<....They are completely lacking in imagination.

But banks could, for instance, make life simpler for the self-employed and micro-businesses by ensuring it is possible to process cash.

Many builders, gardeners or small stalls are not set up to take card payments.

Equally, some customers are increasingly demanding digital banking, and the high street players are largely stuck in a previous era. And they could use technology to automatically move customers’ money to high interest accounts, especially given rates are now meaningful again.

Finally, they should start lending to small firms again and, in doing so, helping them grow.

Figures from the Federation of Small Business last year showed bank lending to small and medium sized enterprises had hit yet another record low, and from a poor starting point.

If banks want a real “social purpose”, offering genuine financial support to entrepreneurs trying to get a new venture off the ground would be a good place to start.

It is true that just ending the scourge of “debanking” will be an improvement. A bank account is crucial to modern life, and serious questions should be asked about why these institutions are denying access or shutting out customers without clear evidence of criminality.

The major banks certainly shouldn’t be drawing up badly written and poorly researched reports on their customer’s political views.

But that is just the start of the reforms that are needed.

These banks need to embrace technology, put their customers first, work for small businesses, and return to their core purpose of providing the capital required to enable our sluggish economy to grow.

Only then can they stop this woeful demise.>

<After reiterating his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he may keep two of the law’s most popular provisions. One is straightforward enough — children up to the age of 26 being allowed to stay on their parents’ plan. The other — preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions — offers a perfect illustration of why Trump and most of the other Republicans critics of Obamacare don’t understand the health insurance market.

Let’s say that in the beautiful new world of “repeal and replace,” insurers are required to sell you insurance despite the fact that your kid has a brain tumor. Insurance companies know what to do with that. Their actuaries can calculate that kids with brain tumors typically require (I’m making this number up) about $200,000 a year in medical care. So they’ll offer to sell you a policy at an annual premium of $240,000.

At this point your response will probably be that such an outcome is not fair. When the law says insurance companies can’t discriminate on the basis for pre-existing conditions, surely what it means is that they have to charge roughly the same price for health insurance, irrespective of your pre-existing condition. In the language of insurance, that’s called “guaranteed issue at community rates.”

Unfortunately, in the states that have tried guaranteed issues at community rates, the insurance markets have collapsed. That’s because if you guarantee everyone the right to buy health insurance at community rates, then some consumers will game the system. The young and healthy ones won’t buy any health insurance at all—they’ll go without until they are diagnosed with diabetes or a brain tumor or get hit by a truck crossing the street. And when that happens, they will immediately call up Aetna or Anthem and exercise their right to buy health insurance at the low community rate, irrespective of their medical condition. It won’t be long before insurance companies begin losing a ton of money and are forced either to raise premiums through the roof or stop writing policies altogether.

So how do you prevent that kind of gaming of the system by consumers? Well, that’s easy. You require that everyone buy at least some minimal level of insurance at the beginning of every year, so they can’t buy insurance only after they get sick. Let’s call that an” individual mandate.” But because you can’t expect poor people to pay $1,000 a month, they will require subsidies to keep their out-of-pocket costs to something like 10 percent of income. To pay for the subsidies, a new tax will be required.

So let’s review what just happened. To guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable health insurance, you need to have rules requiring guaranteed issue and community rating. To keep insurance companies in business because of guaranteed issue and community rating, you need to have an individual mandate. And because poor people can’t afford health insurance, you need subsidies. Combine all three, and what you have, in a nutshell, is ... Obamacare.>

<....Yes, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but not much. It’s possible to allow insurance companies charge twice or three times as much, to people who are older or sicker. You can let healthy people buy somewhat more barebones “catastrophic” policies to satisfying their obligation under the individual mandate. You could even avoid community rating by sending sick people into “high risk pools” where their premiums would be subsidized by a tax on everyone else’s health care premiums.

But at the end of the day, once you decide that everyone, regardless of age or medical condition, should be able to buy health insurance at an affordable price, you have essentially bought into the idea that young and healthy people have an obligation to subsidize the older and sicker people in some fashion. And once you do that, it’s sort of inevitable you end up where every health reform plan has ended up since the days of Richard Nixon. You end up with some variation on Obamacare.

Of course, if you want to scrap guaranteed issue, scrap community rating, scrap the individual mandate and scrap the subsidies, as Republicans, propose, then you end up where the country was in 2008—with a market system that inevitable (sic) gives way to an insurance spiral in which steadily rising premiums cause a steadily rising percentage of Americans without health insurance.

There are no easy solutions here, no free lunches. You can’t have all the good parts of an unregulated insurance market (freedom to buy what you want, when you want, with market pricing) without the bad parts (steadily rising premiums and insurance that is unaffordable for people who are old and sick).

<A Catholic school near Kansas City has expelled an A-student because his mother objected to a ban on LGBTQ+ books, according to a report.

The Kansas City Star reported that St. John LaLande Catholic School in Blue Springs disenrolled Hollee Muller's 11-year-old son Hunter after "prayerful consideration."

A July letter from the school said both parents "stated both verbally and in writing you do not agree with nor do you support the teachings of the Catholic Church. After prayerful consideration and discussion among our school administration it is obvious we no longer have a partnership with you, since the values of your family are not in alignment with those of our school. Therefore, the school administration has made the decision to disenroll your child from our school."

But the Mullers are longtime and active members of the church. Muller's husband Paul even attended the school as a child, the report stated.

Muller said the problem began when a new priest "came rolling in hot" and started banning books, including a book about a polar bear with two mothers.

"I don't think being blatantly homophobic is a teaching of the Catholic Church," Muller told the paper. The school also banned the Duolingo language app for translating words like "gay" and "lesbian."

Another news source, CNN 10, was discontinued "because its parent company is too liberal," one mom said.

"I don't consider myself liberal, but banning books, and Duolingo? Don't punish the child for the parent. And honestly, Hollee did nothing wrong," she said.

School officials declined to comment, but a statement suggested the Mullers broke a "Family-School Covenant."

"When a family challenges Catholic teaching and curriculum decisions through sustained complaints to the school and diocesan administration, irreconcilable differences can arise. In these situations, it is in the best interest of the family and the school to separate," the statement said.>

<House Speaker Kevin McCarthy responded to news of the damning Trump indictment by tweeting about Hunter Biden and how House Republicans would “continue to uncover the truth about Biden Inc.”

McCarthy was just one prominent Republican to begin closing ranks around former President Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024, following news he had been indicted on four felony charges related to his conduct following the 2020 election.

McCarthy tweeted:

“We’ve recently learned:

• Hunter received money from China (contradicting President Biden’s claim)

• President Biden spoke with Hunter’s business associates over 20 times (contradicting what Biden previously claimed)

• Biden’s DOJ tried to secretly give Hunter broad immunity and admitted the sweetheart deal was unprecedented

“And just yesterday a new poll showed President Trump is without a doubt Biden’s leading political opponent. Everyone in America could see what was going to come next: DOJ’s attempt to distract from the news and attack the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, President Trump. House Republicans will continue to uncover the truth about Biden Inc. and the two-tiered system of justice.”

The official House Judiciary Committee account posted, “Don’t let Joe Biden’s DOJ distract you from this!” as it retweeted a post by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).

“In 2014, Vice President Biden attended a business dinner with Hunter and his associates. Elena Baturina, a Russian oligarch, was also there. Conveniently, the Biden Administration’s public sanctions list for Russian oligarchs doesn’t contain Baturina,” Jordan tweeted.

Other supporters included Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

One outlier was former Vice President Mike Pence, whose life was endangered on Jan 6 as rioters shouted, “Hang Mike Pence!” His campaign released the following statement:

“Today’s indictment serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States…Our country is more important than one man. Our Constitution is more important than any one man’s career.”>

<“Every day this bribery scandal becomes more credible,” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday night. The bribery scandal to which Comer is referring is the one he injected into the political conversation nearly three months ago — one alleging that President Biden took a substantial bribe from an executive with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Despite Comer’s claim, though, the allegation is not becoming more credible every day. In fact, it is no more credible now than it was in early May, when Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) first introduced it. But Hannity and Comer have a vested interest in presenting the allegation as credible and a vested interest in suggesting that closed-door testimony from one of Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s former business partners, Devon Archer, added to that credibility.

At this point, it does not. And to see why it does not, consider the central argument made by Comer, Hannity and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Monday night — an argument that is easily debunked right at the start.

The argument centers on Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s positions on the board of Burisma during the time that Joe Biden was serving as vice president.

There is no real dispute — and there has never been any real dispute — that Hunter Biden’s role was a function of his presenting himself as a conduit to his father. Instead, the debate is over the extent to which that presentation was accurate. To date, there has been no evidence tying Joe Biden to Hunter Biden’s work in any concrete way, with the White House insisting that the president wasn’t involved in Hunter Biden’s business.

The bombshell that was promised from Archer’s testimony was that Hunter Biden would sporadically call his dad while in the presence of business partners, again to reinforce his purported access. But this comports with the idea that Hunter Biden was selling this perception. The lack of evidence looping President Biden into any business decisions or profit, despite years of searching, undercuts the insinuation that Biden was corrupted by these calls. Comer and Jordan are often left simply insisting that Biden’s past denials of involvement are eroded by his having taken his son’s calls.

On Hannity’s show, Comer tried to build the case that, as vice president, Biden’s role was more significant. He claimed that Archer “said that Hunter Biden was under immense pressure while they both served on the Burisma board to call Washington, D.C., immediately and try to get [Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor] Shokin fired. And, according to Jordan’s account, five days later, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine.” Speaking to Ukraine’s legislative body on Dec. 9, 2015, he demanded that Shokin be ousted.

Hannity repeated the timeline for his viewers: Hunter Biden, Archer and the head of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, met with the board of the company in Dubai. They called Washington and, “then immediately thereafter,” Biden headed for Ukraine. Comer agreed, saying that “they were pressuring Hunter to immediately get on the phone with his father and get this stopped.”

Fine. Except that Joe Biden’s trip to Ukraine was announced in mid-November. And except that, in mid-September, the American ambassador to Ukraine elevated concerns about Shokin’s reliability in the fight against corruption — the reason Joe Biden offered for demanding that Shokin be fired.

“We need some help,” Jordan claims that Burisma executives said to Archer and Hunter Biden, referring both to Shokin and a British probe of the company. So “they make a phone call to D.C., Mr. Archer said. I don’t know who they call, but they call D.C. And five days later, Dec. 9, 2015, Joe Biden is in Ukraine and he gives a speech starting the pressure on the prosecutor in Ukraine.”

What’s important here is that Jordan admits he doesn’t know if this call in December 2015 was even placed to Joe Biden. We know that the trip wasn’t a result of the call, given the November announcement. And we know that this was not the “start” of the pressure on Shokin.

We also know that the reason Biden and the U.S. government (among other global leaders) wanted Shokin fired was that he wasn’t addressing corruption. That British probe, for example, had reportedly sought information from Shokin about Burisma … but he stonewalled them....>

<....In a tweet summarizing Archer’s testimony, the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee claimed that Archer had testified that Burisma was spooked because Shokin was investigating it for corruption. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who was present for the interview, offered a very different assessment when speaking to reporters shortly afterward.

“Burisma believed that they had the prosecutor general Shokin in their pocket, they had control over him,” he said, “and they were concerned that if he was removed from office, that that would be very bad for Burisma.”

This comports with the general understanding of the situation. After all, this was all adjudicated repeatedly in 2019, as Joe Biden’s push for Shokin to be fired was central to the first impeachment of President Donald Trump. At the time, multiple sources indicated that there was no active investigation into Burisma in that time period. And if there’s no pressure on Burisma from Shokin, there’s no reason for Burisma to seek his ouster. If he’s blocking such probes, there’s pressure on them to retain Shokin — which would have been a more plausible reason for asking Hunter Biden to call his father before the vice president’s trip.

But a source familiar with Archer’s testimony who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the closed-door, transcribed interview told The Washington Post that Archer offered a different explanation for the call.

He “testified there was a team of lobbyists and government affairs specialists Burisma hired that Archer referred to as the ‘D.C. team’ to deal, unsuccessfully, with issues including the fact Zlochevsky was denied a visa to the U.S. and Mexico,” the source explained. Archer suggested that the call may have been to that team, not the vice president. The source also indicated that Archer “made clear he was not aware of Hunter Biden ever requesting that his father undertake any official action on behalf of Burisma and explained that he was not aware of any action of the U.S. government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden.”

Goldman has called for the release of the transcript, which would help clarify this point.

Appearing on Hannity’s show, Comer and Jordan had little choice but to insist that Archer’s testimony advanced their argument. This was the guy who Comer had suggested over the weekend the Justice Department was trying to intimidate by threatening arrest — though, because Archer was sentenced to prison earlier this year for a separate fraud conviction, that detention was at some point inevitable. If you are trying to suggest that Biden’s Justice Department is so worried about his testimony that it would desperately seek his immediate detention, you have to then pretend that the testimony lived up to that fear.

Other House Republicans struggled a bit more with casting Archer’s testimony in a negative light. Oversight Committee member Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) shared on social media a 2019 text message exchange purportedly between Hunter Biden and Devon Archer. In it, Archer complains about having been arrested by Obama administration appointees. In response, Hunter Biden explains, in essence, that justice is blind — even to powerful families like the Bidens and their allies. In Greene’s presentation, this somehow was interpreted to show that Hunter Biden “and his associates would largely be shielded from the scales of justice.” Hunter Biden and Devon Archer have each been indicted on federal criminal charges.

What’s understood from the Archer testimony is that Hunter Biden sought to use the “brand” associated with his last name as leverage in business deals. That alone explains nearly everything at hand, including his calling his father out of the blue to prove to potential partners that he had the power to do so. That there’s no evidence he ever tried to get Joe Biden to do anything reinforces Archer’s other reported claim: that Hunter promoted the “illusion” of influence over Joe Biden, not actual influence.

During the first Trump impeachment probe, it was revealed that a State Department official had warned Biden about his son’s work with Burisma. It was a prescient warning, given the drama that has ensued. Once again, though, a Republican “bombshell” that was promoted as possibly inflicting devastating damage on Biden seems to have instead fizzled.>

<A white police officer in St. Louis has filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city and two Black city officials, claiming he was excluded from a promotion to police chief—a position that ended up going to another white cop.

Michael Sack filed the suit against the city of St. Louis, Mayor Tishaura Jones, and Interim Public Safety Director Daniel Isom in the Eastern District of Missouri federal court Monday, saying his “race was a determining factor, motivating factor, or played a part in the [city’s] decision to not promote him…even though he was qualified to be Commissioner/Chief.”

Sack wants financial compensation for loss in wages and benefits.

According to the lawsuit, Sack began working with the St. Louis Police Department 1994 and was “consistently promoted through the ranks,” eventually landing the spot as the lieutenant colonel—the department’s second in command—in 2019.

In September 2021, the police chief announced his plans to retire, and Sack submitted an application for the role. However, only he and one other officer, who was also white, met the role’s qualifications and passed a written test, he says. But Sack claims in his suit that Jones told them that she would not pick either one because she “only had two white male candidates to choose from and St. Louis is more diverse than white males.”

In March 2022, after learning he got a perfect score on the written test, Sack tried to schedule an interview with Isom, who, as public safety director, would choose the next chief. However, Sack claimed he never got an interview for the next phase in the application process.

The city then opened applications for police chief back up in May 2022 with lower minimum qualifications—a violation of its charter, the suit claims. In June 2022, when the former chief officially retired, Sack was appointed interim chief and led the department when a St. Louis public school graduate opened fire, killing a teacher and student.

“Sack was commended for his communication with the public on the day of the incident and over the days that followed,” according to the lawsuit, which also says Sack was asked to advise a class of Missouri State Police on how to handle active shooter situations.

Again, Sack says he put his hat in the ring for police chief but didn’t get the job. The lawsuit claims the city wanted a Black police commissioner, but had to settle for Robert Tracy—an outside white candidate—“when no African American candidate was left to select.” One of the finalists who was Black withdrew his application, and another allegedly declined the city’s offer, the lawsuit says.

Since being passed over for the top job, the lawsuit says Sack “has suffered and will continue to suffer lost income and a resulting loss in his retirement benefits because he was not promoted.” He has also allegedly experienced “mental anguish,” “humiliation,” and a “loss of enjoyment of life.”>

<Donald Trump's legal costs have ballooned so much that his allies have set up a new defense fund that allows wealthy donors to anonymously contribute massive amounts, and there are few restrictions on how much it can spend.

The "Patriot Legal Defense Fund" was created July 19 and registered with the IRS as a political nonprofit under section 527 of the tax code, and while it won't pay the former president's own legal fees, it will pay lawyers for potential witnesses in various Trump cases -- and it will face few fundraising constraints, reported The Daily Beast.

“Federal law does not establish any limits on the amount of money that individuals or corporations can contribute” to these organizations, said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance attorney at Harmon Curran.

For example, Trump's political committees cannot accept donations over certain dollar amounts or take corporate money, this legal defense fund can raise any amount from almost any source to "pay for or help defray legal expenses related to defending against legal actions arising from an individual or group’s participation in the political process," according to its IRS filing.

“Moreover, a donor can request that their name not be disclosed if they pay an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the amount of money they donate to the political organization,” Kappel said.

That last rule could allow for straw donations -- or contributions made in the name of someone else -- through the establishment of untraceable companies to shield donors from public disclosure, and campaign finance watchdogs say the PLDF could be particularly appealing to megadonors who want to keep their involvement a secret.

“527s are nominally regulated by the IRS, so if a donor were to try to use an LLC to facilitate a straw donation then the FEC isn’t monitoring it—the IRS is,” said Brendan Fischer, deputy director of Documented. “Only recently has the FEC really begun to enforce the law about LLC straw donations to super PACs, and it remains to be seen whether the IRS will regulate this at all.”

Those groups operate in a lightly regulated area of political spending, but 527 groups are supposed to operate primarily to influence campaigns for public office, and campaign finance experts questioned whether this pro-Trump organization deserved its tax-exempt status.

“I’m scratching my head wondering whether this group is even eligible,” said Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance law expert and deputy executive director for the Funders' Committee for Civic Participation.

Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform at watchdog Campaign Legal Center, said the former president had often "ridden right over the guardrails of campaign finance law," and he said PLDF set off a number of alarms.

“This is a situation where a 527 is being created to ‘defray legal expenses,’ but that raises more questions than it answers,” Ghosh said. “The decision to create it this way links the group to elections... doubles down on the red flags.”>

<Two of Donald Trump‘s political allies in Michigan have been charged with felonies in connection with alleged voting machine tampering following the 2020 election.

A special prosecutor charged a former Republican candidate for attorney general and a former Republican state representative in the case that revolved around Trump’s debunked “stolen election” claim, which he continues to tout.

According to the Associated Press:

Matthew DePerno, a Republican lawyer who was endorsed by Trump in an unsuccessful run for Michigan attorney general last year, was charged with undue possession of a voting machine and conspiracy, according to Oakland County court records.

Daire Rendon, a former Republican state representative, was charged with conspiracy to commit undue possession of a voting machine and false pretenses.

Both men were arraigned Tuesday, with DePerno named as “prime instigator” in the case.

The special prosecutor alleged that DePerno was present in a hotel room where five voting machines were stashed following the 2020 presidential election. “Investigators found that the tabulators were broken into and ‘tests’ were performed on the equipment,” according to the AP.

The cases had been delayed as prosecutors sought clarification on what constituted “illegal possession of a voting machine.” A state judge recently ruled that it would be considered a felony to possess a machine unless a person had a court order or official government permission.

DePerno previously told the AP he did nothing wrong and that the state attorney general was “weaponizing her office.” Rendon did not comment to the AP.

If convicted, the men could receive up to five years in prison.>

<Republican Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday tore into US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, predicting that she would be "relentlessly hostile" to former President Donald Trump as she oversees the case related to his efforts to overturn the election.

"Judge Chutkan was appointed to the DC District Court by Barack Obama, and she has a reputation for being far left, even by DC District Court standards," Cruz said during the latest episode of his "Verdict with Ted Cruz" podcast.

Cruz cited Chutkan's decision to issue harsher sentences to some January 6 defendants than federal prosecutors asked for as part of the evidence that she will be unfair to Trump.

"We can anticipate a judge who is going to be relentlessly hostile to Donald Trump who is going to bend over backwards for the Biden DOJ, and who is going to make ruling, after ruling, after ruling against Trump," Cruz said.

Chutkan, Cruz went so far as to suggest, "loathes" Trump. The pair do have a history, Chutkan ruled against Trump's efforts to block the House January 6 committee.

"Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President," Chutkan wrote in her ruling, declaring the House committee should have access to documents they requested from Trump.

The Texas Republican did not mention that he and every other Republican senator that cast a vote on Chutkan's nomination voted to confirm her. The Senate confirmed Chutkan, a former public defender and private litigator, 95-0 on June 4, 2014. (Five senators did not vote.) Cruz did join 39 Senate Republicans in a procedural vote against Chutkan, but there were not enough of them to stop it moving forward. Republicans went on to retake the Senate majority in the 2014 midterms.

Cruz is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds hearings for judicial nominees. Video and a transcript of the Chutkan's confirmation hearing show that Cruz did not ask her any questions. It appears that Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, who filled in for then-Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas were the only committee members present. The entire hearing highlighted how some lower-court nominees have often been considered non-controversial.

A spokesperson for Cruz did not respond to Insider's request for comment.

Cruz did ask Chutkan to respond to a series of written questions, which she later sent back. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who would go to lead the committee, also sent Chutkan a series of questions. One of the questions Grassley asked her about regarded "the appropriate temperate [sic] of a judge."

"A judge should be open minded, prepared to listen, and should treat everyone who enters their courtroom with courtesy, patience and respect," Chutkan wrote in response. "I believe that I possess these qualities.">

<A new threat to our democracy has emerged in Georgia — and I’m not talking about the false claims of 2020 election fraud. A new law, signed by Gov. Brian Kemp, creates a commission to restrict the independence of community-elected prosecutors — or remove them from office altogether.

Fortunately, those who care about protecting democracy are fighting back. On Wednesday, four Georgia prosecutors, led by DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston and represented by the Public Rights Project, sued the state to contest the law’s interference with the separation of powers and its overriding of local communities’ rights to choose their own prosecutors.

The prosecutors are also defending their First Amendment right to speak openly about their office’s priorities — for instance, do they use their limited resources to prosecute abortions or violent crimes such as sexual violence, robbery or homicide?

Senate Bill 92 creates a commission with the power to remove prosecutors based on their use of this constitutionally protected discretion. It invites complaints against prosecutors for their so-called abandonment of duties, including when they decline to prosecute provable cases, or when they reject the prosecution of certain categories of crime. A prosecutor removed by the commission cannot serve again for 10 years.

As the executive director of the Institute for Innovation in Prosecution at John Jay College, a national prosecutorial reform center, I am deeply concerned about the harms SB 92 will inflict on prosecutors and the communities they serve. The law not only threatens the indispensable role of prosecutorial discretion in our legal system but is also a bad faith attempt to undermine prosecutors who advance reform — and disempower communities that elected them.

SB 92 did not emerge from a simple misunderstanding of the role of prosecutors. Instead, the law takes aim at reform-minded prosecutors as part of a growing national effort to constrain their independence.

One target may be Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who soon is expected to announce charges in her 2020 election interference investigation and whom former President Donald Trump has tried to disqualify.

District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez of Athens-Clarke and Oconee counties has faced near-constant attacks for decisions — such as declining to prosecute marijuana possession or truancy cases — despite being elected for her reform approach. The governor tried to cancel her election, leading her to sue — and win. Kemp has now moved on to new approaches.

Indeed, Kemp made no secret of SB 92’s legislative intent. In signing the bill in May, Kemp said, “I won’t stand idly by [as law enforcement faces] resistance from rogue or incompetent prosecutors who refuse to uphold the law.”

Playing into pervasive false narratives around reform prosecutors, Kemp asserted the commission “will help hold prosecutors driven by out-of-touch politics [rather] than commitment to their responsibilities accountable and make our communities safer.”

This is political hogwash. Data establishes that prosecutors’ reform-minded approaches advance public safety. Indeed, one study showed that decisions by prosecutors not to file low-level categories of crime actually reduce recidivism. Thoughtful, data-driven reform drives public safety — but some politicians use fearmongering around reform to advance their own political agendas.

It’s worth noting that there have been no similar attacks on prosecutorial discretion when prosecutors use it to perpetuate mass incarceration, criminalize poverty or decline to prosecute police officers for excessive use of force. This law has only one target: reform-minded prosecutors.

Georgia’s law does not exist in a vacuum: In response to a growing wave of reform-minded prosecutors, Georgia is just one of several states attempting to disempower local prosecutors and limit their discretion.

It is no accident that these attacks come in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision allowing states to criminalize abortion. Georgia now prohibits abortion after six weeks of pregnancy; SB 92, among other issues, takes aim at prosecutors who prioritize the safety of pregnant people by deciding not to pursue cases under that statute.

Other states have taken a more direct approach. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren following that prosecutor’s promise to decline prosecuting abortion-related cases....>

<....Forcing prosecutors to abandon discretion also fundamentally misconstrues their role; SB 92 depicts prosecutors as robots who must file every charge possible — a challenge considering the enormity of charges listed in penal codes. Such a view runs counter to our legal system’s design, which grants prosecutors discretion at every stage.

Prosecutors decide when to file charges, what charges to file and what outcomes to pursue. No prosecutor in history can, has or should prosecute every case possible. For example, Towaliga Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jonathan Adams issued a memorandum explaining that he would not prosecute adultery, a crime that remains on Georgia’s books. SB 92 deems this common-sense policy as possible grounds for discipline and removal.

Prosecutors represent “the people” — local communities — and are elected precisely to decide how to allocate limited resources. Communities deserve to have prosecutors who are free to be transparent about their priorities. Silencing or removing prosecutors and candidates undermines the democratic process.

SB 92’s limits on discretion are also impractical. Forcing prosecutors to file every case would not only advance unjust prosecutions but would also clog courts with cases that don’t belong in the legal system at all. Courts are already facing enormous backlogs — and victims and defendants alike will suffer from further delays.

Finally, reform-minded prosecutors seek to address racial bias; targeting them overrides the will of communities of color, who are already disproportionately harmed by the criminal justice system.

These legislative restrictions on prosecutorial discretion follow a rise in the number of elected reform-minded prosecutors — including more prosecutors of color — particularly in communities of color. It is no coincidence SB 92 comes in the wake of this changing tide.

It is hard to overstate the potential damage of SB 92. The rights of local communities — and locally elected prosecutors to advocate for them — cannot be forfeited. Prosecutors should not be mere puppets of the state. If we care about democracy, and if we value fairness in our legal system, we must stop these bad faith attacks.

After all, just as in 2020, the fight to preserve democracy in Georgia is really a fight for our nation.>

<Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, two weeks into the reboot of his ten-week-old presidential campaign, pledged to New Hampshire voters this week he will root out the “deep state” from the federal government, and “start slitting throats on Day One.”

“DeSantis just wrapped up a three-day trip to New Hampshire, his first since downsizing his campaign due to financial problems. On the ground, it was clear the challenges he faces here remain significant, even as his chief rival confronts major legal problems,” New Hampshire Public Radio reports.

Governor DeSantis “appeared bent on demonstrating that no candidate talks tougher. He promised that, under his presidency, Mexican drug cartels would be ‘shot stone cold dead,’ and vowed that when it comes to federal bureaucrats, ‘we are going to start slitting throats on Day One.'”

The Florida governor who is in second place in the GOP primary, yet trailing Donald Trump in the polls by as many as 37 points, used similar language last week, saying his Secretary of Defense would need to “slit some throats” as well.

“During an interview with Real America’s Voice, Florida’s Governor said he wanted a Defense Secretary with a sharp blade and a killer instinct who isn’t wedded to the extant hierarchy,” Florida Politics reported.

DeSantis “said the person he picks to run the Pentagon would have to be prepared to ‘slit some throats’ and be ‘very firm, very strong’ in imposing their will.”>

<Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is furiously backpedaling after appearing to embrace 9/11 trutherism in a debate this week, reported POLITICO.

The exchange happened on Tuesday evening, during an interview with Alex Stein on the right-wing Blaze TV.

“I don’t believe the government has told us the truth,” said Ramaswamy, when Stein asked him whether he believed 9/11 was an “inside job” or happened “exactly like the government tells us.”

“I’m driven by evidence and data. What I’ve seen in the last several years is we have to be skeptical of what the government does tell us. I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary, but do I believe everything the government told us about it? Absolutely not. Do I believe the 9/11 Commission? Absolutely not.”

Ramaswamy did not directly say he believed 9/11 was an inside job, and when the clip spread on social media, he came out and clarified that he was only saying he didn't believe the government was fully revealing the details of Saudi Arabia's involvement. “Al-Qaeda clearly planned and executed the attacks, but we have never fully addressed who knew what in the Saudi government about it,” Ramaswamy posted to Twitter/X. “We *can* handle the TRUTH.”

Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur from Ohio, has run a far-right campaign largely based on attacking "wokeness."

He has also come under controversy for a strange campaign strategy in which people are eligible for "commissions" if they help him locate new donors — a strategy some critics have compared to multi-level marketing schemes, although he denies he is using such a model.>

You don't want me as your boss. You definitely don't want me as your lover.>

<Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley reacted to the most recent indictments filed against former President Donald Trump on a New Hampshire radio show on Thursday.

Haley, speaking on the Pulse of NH-News Talk radio network, said she intentionally refrained from publishing a statement about the indictments following their announcement because she was tired of the spectacle.

"Unlike the other candidates, I didn't rush out with a statement yesterday on Trump's indictment for one simple reason – like most Americans, I'm tired of commenting on every Trump drama. I've lost track of whether this indictment is the third or fourth or the fifth," Haley said on the "Good Morning New Hampshire with Jack Heath" radio show.

Haley cited other national security and economic issues as more important focuses for her attention rather than the ongoing legal drama....>

<Former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker said Wednesday that if former President Donald Trump is guilty of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, then Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., should be held accountable for other violent incidents.

Walker discussed the federal indictment against Trump on "The Julie Mason Show" on SiriusXM radio. He argued that GOP primary voters will rally around the besieged former president because they think the charges are political and unfair.

"I think there’s a sense when they feel like someone’s being attacked, there’s a sense in the family of circling around that person and trying to protect them, and I think that’s a little bit of it here," Walker said.

"People think, ‘Well, if these sorts of things are worthy of indictment, why aren't they indicting Bernie Sanders for inciting violence against Steve Scalise and the other Republicans at the baseball practice or Chuck Schumer for the things he said about Supreme Court justices?’" Walker continued. "And then people ended up in violation of federal law in front of their house."

Walker referenced the 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice, in which House Minority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and several others were injured.

James T. Hodgkinson, a far-left former volunteer on Sanders' presidential campaign, opened fire on a group of Republican lawmakers in June 2017 as they practiced for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. Scalise was shot and critically injured during the attack, requiring surgeries to save his life. Sanders denounced the shooting at the time, saying he was "sickened by this despicable act" and that "violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society."

Walker also referred to comments Schumer made in 2020 warning the court against undermining federal abortion rights. At an abortion rights rally in March, 2020, Schumer called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!" Schumer said. "You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Later in 2022, after a leaked draft opinion indicated the court would overturn Roe v. Wade, Schumer said he was comfortable with "peaceful" protests outside the justices' homes. Those comments came after an armed man from California was arrested outside Kavanaugh's Maryland home and charged with attempted murder.

Trump was indicted Tuesday charges that stem from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into 2020 election interference and the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. He faces four federal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Walker said GOP voters believe that if Trump is culpable for violence during the Jan. 6 violence, Sanders and Schumer should also be held accountable for these incidents.

He also said the federal grand jury indictment against Trump could impact the general election in November 2024.

"One of the mistakes Trump and his allies had made last fall was spending too much time looking backwards talking about the 2020 election instead of moving forward, and I think in the general election voters in battleground states like mine want to hear about what's next," Walker said.

"If liberals are focused on the last presidential election, I think they're in trouble," he added.>

<The Florida governor and presidential hopeful shared his statement on X, and the wording caught many by surprise since it sounded more like DeSantis’s campaign than a reaction to the breaking news.

Many MAGA Republicans jumped in to defend Trump

New York Republican Representative Elise Stefanik, who is also working on expunge to Trump’s two impeachments, said, “Today is yet another dark day in America as Joe Biden continues to weaponize this corrupt Department of Justice against his leading political opponent.” Stefanik is a strong Trump supporter and one of the potential running mates, according to the media.

Greene joined Stefanik

Marjorie Taylor Greene, working alongside Stefanik to expunge Trump’s impeachments, shared, “Special Counsel Jack Smith has abused his power, using his office to persecute President Trump, his aides, and ultimately, the American people. These actions are undoubtedly politically motivated, with clear intentions of interfering with the upcoming 2024 election.” She draw a “line in the sand,” just like Kari Lake.

Greene had to add some more

The Georgia firebrand added, “This is the line in the sand. This is nothing but a political assassination, and I will not vote to fund a communist regime. I will not vote to fund a weaponized government while it politically persecutes not only President Trump but all conservative Americans.” Her support for Trump was “unwavering.” Greene later posted on X about faith and Jesus.

Greene shared another X post regarding voting

The Georgia legislator wrote, “I will still vote for Trump even if he’s in jail. This is a communist attack on America’s first amendment to vote for who THE PEOPLE want for President by an attempt to take Trump off the ballots through a politically weaponized DOJ. People know exactly what this is.”

Gaetz repeated there is a witch hunt and called for defunding

Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, shared on X, “DEFUND JACK SMITH’S WITCH HUNT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP!” He included a clip that discusses, “I will be introducing legislation to DEFUND Jack Smith’s witch hunt against President Trump. They are attacking our democracy and engaging in election interference right now. The United States Congress has the capability to stop this election interference, and we must act immediately!”

DeSantis was not focused on Trump

In his brief statement on X, DeSantis said, “As President, I will end the weaponization of government, replace the FBI Director, and ensure a single standard of justice for all Americans. While I’ve seen reports, I have not read the indictment. I do, though, believe we need to enact reforms so that Americans have the right to remove cases from Washington, DC to their home districts.”

Comparing DC to the “swamp”

The Florida governor continued, “Washington, DC is a ‘swamp,’ and it is unfair to have to stand trial before a jury that is reflective of the swamp mentality. One of the reasons our country is in decline is the politicization of the rule of law. No more excuses—I will end the weaponization of the federal government.”

Pence condemned Trump

In his statement, Trump’s former VP said, “Our country is more important than one man. Our Constitution is more important than any one man’s career. On January 6th, Former President Trump demanded that I choose.” He also stated that the “indictment serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.”>

<After eight years of delays and a change in venue, suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton appeared in a Harris County court Thursday morning in a securities fraud case against him.

Paxton faces felony charges and is accused of defrauding investors in a tech startup after being indicted in 2015. The suspended attorney general also faces an upcoming impeachment trial next month in the Texas Senate for a slew of misconduct allegations related to abuse of office.

“It’s a good day for Texas because it’s on the road to healing. It’s on the road to justice. Finally, something’s going to be done one way or another,” prosecutor Kent Schaffer said.

The pretrial hearing lasted just nine minutes. Thursday’s developments were simple procedural matters to determine the logistics of a coming trial, yet lawyers on each side stressed the significance of reaching this moment.

“I think one of the game changers today is being in front of a judge who understands the law, who is dedicated to ruling on motions,” prosecutor Brian Wice said. “With all due respect, for the two plus, three plus years this case was in another court, that didn’t happen because the judge was either unable or unwilling.”

Paxton’s defense attorney Dan Cogdell said the eventual outcome of this trial will be largely influenced by the outcome of Paxton’s separate impeachment trial set to begin on Sep. 5.

“Logically, if Ken prevails [in the impeachment trial], we’ll go forward. If Ken loses, that’s a killshot to his political career, so it opens the door for a resolution and it’s not open right now.” Cogdell said.

Judge Andrea Beall set a setting date for Oct. 6, when she might rule on pre-trial motions and could set a trial date for Paxton, if necessary. Although, all parties involved in the case acknowledged their next steps toward resolving the case might vary depending on if Paxton is removed from office as a result of the Senate impeachment trial.

Cogdell said that “resolution” could be a settlement, plea bargain, or dismissal.

Last month in a 6-3 ruling, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided the case should remain in Houston, settling a key issue in the case as Paxton faces an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate next month. His case originally was in Collin County, where Paxton lives, but the trial judge there had lost jurisdiction over the case.

Ken Paxton to appear in court in securities fraud case hearing

Shortly after the Republican was first elected to the Office of Attorney General, a Collin County grand jury indicted Paxton in 2015 on two counts of securities fraud — a first-degree felony with a punishment of up to 99 years in prison — and one count of failing to register with state securities regulators — a third-degree felony with a maximum 10 years in prison.

The charges stem from 2011 when Paxton allegedly sought out investors in Servergy Inc. — a tech company based in his hometown of McKinney — without saying he was being paid by Servergy to promote its stock.

At the end of May, Paxton was suspended after the Texas House voted 121-23 to impeach him on allegations related to his securities fraud case, as well as other accusations of misconduct throughout his tenure in the office. Paxton denied wrongdoing and decried the efforts as a political “witch hunt.”....>

<.....Paxton’s security fraud case was originally set in Collin County, but in 2017 prosecutors began a fight to change the venue. They argued that finding potential impartial jurors and getting a fair trial would not be possible in the area that Paxton had represented politically for 12 years. Before becoming attorney general, he was a state representative for 10 years and a state senator for two years.

Before the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in June that the case would remain in Houston, defense and prosecutors went back and forth fighting over the venue for years. Paxton’s team successfully got the case back to Collin County in 2020 after arguing the judge who had sent the case to Harris County no longer had jurisdiction in Paxton’s case. Prosecutors appealed and ultimately got the case back to Harris County.

The battle over which county his case would be heard in was only one factor of several that caused years of delays. Issues with six-figure payments for the prosecutors in the case lengthened the time of the appeal, and additionally, defense lawyers for Paxton took issue with the grand jury procedure in his indictment and had asked to get the charges dismissed altogether.

Benjamin Gergen, an Austin-based criminal defense attorney and partner with Gergen Hale & Campbell, said Thursday’s court setting was a big step in ensuring the court moves forward with the case.

“For the first time, Ken Paxton has been ordered to appear before the Democratic Harris County District Judge,” he said. “This sends a message that this 8-year-old case may pick up speed quickly because the court wouldn’t force a defendant to attend on a case of this age without something more substantive than a quick check-in and reset to a later date.”

This securities fraud criminal case is separate from Paxton’s impeachment trial, which begins on Sept. 5 at the Texas Capitol. Per the Texas Constitution, senators will act as a jury and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick will preside over the trial.

No aspect of the trial will include criminal charges; senators’ vote will determine whether or not Paxton must be permanently removed from office. The allegations against Paxton include bribery, abuse of office, and obstruction. The Republican has faced controversies and criminal charges hanging over his tenure.>

<Asa Hutchinson, a Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential race, spoke with Scripps News on Thursday after former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiracy and obstruction in connection with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Hutchinson spoke about what the indictment means to the voters who are watching the 2024 Republican presidential field.

Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in early polling of GOP voters. Hutchinson says the Republican electorate won't come around to other candidates "unless someone speaks out and talks the truth and showcases that what Donald Trump did on January 6 is unacceptable and that the Republican Party should be about the rule of law and accountability and justice."

For now, Hutchinson says, it's too early to see the Jan. 6 charges have much effect on voter sentiment — but that is likely to change.

"In Iowa, I spoke to an incredible great tonight and there's really two tracks going on. As I spoke to them and they asked questions to me, Trump did not come up the indictments did not come up. They were focused on the alternative candidate, and what do they believe. They wanted to hear about ideas for the future," Hutchinson said." The other track is separate, and that is following the case as to how that develops. Now, at some point, those two are going to merge, and that's when you're going to see numbers start changing. So right now they're two separate tracks. I think that Donald Trump is in a holding position until the voters actually get a handle on this case and the facts of it."

Earlier this year, Hutchinson told Scripps News he would not offer Trump a pardon in the event of his conviction, saying discussion of such a step "should have no place in the campaign."

Hutchinson has also called on Trump to drop out of the 2024 presidential race.>

<The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Washington to step in after he released a post online that appeared to promise revenge on anyone who goes after him.

Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a protective order in the case a day after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and block the peaceful transition of power. The order — which is different from a so-called “gag order” — would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Such protective orders are common in criminal cases, but prosecutors said it's “particularly important in this case” because Trump has posted on social media about "witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him."

Prosecutors pointed specifically to a post on Trump's Truth Social platform from earlier Friday in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”

Prosecutors said they are ready to hand over a "substantial" amount of evidence — “much of which includes sensitive and confidential information” — to Trump's legal team.

They told the judge that if Trump were to begin posting about grand jury transcripts or other evidence provided by the Justice Department, it could have a “harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case.”

Prosecutors' proposed protective order seeks to prevent Trump and his lawyers from disclosing materials provided by the government to anyone other than people on his legal team, possible witnesses, the witnesses' lawyers or others approved by the court. It would put stricter limits on “sensitive materials,” which would include grand jury witness testimony and materials obtained through sealed search warrants.

A Trump spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the former president's post “is the definition of political speech,” and was made in response to “dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs.”

The indictment unsealed this week accuses Trump of brazenly conspiring with allies to spread falsehoods and concoct schemes intended to overturn his election loss to President Joe Biden as his legal challenges floundered in court.

The indictment chronicles how Trump and his Republican allies, in what Smith described as an attack on a “bedrock function of the U.S. government,” repeatedly lied about the results in the two months after he lost the election and pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, and state election officials to take action to help him cling to power.

Trump faces charges including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct Congress’ certification of Biden’s electoral victory.

It's the third criminal case brought this year against the the early front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. But it’s the first case to try to hold Trump responsible for his efforts to remain in power during the chaotic weeks between his election loss and the attack by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

After his court appearance on Thursday before a magistrate judge, Trump characterized the case as a “persecution” designed to hurt his 2024 presidential campaign. His legal team has described it as an attack on his right to free speech and his right to challenge an election that he believed had been stolen.

Smith has said prosecutors will seek a “speedy trial" against Trump in the election case. Judge Chutkan has ordered the government to file a brief by Thursday proposing a trial date. The first court hearing in front of Chutkan is scheduled for Aug. 28.

Trump is already scheduled to stand trial in March in the New York case stemming from hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign and in May in the federal case in Florida stemming from classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate.>