron tried to nationalize the race. While the Republican lambasted Biden policies, Beshear said his challenger sees everything “through a partisan lens.”

“I believe we as Kentuckians have more that unite us than the issues of Washington, D.C., can ever tear us apart," Beshear said.>