Many states have passed a law requiring paper ballots. It's unfortunate that we don't have a federal law requiring all voting machines be made, owned, and operated strictly in America. The possibility of outside interference should be completely removed from the equation, like a chess player not having a personal device in hand while playing a rated game....>

Keep spewing those Far Right conspiracy theories and we will all buy in--that is how you get the attention respect you so crave, same as your Fuehrer.

<Senator Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, was confronted by a Fox News host on Friday about the poor polling for policies that the GOP has been pushing hard for, at one point calling some of the numbers bad news.

Having previously served as the governor of Florida prior to Ron DeSantis, Scott is currently the state's junior U.S. Senator. He also has considerable status in the national Republican Party, serving as the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2021 to this year.

During an appearance on Fox Business, host Stuart Varney pressed Scott on the considerable unpopularity of the GOP's policies among voters, citing a recent Fox News poll that found widespread support for firearm restrictions to combat the country's rising gun violence as opposed to more heavily arming people, and another poll that found two-thirds support for keeping the abortion pill, mifepristone, legal. Scott is currently sponsoring the "School Guardian Act," which would create more funding to allow K-12 schools to hire one or two law enforcement officers to provide all-day security.

"This Fox poll on guns, that's not good news for Republicans," Varney said, adding that Scott is essentially arguing that the country has enough gun laws already.

In response, Scott largely bypassed the issue of the higher polling for new gun restrictions, saying that the answer to gun violence in the United States is to more strictly enforce the laws already on the books and, in the case of schools, increase the amount of armed security. Scott compared his new legislation to the efforts he made as governor of Florida, but on a national scale.

However, research has found, specifically from American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington and the Center for Public Integrity, that armed security officers in schools do more harm than good, making no noticeable impact on the number of mass school shootings and disproportionately targeting disabled students and students of color with punishments.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, an organization that tracks shootings across the country, there have been at least 174 mass shootings in the U.S. so far this year. That number was 646 in 2022 and 690 in 2021. In 2014, the earliest year the organization began monitoring this data, there were 272 mass shootings.

"Here's another one that might be somewhat difficult for Republicans, another Fox poll: 56 percent of voters believe that abortion should be legal," Varney added. "Again, that's not real good for Republicans. I mean, look at Wisconsin, look at Kansas."

Varney was referring to recent votes in Kansas and Wisconsin relating to abortion access in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last summer. In August, 59 percent of Kansas voters rejected the addition of an amendment to the state's constitution that would have said that citizens did not have the right to receive an abortion in the state. Earlier this month, Wisconsin overwhelmingly elected liberal judge Janet Protasiewicz to the state Supreme Court, tipping the institution to the left for the first time in years and paving the way for an anti-abortion law to be undone.

In response, Scott claimed without evidence that Democrats were supporting late-term abortions, and added, despite the polling he was presented with, that Americans want "reasonable restrictions" and a number of exemptions, which he did not detail. Varney again pushed back, stating that there "are an awful lot of unreasonable Republicans" pushing for abortion restrictions who might cost the party further elections in 2024.

"It's really a tough choice for women," Scott said about the medical procedure. "You feel sorry for people who are going through it."

Newsweek reached out to Scott's press office via email for comment.>

Such pertinacity is deserving of a better fate.

When has he not lied?

<....He hasn't even announced he's running for president yet and the Spawn of Satan has him mischaracterized....>

Santos already has what one might call a proven track record, <fredthedouche>.

<....Surely you're not suggesting that Democrats and Socialists always tell the truth?

What about Bernie Sanders - does he always tell the truth? Elizabeth Warren, American Indian? Andrew Cuomo makes one think truth and wisdom, yeah?>

This bit of sophistry makes any misconduct correct in your deranged world view.

<....This could go on and on....>

Indeed, so long as you let your compulsion to have the last word on everything have free rein.

<....I really must get back to the draft to see who Chicago is going to pick next.>

<Marjorie Taylor Greene has been told to "shut the you know what up" by a former Republican Party chair after she controversially told a stepmother she was "not a mother" on Wednesday during a congressional committee meeting.

The House Republican made the comment to Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, who described herself as a "mother by marriage."

Weingarten was appearing before a House committee investigating the impact of school closures during the coronavirus pandemic. In a testy exchange, after Weingarten said she was a "mother by marriage," Greene said: "The problem is people like you need to admit that you're just a political activist, not a teacher, not a mother and not a medical doctor."

She continued: "Let me tell you, I am a mother, and all three of my children were directly affected by the school closures by your recommendations, which is something that you really can't understand."

The remark sparked a furious response from Michael Steele, Republican Party chair between 2009 and 2011, during an appearance on MSNBC.

He said: "It just struck such a raw nerve with me, as an adopted child, to think that Marjorie Taylor Greene could look at my mother and say she's not a mother. Well you need to shut the you know what up and step back, because motherhood is something that comes from the heart, it's something you do, it's an expression of love."

Steele went on to accuse the Georgia Republican of having performed a "classless act," before concluding: "I just want to say directly to Marjorie Taylor Greene, you remember that little boy named Jesus? Well, his daddy was a stepdad."

Greene's comments immediately triggered a reaction during the committee meeting, with Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia branding them "unacceptable," and telling Weingarten, "You are a mother."

On Twitter, Rep. Jimmy Gomez, his fellow Democrat, later added: "Adopted moms + dads, stepmoms and stepdads — they are all real parents, full stop.

"Anyone who tries to deny this fact is just a horrible person. No surprise it's coming from @RepMTG."

Newsweek has contacted Representative Greene for comment with a telephone call and voicemail message to her congressional office.

In a separate incident on Wednesday, Greene was accused of laughing whilst the House Committee on Homeland Security discussed a commemorative coin that depicted migrants from Haiti being chased by border patrol agents on horseback with whips. She denied the allegation, commenting: "I was laughing about something completely unrelated."

On April 25, Joe Biden hit out at Greene in a three-minute video announcing his re-election campaign, with a video of the Georgia Republican appearing on screen as the president warned about the danger from "MAGA extremists.">

<CNN anchor Poppy Harlow was stunned by Nikki Haley’s remarks suggesting that President Joe Biden will die in office, cutting to the heart of the remarks in an interview.

At issue is Haley’s casual remark on Fox News, “If you vote for Joe Biden, you really are counting on a President Harris because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not something that I think is likely.”

It’s a remark that stunned CNN This Morning co-anchor Poppy Harlow on Friday morning’s episode as she played the clip for former Senator Doug Jones (D-AL), a former Biden White House senior adviser:

HARLOW: — I thought that was really interesting too. 80 years old and he said, look, I don’t know if by six weeks many women are even going to know they’re pregnant. So, yes. I think you make a very important point. Let’s turn the page to what you tweeted about this week. And that is presidential candidate, Republican Presidential Candidate Nikki Haley saying this — let’s play the sound about President Joe Biden.

NIKKI HALEY (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you vote for Joe Biden, you really are counting on a President Harris because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not something that I think is likely.

HARLOW: He’s not — he’s going to be dead in five years? I mean — and she didn’t walk it back.

JONES: Yes, that’s — No, that’s exactly what she is saying. You know, there is a combination. And I — as I tweeted out, I thought those comments were vile. I think they were appalling. I really do believe they’re not befitting of a presidential candidate or any candidate for public office in the United States of America. And there is an element of race baiting in that as well, too.

Playing on the fears of folks that might not want a strong black woman as president of the United States. And I think that there is [sic] some serious issues and I’d love to see some of her Republican colleagues walk it back for her. But I don’t think we’re going to see it. I think they’re going to probably jump onboard. As I said, I think this is a race to the bottom.

HARLOW: That was interesting. This morning, I was looking for Republicans pushing back against it at all and not see it.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: She’s also playing on an actual sentiment, which is concerns about the president’s age which we have seen in polling politically. So, given what is to come, right, what we’re seeing in this, kind of, partisan attack, how should Democrats argue about this? What is the retort?

JONES: Well, I think Democrats have to push back on comments like this, for sure. But I also think Democrats do exactly what the president’s done and pushed forward what he has accomplished in the last two years with the Democratic House.>

<Reacting to a New York Times report that investigators working for special counsel Jack Smith are focusing on evidence of wire fraud related to Donald Trump's 2020 presidential election loss, former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner suggested a conspiracy indictment might be forthcoming that encompasses those charges.

Speaking with MSNBC's "The Saturday Show" host Jonathan Capehart, the former prosecutor claimed such charges were hinted at by a California judge last year.

According to the Times, "Led by the special counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors are trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and his aides violated federal wire fraud statutes as they raised as much as $250 million through a political action committee by saying they needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though they had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims."

The report added, "In the past several months, prosecutors have issued multiple batches of subpoenas in a wide-ranging effort to understand Save America, which was set up shortly after the election as Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising entity."

Asked where Smith and his investigators are headed, Kirschner replied, "Wire fraud is the stock and trade of the federal prosecutors. If you use the wires, it's an old-time term, it used to mean the TV, the radio, the telephone -- now it's the internet -- as part of a scheme to defraud others out of their money."

"Now would Donald Trump would ever do something like that?" he sarcastically asked.

"Those are fairly easy charges to prove," he continued. "So I have a feeling, you can see a series of wire fraud charges in what I would predict would be the larger charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States."

"Because. remember Jonathan, a federal judge in California [Judge David O. Carter] ruled previously there was enough evidence or preponderance of the evidence that Donald Trump committed the crime of conspiracy to defraud the United States," he concluded.>

<In a series of rulings issued Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court has made it harder for Democratic constituencies, particularly Black voters, to have their votes counted in the state. The decisions, which contradict earlier rulings from the court, come after Republicans gained a 5-2 majority in the state’s highest court after the 2022 election.

Partisan gerrymandering allowed to return

In perhaps the most controversial of Friday’s rulings, the Republican justices ruled that the NC Supreme Court had no power to question whether district lines in the state were drawn in an extremely partisan way. This ruling reverses a previous decision made by the court in which it objected to redistricting done after the 2020 census in which district lines were drawn to heavily favor Republicans and disadvantage Democrats. By now saying that the Court had no power to rule in the case, the Republican justices are allowing the partisan map to stand and limiting the power of voting rights advocates to challenge such partisan redistricting schemes in the future. The North Carolina case had also been brought up before the United States Supreme Court, and this ruling may cause the US Supreme Court to drop the case according to Democratic lawyer Marc Elias.

Voter ID law reinstated despite past rulings on racial intent

The Republican majority reversed another one of the NC Supreme Court’s recent decisions, this time allowing a controversial voter ID law to be implemented in the state. The voter ID law has been the subject of years of political and legal conflict in the state. Voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 to allow the voter ID requirement, but a state senate bill to enact it was vetoed by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. When Republicans overrode this veto, the case went to court, and the NC Supreme Court ruled last year that the law was unconstitutional. Specifically, the ruling relied in part on a determination by a lower court that the voter ID law was enacted with racist intent, seeking to prevent Black residents from voting.

A similar law passed in 2013 was also struck down after records showed that Republicans specifically target Black voters, who were less likely to have state-issued IDs, with restrictive legislation like voter ID requirements. Friday’s ruling holds that the court cannot prove discriminatory interests drove the ID requirement.

Disenfranchising residents with felony convictions

Finally, one of Friday’s rulings upheld a requirement that effectively bars people with felony convictions from voting in North Carolina until all aspects of their sentences, including fines and fees, have been fulfilled. This requirement, which impacts more than 50,000 people in the state, had been called racist and exclusionary in the past due to its disproportionate impact on Black people in the state. In voting alongside his fellow Republicans to uphold the law, Justice Trey Allen ruled that “the General Assembly did not engage in racial discrimination or otherwise violate the North Carolina Constitution by requiring individuals with felony convictions to complete their sentences — including probation, parole, or post-release supervision — before they regain the right to vote.”

Together, these three rulings constitute huge victories for Republicans in North Carolina while alarming those who advocate for free and fair voting for all North Carolinians, including Black voters. Dr. Rev. William Barber II called this series of rulings a “a coup d’état by the North Carolina Supreme Court.” Rev. Barber added that “five Republicans—all white—with two African-Americans dissenting, decided to be the focal point of voter suppression in North Carolina.”

By issuing these rulings in defiance of previous court decisions, the Republicans justices in North Carolina appear set on rolling back voting rights in the state.>

<The world is full of difficult personalities, but the one that's impossible to avoid is the narcissist. They are usually the most insecure people in the room, but have established a way of appearing ultra-confident.

As a psychologist who studies narcissism, I've found that, in most cases, highly narcissistic people are masters of gaslighting. Their primary goal in a relationship is to offset their insecurity by controlling and manipulating others.

Here are six phrases that they always use — and how to deal with them:

1. "I don't want to make this about me, but..."
Statements like this show that narcissistic people know they shouldn't dominate the conversation, yet they do it anyway. It's like a pseudo-disclaimer that gives them permission to only focus on themselves.

How to handle it: If you get into a conversation with a narcissist, be prepared for their story hour. If it's interesting, listen. You can even treat it like an IRL podcast. But if you're hoping for a two-way conversation, look elsewhere.

2. "I'm sorry you feel that way."

Narcissists have a hard time admitting fault, and this is their classic attempt at an apology. But it's actually more of a deflection.

With this phrase, they're implying that your feelings are your issues alone, and that they'll take no responsibility for their behavior.

How to handle it: Without genuine remorse, no matter what the transgression was, they'll likely do it again. My advice is to simply disengage. To avoid getting hurt in the future, it is often best to see people for who they really are.

3. "Why are you doing this to me?"

Narcissists have a stunning capacity to shift from being the offender to being the victim.

You may be the one who has the flu or a tough week at work. But if whatever you're struggling with inconveniences them, it will be framed as their problem.

How to handle it: You can get a degree of power back through self-awareness. Otherwise, you may find yourself constantly wondering if you're actually at fault. Seek support — from a therapist or empathetic friend, for example — to remind yourself that you're not the offender.

4. "I'm a busy person. I don't have time for this."

"This" can be anything — maybe you want to discuss a project you're working on together or you're inviting them to a work event.

The hallmarks of a narcissist are entitlement, a lack of empathy and the inability to maintain reciprocal relationships. Not only are they unable to understand another person's needs, but they're also dismissive of them.

How to handle it: Recognize their limitations. They likely won't make time for you unless they need something. These relationships are often the equivalent of going to an empty well for water, so do what you can to foster support independent of the narcissist.

5. "I hope you know who you're messing with."

The evil twin to this is: "If you ever do wrong by me, I'll make your life a living hell."

This tactic of dangling menace and the possibility of vengeance is how they create an illusion of power and a sense of fear in you. Most people don't want to face this perceived threat, so they comply.

How to handle it: This can be unsettling, especially if you're dealing with someone who does have a track record of making other people miserable. Documentation is key. Save all emails and messages. If there's a genuine safety issue, work with local authorities to devise a plan.

6. "It's not fair."

Narcissists believe there should be a set of rules for them, and separate set of rules for everyone else. When they have to comply, or a consequence is enforced, it's a reminder that they are not special.

Whether their friend's company is doing great and making lots of money, or they have to pay a penalty because they tried to game the system and got caught, you can expect a rant of "it's not fair" statements.

How to handle it: You may be tempted to appease them, perhaps out of guilt or to avoid conflict. But doing so will set an impossible precedent. Don't try to be a person who tries to make life "fair" for them by making unreasonable personal sacrifices.>

<Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) told a group of Republican donors over the weekend that Americans need to "throw out the trash" when securing the border.

While speaking at a Reagan dinner in Ohio, Greene said that her generation had a responsibility to the country.

"But we also need to remember, where we are the Americans, and we should have a lot of pride in our home and our country," she opined. "And that's why we have to recognize the battle that the radical left has brought to our front door because we need to clean up our house."

"We need to fight for it," she continued. We need to shut our doors. We need to shut our windows. We need to throw out the trash, and we need to clean it up."

Greene also said she was "solidly supporting Donald J. Trump for president" in 2024.

"I would give anything for mean tweets," she argued. "Because they come with world peace. That's something we had under President Trump. They come with secure, strong borders and a border wall that will be finished high, finished long, and will be safe for America.">

A good start to 'throwing out the trash' would be the deportation of this ignoramus.

<The fallout came fast when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s new election police unit charged Peter Washington with voter fraud last summer as part of a crackdown against felons who’d allegedly broken the law by casting a ballot.

The Orlando resident lost his job supervising irrigation projects, and along with it, his family’s health insurance. His wife dropped her virtual classes at Florida International University to help pay their rent. Future plans went out the window.

“It knocked me to my knees, if you want to know the truth,” he said.

But not long after, the case against Washington began falling apart. A Ninth Judicial Circuit judge ruled the statewide prosecutor who filed the charges didn’t actually have jurisdiction to do so. Washington’s attorney noted that he had received an official voter identification card in the mail after registering. The case was dismissed in February.

One by one, many of the initial 20 arrests announced by the Office of Election Crimes and Security have stumbled in court. Six cases have been dismissed. Five other defendants accepted plea deals that resulted in no jail time. Only one case has gone to trial, resulting in a split verdict. The others are pending.

In its first nine months, the new unit made just four other arrests, according to a report the agency released earlier this year. Critics say the low numbers point to the overall strength of Florida’s electoral system and a lack of sufficient evidence to pursue further charges. Nonetheless, as he gears up for a possible presidential run, DeSantis is moving to give the office more teeth, asking the legislature to nearly triple the division’s annual budget from $1.2 million to $3.1 million. The Republican governor also pushed through a bill ensuring the statewide prosecutor has jurisdiction over election crime cases — an attempt to resolve an issue several judges have raised in dismissing cases.

Voting rights advocates and defense attorneys say the expansion of the statewide prosecutor’s role to include elections enforcement is alarming. The office was created in 1986, and its portfolio typically includes offenses like extortion, racketeering and computer pornography involving two or more judicial circuits. The statewide prosecutor is appointed by the attorney general, Ashley Moody, a political ally of DeSantis, and also submits an annual report to the governor.

Defense attorneys say DeSantis is using the statewide prosecutor’s office to circumvent the role of local prosecutors, who have declined to pursue such cases.

“This cannot be what the framers of the Florida Constitution had in mind when creating this state’s system of justice,” Palm Beach County public defender Carey Haughwout wrote in a motion as part of the defense against one of the felons charged.

Neither Statewide Prosecutor Nicholas Cox nor Secretary of State Cord Byrd returned requests for comment. Cox has served in the role since 2011, predating DeSantis.

DeSantis has continued to defend the unit’s work. But the governor’s press secretary, Bryan Griffin, recently said that investigators won’t go after voters who are simply confused about Amendment 4, which restored voting rights for most felons. He would not comment on whether the policy represents a reversal from the administration’s earlier stance, referring a reporter to Byrd’s office, which did not respond.

The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment on the judicial track record of the Office of Election Crimes and Security.

Those who eventually had their cases dismissed said the personal damage was still far reaching. Some lost jobs and are now struggling to pay bills. Others who had fought to rebuild tarnished reputations after past crimes saw their mug shots end up splashed on television. For Washington, the arrest also brought something else.

He no longer believes in America’s electoral system. ’
All of those arrested in August had been convicted in the past of murder or a felony sex crime, and that disqualified them from voting under a recent constitutional amendment that gave most formerly incarcerated people the right to vote....>

<....Washington pled no contest in 1996 to attempted sexual battery of a child and was initially sentenced to probation, according to court records. But records show the father of four violated the terms of his probation by failing to register with the state. He spent the next 10 years behind bars.

“It took me a long time to rebuild my name,” Washington said on a recent afternoon. “It was slow, but I was working on it. I got a job, then I got a better job. Then I met a wonderful woman, and I got married. Things were looking up more and more every day.”

Registering to vote felt like the next logical step toward restoring his status as a full citizen. Florida had just passed an amendment restoring the rights of many former felons. Washington said he was unaware his conviction on a sex crime charge disqualified him. The Florida Department of State in Tallahassee and the local election supervisor signed off on his application and issued him a voter ID card, as they did with the other felons who were later arrested, according to their attorneys.

In 2020, Washington and his wife stood in line for 45 minutes to vote for Joe Biden. Then they went out to a celebratory meal at Chili’s.

“It was a proud moment for us,” his wife, Sholanda Jackson, recalled.

More than 11 million people voted in Florida in the 2020 election — the highest turnout in nearly three decades. DeSantis praised elections officials, saying at a news conference a day after the vote that, “The way Florida did it, I think, inspires confidence.”

Nevertheless, DeSantis pushed for the creation of the nation’s first election crime unit, saying the next year that more reforms were needed to ensure Florida’s vote was secure.

That eventually led Florida Department of Law Enforcement officers to Washington. Nearly two years after casting his ballot, FDLE agents showed up at his home and arrested him in his driveway. Most of those charged that day were people of color, and police body-camera footage shows several looking baffled as they are taken into custody, asking why they are in handcuffs for voting.

Washington and the others arrested were charged with providing false information on their voter registration forms and voting as an unqualified elector. Each charge is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

At a news conference that same day, DeSantis praised the election crimes unit for having “hit the ground running,” making the arrests within six weeks of opening.

“They did not get their rights restored, and yet they went ahead and voted anyways,” DeSantis said, surrounded by sheriffs deputies in a Fort Lauderdale courtroom. “That is against the law, and now they’re going to pay the price for it.”

A ‘power grab’ in the legislature

The arrests spurred anger and swift pushback. Defense attorneys began filing for the cases to be dismissed, noting the state had given those arrested permission to vote and questioning the role of the statewide prosecutor.

Several judges agreed, ruling the statewide prosecutor did not have the jurisdiction to bring the cases because the alleged offenses happened in only one county.

“These are cases that should have been brought by the local prosecuting authorities, except DeSantis can’t control them, and make them take these cases that are weak, against individuals that did not intend to break the law,” said Michael Gottlieb, a Democratic state representative from Broward County who is also representing one of the defendants.

The state legislature — where Republicans hold a supermajority — offered a solution: In February, lawmakers quickly passed a new law stating the statewide prosecutor indeed has jurisdiction in alleged voter fraud cases.

An attorney who helped organize the statewide prosecutor’s office when it was formed in 1986 said the new powers over election cases would have been hard to fathom back then.

“At that time, it was about organized crime,” said attorney Barbara Linthicum, who also served on the state’s Elections Commission. “I can guarantee you that it never came to anybody’s mind that they would be prosecuting election laws.”

The law passed easily over objections from Democrats and voter rights advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida decried it as an “unnecessary and harmful expansion” of the statewide prosecutor’s office. Another group, All Voting is Local, criticized it as a “power grab” meant to take cases from “impartial state attorneys and give them to a subservient prosecutor”....>

<....Backers of the bill, including Rep. Juan Alfonso Fernandez-Barquin, a Republican from Miami who sponsored the legislation in the House, argued it was necessary to ensure election fraud cases are prosecuted — mirroring a DeSantis criticism that local authorities were failing to act on concerns of election fraud.

State prosecutors contend few voter fraud cases are ultimately brought forward because they don’t meet the bar necessary to levy charges. Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, a Democrat, noted prosecutors need to show evidence of both a voter crime and intent.

If that bar is met, he said, “We’ll pursue it.”

Many referrals, few arrests

In its first nine months, the Office of Election Crimes and Security referred hundreds of alleged illegal voting cases to local law enforcement for possible charges — but few resulted in any arrests.

A third of the cases sent to law enforcement for possible criminal charges were detected through the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a data-sharing consortium of more than 30 states, the office acknowledged in a January report.

The election crimes office noted the consortium helped detect 1,177 cases of individuals who appear to have voted in both Florida and another state. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Cord Byrd recently decided to join several other Republican-led states in withdrawing from ERIC. He cited concerns about the system’s “partisan tendencies” and said it would help protect voter information.

Critics of ERIC, including some aligned with former president Donald Trump’s false stolen-election narrative, have claimed the group is actually a left-wing organization sharing voter data with liberal groups. ERIC’s leaders have denied those allegations. Elections experts and state lawmakers from both parties say the system helped keep voter rolls clean and also enabled states to more easily detect voter fraud.

“In the short term there will be some additional legwork that will have to go into those processes, but it doesn’t mean we can’t do them,” Byrd said at his confirmation hearing in late March.

For voter rights advocates, the election crime unit’s few arrests and failures in court are signs there is little voter fraud in Florida.

“That’s just clear evidence that Florida created this new election crimes office to root out a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Patrick Berry, a lawyer with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, which researches and advocates on voting rights issues. “While a tiny fraction of those cases have led to an arrest, the majority of those arrests were people who were very likely confused or misled about their eligibility to vote.”

Statewide prosecutors have already moved to exercise their expanded authority under the new law granting them the ability to pursue election fraud cases. They have filed motions in both dismissed and pending cases - citing the “remedial legislation” - and arguing the charges should be adjusted to reflect the change. It’s unclear whether the legislation can be applied retroactively, but defendants and their attorneys are on guard. Washington’s lawyer said the state is appealing his case.

‘It’s a trap’

Washington said he began to feel free again when his case was dismissed after six months. But he remains on edge over whether authorities might find another way to charge him with an election crime through the newly empowered state prosecutor.

“It’s like they just won’t leave you alone,” he said.

A few months ago, he found a new job. But it meant taking a 10 percent pay cut. And now, instead of supervising irrigation projects, he said, “I’m back to digging.”

A long-planned cruise is off the table, and extras he and his wife once budgeted for — the occasional dinner out, traveling to see family in Louisiana, tickets to gospel concerts — are not in their plans for the foreseeable future....>

<....Others arrested in the August round-up find themselves in a similar predicament.

A jury in Tampa found Nathan Hart, 49, guilty in February of making a false statement on his voter registration form but not guilty for voting as an “unqualified elector," a split verdict. He was sentenced to two years probation.

After his trial, Hart lost both a part-time job at a retail shipping center and his longtime job driving a street sweeping truck at night because his probation included a nighttime curfew. He said he was unemployed for a month and a half, and now has a job cleaning parking lots. Meanwhile, his attorneys are appealing the guilty verdict.

“My daughters need to see me never giving up,” Hart said.

Last year, he took one of his daughters camping in the mountains of northern Georgia. Now, he said, “I can’t even afford to take her out for an ice cream.”

Another defendant, Romona Oliver, pleaded no contest to the charges but faced no jail time. Her attorney, Mark Rankin, said she “basically just walked away.”

“She didn’t admit she did anything wrong. She got no probation, no fine, no cost of investigation,” he said. “What she suffered was the stress of being arrested for no good reason, and worrying about court dates and about possibly going back to prison.”

For Washington, the lesson of it all is clear: Voting is dangerous.

He knows now he can’t vote — unless he applies for and receives clemency — but he’s telling others they should be wary of it, too, even if they don’t have a criminal record. One of his adult children has already decided he won’t be casting a ballot. A friend is doubting it, too.

“I told him I wouldn’t advise it,” he said. “Because it’s a trap.”>

<Former President Donald Trump during a press gaggle aboard his plane after his Waco, Texas rally in March blew up at NBC News reporter Vaughn Hillyard, according audio obtained by Vanity Fair.

Hillyard reportedly asked Trump if he was “frustrated” about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation over alleged hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

The probe led to a 34-count felony indictment days later.

Hillyard was questioning Trump over his Truth Social posts in which the former president had warned of “potential death and destruction” if he was indicted, and when Hillyard asked Trump for his version of events the former president said. “I don’t want to talk to you.”

In response to another question from Hillyard Trump replied: “Do you hear me? You’re not a nice guy,” Trump said.

“I don’t want to talk to you.” Hillyard tried to ask another question. “Do you hear me? You’re not a nice guy,” Trump said, turning to take a question from another reporter.

Trump lost it after Hillyard tried to ask another question.

“Alright, let’s go, get him out of here,” Trump said. “Outta here. Outta here.”

According to Vanity Fair’s reporting: “Trump then picked up one of the phones recording the gaggle and asked, ‘Whose is this?’ Hillyard replied that it was his. Trump picked up another phone and asked the same question. “That one’s mine too,” Hillyard said. The former president tossed both phones out of his sight, onto the seat next to him; the thud of one of the phones hitting a surface can be heard in the recording.”>

<Francisco Oropesa, the man on the run after allegedly killing five Texas family members, is a Mexican national who was previously deported four times, a source familiar with the investigation told ABC News.

Oropesa, 38, was deported on March 17, 2009, after an immigration judge ordered his removal, the source said. He unlawfully returned to the U.S., and he was then apprehended and deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in September 2009, January 2012 and July 2016, the source said.

Oropesa had also been convicted in Montgomery County, Texas, in January 2012 of driving while intoxicated and served time in jail, the source said.

The mass shooting unfolded Friday night after neighbors asked Oropesa to stop shooting his gun in the yard of his home in Cleveland, about 50 miles north of Houston, investigators said.

The San Jacinto County Sheriff's Office received a call around 11:31 p.m. Friday detailing harassment, Sheriff Greg Capers told reporters on Sunday. When deputies arrived at the home, they found five victims at the property, Capers said.

Three minors who were found uninjured but covered in blood, authorities said. Two of the female victims were discovered in the bedroom lying on top of two surviving children, authorities told ABC News.

Oropesa is still on the run and is a "threat to the community," FBI Houston field office agent James Smith told reporters on Saturday.

The FBI has "zero leads" on where Oropesa could be, Smith said Sunday while announcing an $80,000 reward for information leading to his capture.

Investigators described Oropesa as a 5-foot-8 Hispanic man with a goatee and short black hair. He was last seen wearing jeans, a black shirt and work boots.

The neighbors had asked the suspect to stop shooting his gun in the front yard because there was a baby trying to sleep, Capers told ABC Houston station KTRK.

Oropesa, who allegedly had been drinking, responded, "I'll do what I want to in my front yard," Capers said.

The massacre went from a case of harassment to a shooting very quickly, Capers said. All of the victims were shot from the neck up, "almost execution-style," Capers told KTRK.

The victims were identified by authorities as Sonia Argentina Guzman, 25; Diana Velazquez Alvarado, 21; Julisa Molina Rivera, 31; Jose Jonathan Casarez, 18; and Daniel Enrique Laso Guzman, 8. Daniel's father later said his son was 9 years old.

Five other people who were in the home were not harmed.

Footage from a Ring doorbell at the victims' house shows the shooter entering the home with a weapon, Capers said.

Four of the victims were pronounced dead at the scene. The youngest was declared dead after being transported to the hospital, police said.

Some of the victims were trying to shield their children from the bullets, Capers said. Shell casings were found in Oropesa's front yard, police said.

Wilson Garcia, who owns the home, told KTRK that the family was preparing a meal when Oropesa began shooting on his property.

Garcia told KTRK he moved in three years ago and "never had a problem" with his neighbor until Friday. Garcia's wife and young son were among the victims killed in the shooting.

"I don't have words to describe what happened," Garcia said during a vigil Sunday. "It's like we're alive but not living. What happened was really horrible. I lived through it because I was there. I managed to escape by miracle."

"Two people died protecting my 2-and-a-half-year-old daughter and my month-and-a-half-old son," an emotional Garcia continued. "They protected him with a pile of clothes so the killer wouldn't kill them, too."

Garcia said he was in the house at the time of the shooting and escaped by climbing out of a window. Garcia said a woman in the house who told him to get out of the window was one of the people who died.

"She told me to jump through the window because my kids are now without a mother and one of us needed to stay alive to take care of them," he said.

"I'm trying to be strong for my kids," Garcia said. "My daughter somewhat understands, and it's difficult when she starts to ask for her mom and her brother."

During Sunday's vigil, Garcia said his son was 9 years old. Some of Garcia's remarks also differed from his previous account when he spoke to KTRK.

Neighbor Veronica Pineda told KTRK that she had grown accustomed to neighbors shooting firearms in the area.

"There's always shooting," she told the station. "There's always people calling the cops and there's nothing being done."

Another neighbor named Shawn told ABC News that the tight-knit neighborhood is typically "peaceful" and described the victims as "good people."

All of the victims are from Honduras, police said.>

<The U.S. risks being unable to pay its debts -- for the first time in history -- "as early as June 1," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wrote in a letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other top lawmakers on Monday in which she urged Congress to "act as soon as possible."

Yellen's update further underlined both the ongoing stalemate between legislators and the White House and the potential risks -- financial and political -- should it not be broken in the coming weeks.

"We have learned from past debt limit impasses that waiting until the last minute to suspend or increase the debt limit can cause serious harm to business and consumer confidence, raise short-term borrowing costs for taxpayers, and negatively impact the credit rating of the United States," she wrote.

The debt limit must be raised or suspended "in a way that provides longer-term certainty that the government will continue to make its payments."

Yellen, relying on the most recent data, including federal tax receipts, wrote that she could not definitively warn when the so-called "X-date" when default would begin.

"It is impossible to predict with certainty the exact date when Treasury will be unable to pay the government's bills, and I will continue to update Congress in the coming weeks," she wrote.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in a report in February that default could begin in July.

But a June 1 deadline would create new urgency for the world's wealthiest government and the lynchpin of the global economic system. What's more, Congress has little procedural wiggle room: The House alone has just 12 legislative days left in May and is in recess this week.

"The clock is ticking," Rachel Snyderman, senior associate director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, previously told ABC News.

The House Republican majority has said they won't raise the limit further without a compromise from Democrats on spending and the federal government's budget -- which President Joe Biden has rejected, saying the ceiling should be raised without strings attached, as has happened before.

The president called all four congressional leaders -- Speaker McCarthy, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- on Monday afternoon and invited them to a May 9 meeting on the debt limit, the White House said in a statement.

"President Biden will stress that Congress must take action to avoid default without conditions and invited the four leaders to the White House to discuss the urgency of preventing default, as well as how to initiate a separate process to address the budget and fiscal year 2024 appropriations," a White House official said.

Reactions from the four lawmakers quickly broke down along partisan lines, with McCarthy touting a bill that House Republicans narrowly passed last week to raise the debt ceiling while also enacting government spending cuts and reversing some of Biden's policies.

"The Senate and the President need to get to work — and soon," McCarthy said in a statement.

In Israel earlier Monday, where he is leading a congressional delegation, McCarthy said he was ready to negotiate but that "we will not pass a debt ceiling that just raises it without doing something on our debt."

In a joint statement, Schumer and Jeffries pushed back on that view: "We do not have the luxury of waiting until June 1 to come together, pass a clean bill to avoid a default and prevent catastrophic consequences for our economy and millions of American families. Republicans cannot allow right-wing extremism to hold our nation hostage."

Other leading Democrats have taken up the "hostage" label, which has been echoed by the White House.

"Republicans ... will crash the full faith and credit of the United States," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "That would raise the rates that your viewers are paying on credit cards or student loans or mortgages. It would throw our country into recession and hurt us globally."

Pressed by ABC's Martha Raddatz, Coons indicated Democrats are interested in negotiations on spending separate from the debt limit.

"What's the mix of revenue increases and spending cuts that makes sense going forward?" he said.

At a briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that, despite GOP arguments otherwise, the administration views the debt and the budget separately and that Congress had a "constitutional duty" to address the ceiling."...>

<...."The president said he's happy to meet McCarthy, but not whether or not the debt limit gets extended. That's not negotiable," she said.

The U.S. can pay most but not all of its bills with the tax and other revenue it takes in, and it must borrow the rest of the money. But Congress enforces a limit on how much debt the government can incur and when that ceiling -- currently about $31.4 trillion -- is reached, lawmakers must increase it before the government can borrow more funds.

The U.S. hit the current debt limit in January and has been employing "extraordinary measures" since then to keep its bills paid, according to Yellen. The Treasury Department has also enacted some cutbacks, including contributions to employees' retirement plans.

The country is not widely thought to have ever truly defaulted on its debts before, though a Congressional Research Service report from 2016 noted that such a concept doesn't have a fixed definition. That report also detailed "three episodes in the federal government's fiscal history" -- amid the War of 1812, the Great Depression and in 1979 -- "when some have questioned the public credit of the U.S. government."

The government's banking chief and outside experts agree on the potential damage.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, testified in March before a separate Senate committee on the risk posed by a debt default, calling it "an immediate threat to any optimism the economy can skirt recession in the coming year and ... a long-term threat to the nation's finances and economic growth. Financial markets and the economy would be hit hard."

Zandi later told ABC News that, if the government's bills go unpaid, markets would "react very violently."

"We'd see declining stock prices and wild gyrations in markets," he said.

"Congress raising the debt ceiling is really the only alternative," Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said in March, in his own testimony on Capitol Hill. "There are no rabbits in hats to be pulled out on this."

McCarthy and other Republicans say the obligation now lies with Biden, who hasn't met with the speaker since February.

"We've been very vocal. It's been over two months since President Biden has sat down with Speaker McCarthy to have negotiations. President Biden is clearly trying to run out the clock and create a debt crisis. That's irresponsible," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said on "This Week."

McConnell said as much, too, last week. "We must never default and the agreement needs to be reached between the speaker and the president," he told reporters on Wednesday, citing deal-making on the debt ceiling that he and then-Vice President Biden worked on in 2011.

The limit has been raised or suspended regularly over the years, sometimes with protracted negotiations and concessions against a similar tide of rising alarm -- and sometimes without.

Snyderman, with the Bipartisan Policy Center, called the issue a matter "of political will. Both sides of the aisle know how to address this.">

<In an effort to contextualize just how poorly things have gone for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential aspirations of late, CNN wrote about how he’s faring no better against Trump than a protest candidate is against President Joe Biden.

“Things have gotten so bad for DeSantis that a recent Fox News poll shows him at 21%,” CNN writes, “comparable with the 19% that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has pushed debunked conspiracy theories about vaccine safety, is receiving on the Democratic side.”

Now: Are you all thinking what I’m thinking? Because there’s an eye-catching number in that sentence, and it’s not related to Ron DeSantis.

Kennedy officially launched his Democratic primary bid on April 19 after a month or two of making noise about it. In a Morning Consult poll from April 9, 10 percent of those surveyed said they would support Kennedy for the Democratic presidential nomination. The day of Kennedy’s launch, a USA Today/Suffolk poll had Kennedy at 14 percent. The Fox News poll released April 26, referenced by CNN, showed Kennedy at 19 percent. Kennedy was at 21 percent in an April 27 Emerson College poll.

Ten, 14, 19, 21: Each of these is significant number of percentage points for a primary challenger to an incumbent president! Not nearly enough, of course. President Biden is still earning 60 to 70 percent in all of these polls. Kennedy is not nearly at the point where Biden and his affiliates would have to consider running ads against him, or for Biden to seriously entertain debating him.

But even if 21 percent ends up as Kennedy’s high-water mark, it does speak to a fundamental problem with Biden’s reelection campaign—a problem that Democrats, publicly, are still whistling past.

Before we get to that, there are a few reasons why Kennedy is getting some modest traction.

The biggest is that his name is *ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.* and he is the son of one of the most famous Democratic politicians ever. The Kennedy name isn’t quite the golden ticket that it used to be. Just ask Joe Kennedy III, who is not a senator. But it’s still good enough to spot you a dozen polling points or so.

Kennedy also offers a politics that appeals directly to the small, but existent, left side of the political horseshoe. Once a mainstream Democratic environmentalist, Kennedy has become a far more fringe figure over the last couple of decades. He has been one of the leading figures of the anti-vaccine movement since the 2000s and a proponent of the debunked theory that childhood vaccines cause autism. He was, to say the least, not a fan of the COVID vaccines or mandates, accused Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates of teaming up to profit off of them. His conspiratorial thinking spreads much farther, as he’s also been on a crusade against 5G. In the mainstream, he’s long been cast off as a kook. But kooks have followings, too.

It’s not just Kennedy who has a little bit of traction, though. Marianne Williamson, in her second consecutive Democratic primary, is registering in polls as well. In the Fox News survey, Williamson was polling at 9 percent. She was at 8 percent in the Emerson poll....>

<....The main reason these two eccentrics have a surprising primary polling foothold against an incumbent president, then, is because they are the only two warm bodies giving it a go against a president whom a supermajority of Americans do not believe should run for president again.

An April poll from NBC News (before Biden announced) found that 70 percent of Americans, including 51 percent of Democrats, did not believe Biden should run for a second term. Sixty-nine percent of those who said he should not run cited age as a major or minor reason for the opinion. This was not a one-off. An Associated Press survey in February found only 37 percent of Democrats felt Biden should run again. Sixty-four percent of Democrats said they wanted another 2024 candidate in a New York Times poll last summer. The primary reason given is always the same: Age, age, age. Biden is 80, certainly doesn’t seem any younger than 80, and—if our understanding of time is correct—is only going to get older as time advances. Democratic voters are telling any pollster who’ll ask them that this is a big concern for them. Democratic politicians are telling any reporter off-the-record that this is a big concern for them.

The reason Democrats gave up and are basically all Team Biden is that the alternative frightens them more. The alternative would be a messy primary that corners its candidates into unwise ideological commitments and, most likely, ends up with Vice President Kamala Harris winning the nomination. And Democrats feel that Biden, a couple of weeks before his 82nd birthday, has a better chance of defeating Donald Trump in November 2024 than Harris does.

I can’t say I disagree with the calculations here! But Democrats shouldn’t underestimate the amount of work it’s going to take to prove to the country—to its own party’s voters—that Biden has another four grueling years in him. A Kennedy outcast putting up 20 percentage points out of the gate is what we might call a sign of limited confidence in the standard-bearer.>

<Why didn’t she scream? Why didn’t she call 911 instead of her friend? What about those four-inch heels she was wearing? The questions former President Donald J. Trump’s Lawyer hurled at E. Jean Carroll in the first few days of her civil rape lawsuit against him were as offensive as they were familiar.

Carroll, a writer and former advice columnist for Elle who first came forward with her story in 2019, has accused Trump of raping her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s. She is now suing him for battery and defamation under a New York law that temporarily removes the statute of limitations for adult victims.

Taking the stand during the first several days of the trial, which began on April 25, Carroll testified about the details of how the alleged encounter escalated from flirtatious banter to violent assault, as well as decades of trauma that followed. She explained her reluctance at the time to accuse a powerful man who could likely destroy her and the reasons she changed her mind—inspired by a cultural movement of women who were coming forward to challenge their attackers.

“When that happened, across the country women began telling their stories, and I was flummoxed … wait a minute, can we actually speak up and not be pummeled?” Carroll testified. “I thought, well this may be a way to change the culture of sexual violence. The light dawned. I thought, we can actually change things if we all tell our stories. And I thought by god, this may be the time.”

Unfortunately, victims of sexual violence have not yet reached a point where they can speak up without fear of consequences, as Carroll has experienced ever since she added her story to the dozens of similar accusations made by other women against Trump.

While cross-examining Carroll, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina went after her credibility and motives, throwing every seedy rape defense strategy in the book at her. He accused her of making up a story for attention and money, even though Carroll lost her job as an advice columnist at Elle and much of the attention she has received has been in the form of insults from internet trolls, including the former president, and threats to her safety.

Although Carroll’s account was detailed and consistent, Tacopina zeroed in on what she didn’t recall, including the precise date the alleged assault happened decades ago and the fact that she didn’t remember seeing or interacting with anyone else in the store that day.

And while she says she fought back and freed herself, he wanted to know why she didn’t scream.

A scream would have been an understandable response to this line of questioning, but as Carroll explained, she is simply not a screamer. Instead, she responded with poise and clarity, standing up for not just herself but for all victims who have been attacked for not reacting to their own rapes in the “right” way. Her testimony led twitter users to post about their own experiences with the hashtag #IDidntScream....>

<....“One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked, ‘Why didn’t you scream?’” Carroll testified, as reported by Washington Post reporters inside the courtroom. “Some women scream; some women don’t. It keeps women silent.” She then raised her voice to add, “He raped me whether I screamed or not.”

In her column “Why Didn’t She Scream? And Other Questions Not to Ask a Rape Accuser,” New York Times editor Jessica Bennett described the disturbingly long history of re-victimizing victims with such lines of questioning—dating back to the case of a 17-year-old seamstress who was raped in 1793. The defense in that case relied on a series of tests that were meant to decide whether the accuser was credible: Did she have a good reputation? Did she call out for help? Did she have injuries from the attack? Did she report the crime right away?

The way victims of sexual assault are questioned has apparently not changed much in more than two centuries. Does anyone truly wonder why Carroll or anyone else hesitates to report?

“We don’t ask victims of other violent crimes if they screamed out—to the contrary, not screaming is considered a way to not further provoke,” Bennett asked. “Why then, when it comes to victims of sexual violence, are those tropes so baked in?

U.S. Judge Lewis Kaplan seemed as annoyed with Tacopina’s hackneyed antics as anyone, repeatedly scolding him for being argumentative and repetitive. The judge’s rebukes were so harsh that Trump’s lawyer filed a Hail Mary mistrial motion first thing Monday morning, complaining that the judge had made “pervasive unfair and prejudicial rulings” and asking for more leeway in his cross-examination of Carroll. Kaplan wasted no time denying the ridiculous request that he overrule himself.

Tacopina continued to cross-examine Carroll on Monday, wearing on all of our patience. Still to come, the jury will also hear from two more women who have made similar accusations against Trump. If these past few days/centuries have been any indication, the defense will try to paint them as attention-seeking liars whose skirts were probably too short, as well. Let’s hope the jury is as tired of that tactic as we are.>

<An early investor in Dominion Voting Sytems recalled the impact a report by Fox News host Maria Bartiromo had on himself and his parents – which was so extreme they gave serious consideration to fleeing the U.S. over fears for their safety, he said in an interview with Axios.

Days after Fox settled the defamation lawsuit with Dominion for a stunning $787.5 million, Hootan Yaghoobzadeh sat down to talk about his involvement with the company and the current state of affairs.

Currently the Managing Director of Staple Street Capital, Yaghoobzadeh explained he joined forces with Dominion in 2018 after seeing potential for enormous growth, and told Axios, "Management grew the business by 4.5 times. But once the defamation happened, the world collapsed for us."

He said things took a serious turn after host Bartiromo let Trump lawyer Sidney Powell spout outrageous claims against Dominion on her show at least a dozen times after prompting the attorney with, "Sidney, we talked about the Dominion software. I know that there were voting irregularities. Tell me about that.”

According to Yaghoobzadeh, who came to the U.S. from Iran with his parents when he was five, "right around Iranian Revolution, because we were Jewish and fearful of persecution," panic struck his family.

"So my parents showed up on my doorstep after watching Maria's show. They were just real fearful; they saw the first signs of seeds of that happening here, and somehow their son was responsible for it.," he recalled to Axios.

"They were pleading with me, 'How do we get out of this country?' It took some conversations to calm them down, but it was sort of nostalgic and reminiscent of those of those days and I think that really gave us the backbone to stand up ... and make sure the record gets set straight," he added.>

<The federal agency tasked with insuring Americans’ bank accounts recommended raising its $250,000 insurance threshold in “targeted” circumstances Monday, including for business accounts, suggesting regulators are considering major reform following the collapse of a series of regional banks—which the Biden Administration insists does not pose a broad threat to the American financial sector.

Key Facts

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released a report Monday outlining several possible changes to its $250,000 threshold for most bank accounts, including raising the insurance limit or even eliminating it entirely and insuring all banking deposits.

The FDIC ultimately recommended keeping the insured amount at or around $250,000 for most accounts, while “substantially increasing coverage to business payment accounts.”

The agency did not propose a new threshold number for “targeted” circumstances, and noted there remain several unresolved issues surrounding the proposed change—chief among them “defining accounts for additional coverage.”

Crucial Quote

“The recent failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, and the decision to approve Systemic Risk Exceptions to protect the uninsured depositors at those institutions, raised fundamental questions about the role of deposit insurance in the United States banking system,” FDIC chairman Martin Gruenberg said in a statement. The FDIC lifted its $250,000 threshold for account holders at both banks after the firms failed in mid-March, letting depositors recoup all their money, after some tech startups warned they could miss payroll if their SVB deposits aren’t made available.

The $250,000 threshold that has been in place since the 2008 financial crisis has come under increasing scrutiny following unprecedented social media-driven bank runs that doomed regional banks like SVB, Signature Bank and First Republic—which relied heavily on deposits into high-dollar accounts. The concept of permanently raising the threshold has become a politically divisive issue in Washington, while the nation’s top financial officials have not coalesced around a certain position. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told a Senate appropriations subcommittee in March the U.S. was not considering any “blanket” protections after lifting the $250,000 threshold for SVB, but Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell reportedly told Republican lawmakers at a closed-door meeting just days later that the federal government should rethink the insurance number. Figures like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) have voiced support for reassessing the $250,000 threshold, though Warren has also called for tighter bank regulations, while the hard-right House Freedom Caucus came out against “Any universal guarantee on all bank deposits” in March. The Treasury Department can maneuver to raise the $250,000 limit on its own through sources like the Exchange Stabilization Fund in certain circumstances, but any long-term change would need congressional approval.

JPMorgan Chase acquired San Francisco-based First Republic Bank Monday morning after federal regulators took control of the firm, marking the second-largest banking failure in U.S. history. The swift sale to JPMorgan Chase meant the FDIC’s insurance protections did not need to kick in for First Republic account holders.

Big Number

More than 99%. That’s the percentage of U.S. bank accounts that hold less than $250,000, according to the FDIC, but massive sums of cash put into high-dollar accounts still leaves enormous amounts of money uninsured. In 2021, almost 47% of all money deposited into U.S. banks went into accounts that were uninsured, Gruenberg said.>

<In an attempt to keep Toronto Maple Leafs fans from taking over FLA Live Arena during their upcoming second-round Stanley Cup playoff series, the Panthers are restricting ticket sales for home games to United States residents only.

"FLA Live Arena is located in Sunrise, Florida. Sales to this event will be restricted to residents of the United States. Residency will be based on credit card billing address. Orders by residents outside of the United States will be cancelled without notice and refunds given," reads a message on the Ticketmaster website on pages to purchase tickets for Panthers home games.

While those living in Canada won't be able to buy tickets directly from Ticketmaster, resale tickets are of course available to purchase for everyone -- just at a much higher price through third-party websites.

The Panthers did not make an official statement explaining their reason for limiting ticket sales. There are seven NHL teams based in Canada that play through the regular season without issues. The Vegas Golden Knights are taking on the Edmonton Oilers for their second round series but have not put any restrictions on ticket sales.

Maple Leafs fans are known for hitting the road well to support their team, and they do have extra motivation right now, as the Leafs are competing in the second round of the postseason for the first time since 2004.

The other angle here is that Panthers fans aren't great at showing up at FLA Live Arena. According to Hockey DB, the Panthers had the seventh-lowest average attendance in the NHL during the regular season. Meanwhile, the Leafs had the fifth best.

Florida residents also have a fair share of sports action to check out this month. FLA Live is less than an hour away from Kaseya Center, where the Miami Heat play. They currently in the conference semifinals of the NBA playoffs, facing the New York Knicks.

The Leafs won their first-round series against the Tampa Bay Lightning, 4-2. They will be hosting Game 1 and 2 of the second-round series at Scotiabank Arena. The Panthers, who took down the Boston Bruins, 4-3, in Game 7 on Sunday night, will host Games 3, 4 and 6 if necessary.>