Rudy Giuliani – the former New York City mayor, mob prosecutor and Donald Trump ally — lost his license to practice law in his home state Tuesday.

The state appeals court’s decision immediately disbarring Giuliani and ordering “his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law” furthers the fall from grace for the 80-year-old once hailed as “America’s Mayor” in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks.

The ruling found that Giuliani — who had his New York law license suspended in 2021 — repeatedly made false claims about the 2020 presidential election when he represented Trump and his campaign.

Giuliani “flagrantly misused” his post to make false statements “some of which were perjurious” when he “baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country’s electoral process,” the First Department decision reads.

He “actively contributed to the national strife that has followed the 2020 Presidential election, for which he is entirely unrepentant.”

Giuliani — who served as mayor from 1994 until 2001 and was beloved for his response to 9/11 — also faces two criminal indictments for allegedly interfering in the election. He filed for bankruptcy in December after being hit with a multi-million dollar judgement in a Georgia defamation case.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

New York’s Attorney Grievance Committee mounted 22 charges against Giuliani in February 2023, accusing him of lying or misleading “courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection to Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020,” Tuesday’s ruling explains.

The disciplinary probe looked at 16 false statements made by Giuliani, including extraordinary claims he made under oath, like when he falsely told the Missouri state legislature in December 2020 that there were over 2,000 court affidavits attesting to first-hand knowledge of election fraud.

Giuliani also made claims that thousands of votes were cast by people who were either dead, felons, non-citizens or underage, that Camden, NJ residents were bussed to Philadelphia to vote illegally and that an imaginary truck from Bethpage smuggled ballots to Pennsylvania.

At his infamous Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference days after the election, Giuliani also claimed that a vote was cast in the name of late heavyweight champ Joe Frazier, who died nine years before the 2020 election.

Giuliani repeated parts of this statement four times months later in radio interviews, according to the court.

Investigators discovered he may have picked up the story from a 2018 blog post he found on the internet, the decision says.

The First Department said 16 of Giuliani’s lies were “deliberate.” The court also didn’t buy that Giuliani was unaware the statements were false when he made them.

Giuliani’s political advisor Ted Goodman said the decision was “politically and ideologically corrupted.”

“We will be appealing this objectively flawed decision in hopes that the appellate process will restore integrity into our system of justice,” Goodman said.

Giuliani also faces being disbarred in Washington DC, where his law license has been suspended.

He was admitted to the New York bar in 1969 and served as Manhattan US Attorney from 1983 through 1989, where he gained a reputation for successfully prosecuting mobsters.

Giuliani has pleaded not guilty to an election fraud case in Arizona and to the criminal charges in Georgia, in a case also accusing Trump of election fraud.

He also faces serious civil legal problems, including the $148 million judgment for defaming Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss by falsely claiming they carried out election fraud in 2020 in the Peach State.

Giuliani’s creditors in his bankruptcy case are asking a judge to appoint a trustee to oversee his financial affairs claiming the former mayor has been misusing his money that should be going to paying off his debts.

His lawyer recently disclosed that Giuliani is suffering from “possible” 9/11-related lung disease and says his age and health will make it hard for him to get work.

Giuliani lost his job on WABC, where he hosted a radio show, in May for continuing to spout on air that the 2020 election was “stolen,” breaking with company policy, according to station owner John Catsimatidis.

Judge Juan Merchan delayed former President Donald Trump’s sentencing to September.

Originally scheduled for July 11 — just days before the Republican National Convention — Trump’s sentencing will now take place on September 18. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office agreed Tuesday to delay Trump’s sentencing in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling finding presidents are immune from prosecution for “official acts” taken in office.

“The Court’s decision will be tendered off-calendar on September 6, 2024 and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings,” Merchan wrote in the order.

Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts for falsifying business records.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday on Trump’s presidential immunity appeal in his federal Jan. 6 case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The majority held that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity” for all official acts.

Trump’s attorneys argued that the ruling means certain evidence introduced during the Manhattan trial involving “official-acts” should have “never been put before the jury.” This evidence included Trump’s tweets and public addresses, his attorneys wrote.

NEW: Justice Merchan delays Trump’s NY sentencing until September. pic.twitter.com/CRg6nnE0qN

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) July 2, 2024

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the judge in a filing Tuesday.

Trump’s attorneys will file their motion to set aside the verdict in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling by July 10, according to Merchan’s order. Prosecutors will file their response by July 24.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, became the first elected Democrat to call on President Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race, saying the president “failed” to defend his record and reassure voters that he’s the man for the job during last week’s debate.

Acknowledging Biden’s accomplishments for his party, Doggett said in a Tuesday statement that “many Americans have indicated dissatisfaction with their choices in this election.”

“President Biden has continued to run substantially behind Democratic senators in key states and in most polls has trailed Donald Trump. I had hoped that the debate would provide some momentum to change that. It did not. Instead of reassuring voters, the President failed to effectively defend his many accomplishments and expose Trump’s many lies,” Doggett said.

“Our overriding consideration must be who has the best hope of saving our democracy from an authoritarian takeover by a criminal and his gang,” he continued. “Too much is at stake to risk a Trump victory — too great a risk to assume that what could not be turned around in a year, what was not turned around in the debate, can be turned around now.”

“President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2020. He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024,” he added.

Amid his call for Biden to withdraw, Doggett reflected on the “painful” decision made by former President Lyndon Johnson not to seek re-election to the White House in 1968.

“I represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by Lyndon Johnson. Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw. President Biden should do the same,” the Texas lawmaker said. “While much of his work has been transformational, he pledged to be transitional.”

Doggett claimed the president “has the opportunity to encourage a new generation of leaders from whom a nominee can be chosen to unite our country through an open, democratic process.”

“My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved. Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden’s first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so,” he concluded.

Doggett’s remarks come less than a week after Biden’s disastrous debate against former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election.

Speaking with a raspy voice and delivering rambling answers, Biden struggled during many portions of the debate. Several political analysts noted, however, that the president sharpened his answers as the debate progressed.

Biden’s uneven and, at times, halting performance grabbed the vast majority of headlines from the debate and sparked a new round of calls from political pundits, publications and some Democrats for the president to step aside as the party’s standard-bearer. Top Biden allies have pushed back against such talk as they defended the president and targeted Trump for “lying” throughout the debate.

Biden, on the day after his debate performance, aimed to address Democratic Party panic.

“I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious,” Biden, at 81 the oldest president in the nation’s history, told cheering supporters at a Friday afternoon rally in the crucial battleground state of North Carolina.

“Folks, I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to,” Biden acknowledged. “But I know what I do know. I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job. I know how to get things done. And I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down you get back up.”

In a statement shared with Fox News Digital, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Communications Director Jack Pandol said, “The cowards in the Democratic Caucus have spent every day after the debate in witness protection, too afraid to say what they’re all thinking.”

“Americans remember House Democrats were complicit in covering up and gaslighting the public about the president’s condition, and voters are primed to punish them in November,” Pandol added.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s former babysitter Eliza Cooney accused him of multiple instances of sexual assault during her employment with the Kennedy family, according to a Vanity Fair expose.

Cooney’s allegations, which occur at points through 1998 and 1999, show a few instances in which Kennedy made unwanted advances toward her.

In a November 1998 diary entry, she said, “From everything everybody says about the Kennedys + their Babysitters, they had me worried. Like I have to watch out, be careful. And the other night in the kitchen w/ Murray I could have sworn he was touching my leg + hand. It seemed like he thought I was somebody else or wasn’t paying attention. Like he would come to every once in a while and snap out of it or I would move away. It was like he was on something or really tired or was missing Mary or was testing me.”

She later said she discovered Kennedy reading her personal diary, which contained the entry. She said she stopped recording her experiences for fear he would read them. A few months later, after Cooney had taken part in a yoga class with a sports bra and leggings, “Kennedy came up behind her, blocked her inside the room, and began groping her, putting his hands on her hips and sliding them up along her rib cage and breasts.”

Kennedy was interrupted by another worker who said something to the effect of, “Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do” or “Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want your wife to know about.”

“Cooney stayed on the job for a few more months but says the experience damaged her confidence and diverted her from environmental work,” the article says. “At the end of her diary, Cooney wrote a list of things ‘to leave behind in 1999,’ with ‘bad men’ at the top.”

Cooney decided to share her story now because Kennedy is a candidate for president.

In an interview on the YouTube channel Breaking Points, Kennedy responded to the sexual assault allegations by saying, “I’m not a church boy; I am not running like that. … I had a very rambunctious youth. I said in my announcement speech that I have so many skeletons in my closet that if they could all vote, I could run for king of the world.”

“Vanity Fair is recycling 30-year-old stories, and I am not gonna comment on the details of any of them but I am who I am,” Kennedy continued.

When pressed by the host of the show whether he is denying the allegation or not, Kennedy said, “I’m not gonna comment on it.”

The independent presidential candidate is also facing criticism for a picture in the story that appeared to show him eating what is reported to be a barbecued dog.

Kennedy laughed when asked about the picture, saying, “The article is a lot of garbage. The picture that they said is of me eating a dog is actually me eating a goat in Patagonia. … They said they have an expert who has identified that as a dog carcass; it’s just not true.”

Democrats quickly seized the opportunity to attack Kennedy as Democratic National Committee spokesman Matt Corridoni posted the photo of Kennedy with the animal, which Vanity Fair said it had a veterinarian examine and subsequently determine that the animal is a canine.

The photo has horrified social media users, with some comparing Kennedy to Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD), who received a considerable amount of backlash for reporting that she shot her hunting dog and a goat in her newest book.

Decision Desk HQ’s running polling average has Kennedy polling nationally between about 7% and 9% since April.

The sexual assault allegation against Kennedy makes it so the three top polling presidential candidates, all men, all have at least one sexual assault accusation. Trump was found liable for the sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, and President Joe Biden was accused by Tara Reade of assaulting her while he was a senator.

Three-quarters of US voters say the Democratic Party would have a better shot at holding the presidency in 2024 with someone other than President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. His approval rating also has hit a new low following a shaky performance in the first debate of this year’s presidential campaign.

In a matchup between the presumptive major-party nominees, voters nationwide favor former President Donald Trump over Biden by 6 points, 49% to 43%, identical to the results of CNN’s national poll on the presidential race in April, and consistent with the lead Trump has held in CNN polling back to last fall.

There are some signs in the poll that each candidate has consolidated support among their own partisans in recent months, a period that has seen both Trump’s conviction on felony charges in a New York court and the first general election debate of the contest, though independents appear increasingly reluctant to support either man.

The poll also finds Vice President Kamala Harris within striking distance of Trump in a hypothetical matchup: 47% of registered voters support Trump, 45% Harris, a result within the margin of error that suggests there is no clear leader under such a scenario. Harris’ slightly stronger showing against Trump rests at least in part on broader support from women (50% of female voters back Harris over Trump vs. 44% for Biden against Trump) and independents (43% Harris vs. 34% Biden).

Several other Democrats have been mentioned as potential Biden replacements in recent days, and each trails Trump among registered voters, with their levels of support similar to Biden’s, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (48% Trump to 43% Newsom), Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (47% Trump to 43% Buttigieg), and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (47% Trump to 42% Whitmer).

Biden’s campaign has insisted he will not drop out of the race, and while some Democratic insiders have privately discussed the possibility of replacing him as the nominee, any path forward would be both logistically difficult and politically risky.

Biden’s support among Democratic voters has inched up to 91% from 85% in April, while 93% of Republicans back Trump (about even since April). Trump maintains a roughly 10-point advantage among independents (44% to 34% in the new poll), while the share of independents who choose neither candidate or say they do not plan to vote has climbed from 15% to 21%.

Both Biden and Trump supporters have grown likelier to say their choice is an affirmative vote of support rather than one against the opposing party’s candidate, but the election continues to be driven more by feelings about Trump than about Biden. Two-thirds (66%) of Trump backers say they’re voting mainly for him rather than against Biden (up from 60% in January) while 37% of Biden’s supporters say their vote is more for the president than against his predecessor (up from 32% earlier this year).

However, most Democrats and Democratic-leaning registered voters (56%) say the party has a better shot at the presidency with someone other than Biden, while 43% say the party stands a better chance with him. Democratic confidence in Biden’s chances has not increased since he locked up the party’s nomination in the primaries: In January, 53% felt the party would have a better shot with someone other than Biden at the top of the ticket and 46% felt more confident with Biden.

At the same time, Republican-aligned voters have grown considerably more positive about their chances to win with Trump than without him: 83% now say that the GOP has a better shot to win with Trump, compared with 72% who felt that way in January.

Biden’s approval rating in the poll has fallen to a new low among all Americans (36%), with 45% now saying they strongly disapprove of his performance, a new high in CNN’s polling.

Among the full US public, Biden’s favorability rating stands at just 34%, with 58% viewing him unfavorably. And while many of the Democratic names bandied about as possible replacements for Biden are less widely disliked, none would start with more public goodwill – instead, they are less well known. Harris has the widest recognition – and is also deeply underwater, with a 29% favorability rating, 49% rating her unfavorably, and 22% saying they have no opinion or haven’t heard of her. Roughly half of the public has no opinion on Buttigieg (50%) and Newsom (48%), with about two-thirds (69%) offering no opinion of Whitmer.

The events of the past several months have done little to shift Trump’s image either way. Since April, Trump has been found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records at his New York hush money trial and had a debate performance widely viewed as a win (76% of voters who watched or followed news about it say he did the better job in last week’s debate, while only 23% say Biden did). But his favorability rating remains deeply negative: 39% have a favorable view of Trump and 54% an unfavorable one, about the same as it has been since last fall. The pool of double-hater voters – those with unfavorable views of both Biden and Trump – remains about the same: 18% fall into that category, and they break in Trump’s favor, 41% to 31%.

And a generic congressional matchup in the poll suggests a near-even contest for the House of Representatives: 47% of registered voters nationwide would choose the Republican candidate in their district, 45% the Democrat.

Perceptions of Biden and Trump post-debate

About 9 in 10 registered voters in the poll (91%) say there are important differences between Trump and Biden, and when asked to name those key differences, voters most frequently mention honesty, ability to handle the job and service to the country above self as distinguishing factors. Among Biden’s backers, 31% say the most important difference is around honesty and integrity, while the top response among Trump’s supporters is fitness for the job (24% say that).

The poll also reveals how voters see the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.

Voters appear to have significant questions about Biden’s handling of key issues and his physical and mental abilities. They trust Trump over Biden on two of the three issues they consider most important to their choice for president (Trump leads on the economy and immigration by roughly 20 points, with Biden holding a slight 5-point edge on protecting democracy). When asked about whether certain attributes were reasons to vote for or against each candidate, 72% of voters say Biden’s physical and mental abilities are a reason to vote against him rather than for him. For Trump, views are narrowly positive: 43% see his physical and mental abilities as a plus and 39% as a minus.

Beyond Trump’s advantages on the economy and immigration, the former president is more trusted than Biden on foreign policy (46% to 36%) and handling the role of commander in chief (43% Trump to 35% Biden).

Biden’s strengths are on abortion and reproductive rights (44% trust Biden, 32% Trump) and health care (44% Biden to 34% Trump). A plurality say they trust neither Biden nor Trump to unite the country (39% feel that way), while 31% say they trust Biden more to do so and 30% Trump.

Biden’s demeanor and temperament – a strong point for him in the 2020 presidential election – is a net neutral for him, though a clear negative for Trump (41% see it as a reason to vote against Biden and 39% a reason to vote for him, compared with 57% describing demeanor and temperament as a reason to vote against Trump).

Convincing movable voters

The president’s central challenge in his reelection bid remains winning over skeptical and persuadable voters, and the poll suggests neither Biden nor Trump have won them over yet.

Among all registered voters, 31% either say they could change their minds between now and Election Day or do not support a specific candidate. The almost 7 in 10 voters who have made up their minds break heavily for Trump – 53% to 45%. In order to overtake Trump, Biden would have to bring a significant share of these movable voters to his side, though they currently split 39% for Trump to 37% for Biden in a two-way matchup; 8% say they’d back someone else and 14% that they don’t plan to vote.

These persuadable voters are more likely to dislike both Trump and Biden (38% have an unfavorable view of both candidates, compared with 9% among voters who have made a choice), and are less likely to see important differences between Biden and Trump (18% say they are pretty much the same, compared with 5% of those who have made a choice).

These voters are also more likely to support an alternative Democrat against Trump than they are to choose Biden. In hypothetical matchups, they break 47% for Harris to 34% for Trump, 42% for Newsom to 36% for Trump, and 42% for Buttigieg to 35% for Trump.

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from June 28-30 among a random national sample of 1,274 adults drawn from a probability-based panel, including 1,045 registered voters. Surveys were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For results among registered voters, it is plus or minus 3.7 points.

A Dane County Circuit Court judge who once said people who steal from big-box stores shouldn’t be prosecuted ruled that disabled Wisconsin voters can request and download electronic ballots, a change that could cause election-administration problems in the battleground state this November.

Judge Everett Mitchell, who also serves as a pastor in Madison and ran for state Supreme Court last year — losing in a four-way primary — issued a temporary injunction last week covering the Nov. 5 election, effectively modifying a portion of the election-administration landscape in a state that struggled with absentee-ballot tabulation in the last presidential election.

Voters with print disabilities who self-certify they cannot read or complete a ballot without assistance can request electronic ballots from their election clerks, which they can complete with the use of assistive technology and mail back, thanks to the injunction.

The ruling leaves clerks in almost 2,000 municipalities with little time to make the adjustment.

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul’s deputy attorneys argued that the change in law could cause confusion and create security risks.

Wisconsin’s election administration is somewhat decentralized, with 72 county clerks and more than 1,800 municipal clerks responsible.

Current state law allows military and overseas voters to request absentee ballots and mail the paper ballots back.

Before the injunction, disabled voters would have used the same process as any absentee voter: request an absentee ballot from a local election clerk, receive and complete the paper ballot sent via mail, and drop off the ballot at the clerk’s office or mail it back.

Republican state legislators filed an appeal in conservative Waukesha County, arguing, among other things, Judge Mitchell is disrupting the status quo months before a major election.

Unless or until the appeal is upheld, clerks will be scrambling to adjust to the new absentee-ballot law in Wisconsin, with the specter of the 2020 presidential election and Donald Trump’s Wisconsin lawsuit hanging in the background.

HBO host Bill Maher called on President Joe Biden to bow out of the election after his debate debacle — and backed California Gov. Gavin Newsom to run against Donald Trump.

The “Real Time with Bill Maher” host compared the choice between Trump and Biden to the episode of “Happy Days” in which the Fonz jumps over a shark while water-skiing in his signature leather jacket – the pop-culture inspiration for the phrase “jumping the shark,” or running out of fresh material and turning to crazy ideas.

“If our presidential politics were a TV show, it would be a series past its prime in desperate need of new characters,” Maher wrote in a New York Times guest essay published Monday.

The op-ed comes after the 81-year-old Biden appeared to freeze at times while struggling to answer questions from CNN moderators during last Thursday’s debate.

The disastrous performance led to hand-wringing from many top Democrats and also led the left-leaning Times to run an editorial calling on Biden to drop out of the race.

“There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden,” the Times’ editorial board said. “It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.”

Maher said when it comes to Biden’s age, he “can’t ignore the obvious; none of us can.”

He argued that Biden’s stumbling effort was not a “tragedy,” but “a blessing in disguise,” as it gives him the opportunity to drop out of the race and the Democratic Party the chance to introduce a fresh face.

Maher called on the Democratic Party to hold an open convention – a move that he said might spark excitement across Dem voters and give the party a better chance of securing the presidency.

“Democrats could not buy, with all of George Soros’s money, the enthusiasm, engagement and interest they would get from having an open convention,” Maher said, referring to the liberal billionaire who is a frequent supporter of progressive lawmakers.

Maher said his pick to replace Biden on the ticket is Newsom, since he presents a stark contrast to the incumbent:

“He is forceful, is never at a loss for words or stats, never stumbles, is never intimidated. He’s unbullyable, and that’s important against Mr. Trump,” the political satirist said.

If Newsom made it on the ticket, then current Vice President Kamala Harris would either be booted from the ticket or forced to change her residence to allow California’s 54 electors to vote for both its candidates for president and vice president, Maher said.

Harris shares similarly poor ratings to Biden. She has a 52% unfavorable rating, according to a Politico poll from June.

Maher said Biden not stepping aside has become “an act of supreme selfishness.”

He pointed to Barack Obama’s presidential run in 2007 as a successful example, when the “new kid on the block” persona helped catapult him to the White House.

Republican Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz was charged with a weapons violation Friday at Virginia’s Washington Dulles International Airport, a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) spokesperson told NBC News.

The MWAA spokesperson told the outlet Spartz had been charged under Virginian law that prohibits the possession or transportation of any dangerous weapons “into any air carrier airport terminal.”

Crystal L. Nosal, a spokesperson for the MWAA, confirmed the weapons violations charge to the Daily Caller and wrote that Congresswoman was charged under “18.2-287.01 of the Virginia code.” Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor.

A Transportation Security Agency (TSA) spokesperson told Axios that their officers found an unloaded “.380 caliber firearm” during screening in a carry-on bag.

A spokesperson for Spartz told NBC News that the citation was given prior to her international flight for a gathering by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly in Romania.

“Last Friday, Rep. Spartz accidentally carried an empty handgun in her suitcase with no magazine or bullets, which she did not realize was in the pocket of her suitcase, while going through security at Dulles airport,” the spokesperson alleged to the outlet.

Rep. Spartz, first elected to Congress in 2020, is currently seeking re-election to a third term in the office.

Spartz is the first and so far only Ukrainian-born citizen to serve in Congress, according to WISH-TV.

The TSA can issue a fine as high as $15,000 and revoke PreCheck eligibility for as much as five years for such a violation, Axios reported.

Typically one “can very likely reduce the total amount of the civil penalty” for such a charge, Robert Herron Law, P.C. wrote on their website.

The United States was eliminated from the Copa America with a 1-0 loss to Uruguay on Mathías Olivera’s questionable second-half goal Monday night, a defeat that will increase pressure on the U.S. Soccer Federation to remove coach Gregg Berhalter before the 2026 World Cup.

Uruguay scored in the 66th minute when Nicolas De La Cruz swung a free kick in front of the U.S. goal. Matt Turner parried a header by Ronald Araújo, who out-jumped defender Tim Ream, but the rebound went right to Olivera and he tapped the ball in with his left foot.

Olivera appeared to be offside on the initial header, but the goal stood after a video review.

Using a lineup of players entirely from European clubs, Berhalter and the U.S. hoped to show the team had advanced since its round-of-16 elimination against the Netherlands at the 2026 World Cup. Instead, the U.S. opened with a 2-0 win over lowly Bolivia before being upset 2-1 by Panama.

Three minutes before Uruguay scored, the U.S. was in position to advance when Bruno Miranda tied the score for Bolivia against Panama in a game that started simultaneously in Orlando, Florida. But Panama went on to earn a 3-1 victory and claimed the second spot in Group C behind Uruguay.

Berhalter was rehired in June 2023 and given a contract through the 2026 World Cup, which the U.S. will co-host with Canada and Mexico. But despite a lineup that included Christian Pulisic, Weston McKennie and Tyler Adams, the U.S. failed to even match its last Copa America appearance, when it lost to Argentina in the 2016 quarterfinals.

The U.S. next plays September friendlies against Canada and New Zealand.

Uruguay played without coach Marcelo Bielsa, suspended for sending his team out late for the second half of its first two games. Diego Reyes and Pablo Quiroga were in charge on a mild but humid night in Kansas City.

Berhalter and the Americans knew their situation was dire — Pulisic at one point said they would need to play “the best game of our lives” to advance — and they looked like a team with nothing to lose for most of the first half.

It was one marked by physical play and questionable calls.

Folarin Balogun, who had two goals already in the tournament, bore the brunt of several challenges. He was left calling for help after a collision with Uruguayan goalkeeper Sergio Rochet, then was left rolling on the field after Araújo’s challenge later in the half. Balogun eventually had to leave with a hip pointer and Ricardo Pepi took his place.

Uruguay lost Maximiliano Araújo earlier in the half after a scary collision with Ream near the U.S. goal. He had to be taken off the field on a stretcher, though he was able to move his arms before heading up the tunnel.

In the middle of the chaos was 32-year-old Peruvian referee Kevin Ortega, who made several questionable calls that hurt the U.S.

The first came when Ortega began to pull a yellow card and stop play, then allowed it to continue — while still holding the card — as Uruguay nearly scored on an attack. The second came when the U.S. had a clear advantage after a hand ball by Uruguay, but the Peruvian referee blew his whistle and called the play back for a free kick.

Uruguay started to apply more pressure midway through the second half, then had the Americans in desperation mode after Olivera found the back of the net. And while the U.S. had a few good runs, and a couple of good opportunities in the box, a team that had such big expectations was unable to find the two goals it needed — or even one.

A Palm Beach County prosecutor painted two girls molested by Jeffrey Epstein as prostitutes, drug addicts, thieves and liars in front of a grand jury empaneled in 2006 to review the state’s criminal case against sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, newly released court documents show.

Palm Beach County Judge Luis Delgado unsealed the controversial grand jury records on Monday after years of legal action by the Palm Beach Post and other media, including the Miami Herald, CNN and the New York Times. Grand jury records are normally kept under seal to protect witnesses as well as the integrity of the case. But in the years since the Epstein case was closed in 2008, the Miami Herald uncovered evidence suggesting that Epstein and his battery of high-priced attorneys may have exerted undue influence over the state attorney.

The records have remained under seal for 16 years. Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, prodded by state lawmakers and Palm Beach County Clerk of Courts Joe Abruzzo, signed a bill to release the files by July 1. The new bill provides for the records to be unsealed if the subject of a grand jury inquiry is dead or the investigation involves sexual activity with a minor.

DeSantis noted that making the records public might explain how the wealthy Epstein managed to “engineer an outcome that the average citizen would likely never have been able” to accomplish.

The records contain nearly 200 pages, including the testimony of two girls who were molested by Epstein, the New York financier who abused hundreds of underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion between 1996 and 2008. Epstein managed to escape serious charges, in part because the Palm Beach prosecutor at the time, Barry Krischer, elected to charge him with minor prostitution and solicitation rather than bringing a felony sexual assault case.

The Herald reported in 2018 that both Krischer and the lead prosecutor in the case, Lanna Belohlavek, told Palm Beach police that they didn’t intend to prosecute Epstein because they believed the girls were prostitutes and a jury would never believe them. But Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter and the lead detective, Joe Recarey, both protested the decision, noting that there were multiple victims, some as young as 14, who were lured to his home under false pretenses. Reiter and Recarey went over Krischer’s head and took the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, arguing that Epstein, who was in his 50s, was a serial sex predator who wouldn’t stop until he was put in prison.

“There was no reason to take this case to a grand jury in the first place,” said Spencer Kuvin, the attorney representing one of the girls who testified before the grand jury. “They had evidence of numerous victims to show that he was a serial sex predator. The only reason they gave it to the grand jury was to taint their own case and have an excuse not to prosecute.”

The grand jury and the girls

The actual audio recordings of the daylong proceeding were not released to the public Monday. The Herald requested the recordings, but was told that they were not available. The transcripts also seem to be missing key elements that would normally be part of a grand jury proceeding. For example, there is no record that Belohlavek introduced herself to the panel, explained what the case was about or told the jury what they were supposed to do. There’s no closing statement summarizing the case or any documentation of what the grand jury ultimately decided.

What is clear is that Belohlavek painted an unsympathetic portrait of the two girls, both of whom came from broken families. One of the girls and her sister had been passed back and forth between parents and were taken to a school for troubled juveniles. The girl ran away several times before meeting a group of older kids, one of whom brought her to Epstein’s mansion.

She described for the jury how she was ushered into a large bedroom and instructed to strip down to her underwear. Alone in the room with Epstein, and confused about what was happening, she reluctantly complied. After he molested her, he gave her $200.

In front of the jury, Belohlavek asked the girl: “You’re aware that you committed a crime?”

“Now I am. I didn’t know it was a crime when I was doing it,” said the girl, who was 14 at the time. “Like, I — I don’t know. I guess it was prostitution or something like that.”

Belohlavek also asked the girls questions about their parents, and allowed members of the jury to make statements to the victims.

“Did you have any idea that deep inside of you that you — what you’re doing is wrong?” asked one juror.

“Yea, I did,” the girl replied.

“Oh do you?” the juror said, pointing out that the girl should have known better.

Asked another juror “Did it ever occur to you that he could have hacked you up?”

“Yes,” she stammered. “I thought about it a lot.”

Said the juror: “[You] should give it a little further thought.”

David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, was astonished at the way the case was presented to the jury. He pointed out that the girls were under the age of consent, yet they were the ones treated like criminals.

“How is that not statutory rape?” he said of Epstein’s crime. “I can see how people think that a wealthy powerful man got away with abusing all these girls.”

Recarey, the lead investigator on the case, testified in detail at the proceeding about how Epstein and his assistants would recruit girls from local high schools, telling them initially that they were being hired to give him massages. While they were instructed to lie about their ages, many of them told Epstein their real ages and spoke to them about high school.

Recarey, who passed away in 2018, told the Herald in an interview prior to his death that he was frustrated by the state attorney’s handling of the case, claiming that Krischer and Belohlavek went to great lengths to discredit the girls — and failed to present to the jury the corroborating evidence that backed up the girls’ stories, including phone records.

Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek has ever commented on the case. The Herald was unsuccessful in reaching them on Monday. Both have since retired.

The years that followed

Epstein’s case came under fresh scrutiny in 2018, following an investigation by the Herald into the secret negotiations that led Alex Acosta, the federal prosecutor who later oversaw a federal probe into the case, to approve a light jail sentence for Epstein.

Epstein would serve just 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail, where he was given liberal privileges to work in his outside office and at his Palm Beach mansion. After his release from jail, he continued to assault and abuse women at his homes in New York, New Mexico, Paris and on his isolated island off the coast of St. Thomas.

Epstein befriended a host of famous and powerful people, including former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, Nobel-Prize winners, actresses, actors, hedge fund moguls and bankers. Some of his victims allege that he and some of his friends had sex parties with girls on his private island.

The Herald’s series led the FBI and US Attorney in New York to take another look at the case. He was re-arrested in 2019 on sex trafficking charges and jailed in Manhattan pending trial. He was found dead in his cell a month after his arrest. His death was ruled a suicide by hanging. He was 66.

His accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, 63, was subsequently charged in the case and convicted of sex trafficking charges in 2021. Maxwell, a British socialite who had a long relationship with Epstein, was accused of helping him recruit girls. She is appealing her sentence.

Kuvin, who came to represent nine Epstein victims, wasn’t surprised by how the jurors shamed his 14-year-old client.

“Think about this in the time frame this was happening,” he said. “That was the mindset back then. This is pre ‘Me Too’ movement. We have a come a long way as a society because of cases like this. We have matured as a society and hopefully look at this differently than we did back then.”

President Joe Biden made his first major appearance since his panic-inspiring debate performance Monday to give brief remarks on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision that was released earlier in the day.

Biden spoke for five minutes, from a teleprompter, on the court finding that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” taken in office. After Biden criticized the decision, calling it a “dangerous precedent,” he quickly left without taking a single question as reporters shouted inquiries his way.

“Mr. President, will you drop out of the race?” one reporter can be heard shouting. Another seemingly asked how he can assure Democrats that he is the best man to defeat former President Donald Trump.

“There are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law,” Biden said. “No one, no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States.”

“With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed, for all, for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what the president can do,” he continued. “This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent, because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States — the only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”

Biden’s Monday speech was his first major appearance since scores of Democrats began calling for him to drop out of the presidential race. The calls began just thirty minutes after Biden took the debate stage last Thursday night and began stumbling over answers and sounding confused.

Biden malfunctions, Jake Tapper saves him pic.twitter.com/oUkv5vqKeR

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 28, 2024

As the Biden campaign did damage control, the president appeared at campaign events over the weekend and briefly addressed his debate performance to donors.

“I know I’m not a young man. I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but I know what I do know — I know how to tell the truth,” Biden said at a North Carolina rally on Friday.

The president later admitted at a Saturday rally that he knew it wasn’t his best debate and understood the “concern.”

Biden and his family gathered at Camp David over the weekend to reportedly discuss his presidential bid. After the weekend, “the entire family is united” and the president’s son, Hunter Biden, is pushing the hardest for his dad to stay in the race, sources close to the situation told the New York Times.

“I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers I have for three and a half years, but any president including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law. I concur with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent today. Here’s what she said: she said ‘in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.’ End of quote. So should the American people dissent — I dissent,” Biden concluded.

BIDEN: “I know I will respect the limits of the presidential power as I have for 3.5 years.”

ALSO BIDEN: “The Supreme Court blocked it (student loan scheme) but that didn’t stop me.”

If he’s breathing he’s lying. pic.twitter.com/zJv7LW9ny1

— L A R R Y (@LarryOConnor) July 2, 2024

Critics rushed to point out that Biden himself usurped the Supreme Court by erasing billions of dollars in student loan debt during his term despite the court ruling that he lacked the power to do so.

“The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn’t stop me,” he once said of his loan forgiveness plans.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threatened to bring articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after Monday’s immunity ruling regarding former President Trump.

“The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X.

“Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

The ruling in question said a president has absolute immunity from prosecution for “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” and “presumptive immunity” for official acts in general. The court said there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Ocasio-Cortez was not the only congressional Democrat to blast the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed that “House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision to grant legal immunity to a former President for crimes committed using his official power sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation,” Jeffries said.

“This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on X.

“The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.”

The court’s ruling did not say whether any of Trump’s alleged actions fell under his constitutional powers, leaving such matters to be sorted out by a lower court.

Jill Biden graced the cover of Vogue as she’s accused of ‘elder abuse’ by allowing Joe to continue his 2024 reelection campaign despite his disastrous debate.

The first lady covers the August issue of the fashion magazine in a $7,000 outfit, including a white power suit. The photo portrays an image of authority at a time Democrats say she is the only one who can talk Joe Biden off the presidential ticket and reigniting charges from conservatives that the first lady is a real power in the White House.

‘We will decide our future,’ reads the magazine’s tagline.

The glowing piece – which includes a short interview with Biden – was done before the president’s disastrous June 27th debate performance. It focuses on her work as first lady – including her fight for women’s health – and notes her commitment to another term in the White House.

Vogue affixed an editors’ note atop the online story to acknowledge current events. It notes the first lady called in from Camp David over the weekend – where the Biden family was gathered – to double down on her support for the president, brushing off Joe Biden’s fumbles in Thursday night’s debate.

She told Vogue that we ’will not let those 90 minutes define the four years he’s been president. We will continue to fight.’ President Biden, she added, ‘will always do what’s best for the country.’

The family was at Camp David over the weekend for what the White House said as a pre-planned photoshoot with legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz.

The timing of the piece is unfortunate.

Democrats continue to question whether the 81-year-old Biden has the ability to do the job as president. Talk continues about replacing him on the ticket and many say Jill Biden is the one who can convince him to exit the race for the good of the country.

Conservatives denounced her as the real power in the White House. And the powerful image on the cover of Vogue brough more accusations against her.

‘At some point, after so many warnings, it starts to look like this is why the Biden family won’t let him leave the race,’ Sara Isgur, at editor at the Dispatch, wrote on X, sharing Jill Biden’s Vogue cover.

‘There has never been a more maniacal, power-obsessed first lady than Jill Biden,’ wrote conservative commentator James Fischback.

‘The idea that folks who’ve fallen in love with the relevance and fame that Biden has brought them will willingly give that up is hilarious,’ wrote Republican operative Matt Gorman.

Over the cover, Jill Biden wears a $2,820 white Ralph Lauren double-breasted coat dress on the cover with $4,550 earrings.

In the article, author Maya Singer writes the first lady missed their planned Soul Cycle session the morning of the cover shoot because she had to be with husband Joe.

‘I’m sorry we didn’t get to exercise,’ she said the first lady told her, noting ‘the plan got nixed so she could spend some time at home — home home, in Wilmington — with her husband.’

‘It’s not that often Joe and I get to have a whole morning together, just coffee, you know, talking,’ Jill Biden says.

One of the charges facing the Biden family is that they’ve kept the real state of Joe Biden’s health hidden by keeping him in Wilmington and keeping residence staff away from him in the White House.

The White House denies the allegations. But the questions about his health are growing.

In the Vogue piece, Singer traveled with Jill Biden on several campaign stops. She also accompanied her to the Columbine Memorial in Colorado and watched her call donors to promote Joe Biden.

Her message was one she often says on the campaign trail: that only Joe Biden can save Democracy.

And Biden has her defenders in the piece.

‘I see her as a first lady in the Eleanor Roosevelt mold—getting out into the community, making sure those voices are getting heard in Washington,’ Dr. Jane O’Meara Sanders told the magazine. She is the wife of Senator Bernie Sanders.

In the article, Jill Biden does acknowledge the rigors of campaigning. She has been a regular on the campaign stump, often campaigning more than President Biden.

‘Every campaign is important, and every campaign is hard,’ she says. ‘Each campaign is unique. But this one, the urgency is different. We know what’s at stake. Joe is asking the American people to come together to draw a line in the sand against all this vitriol.’

The Biden family is now in the spotlight for unwelcome reasons – having their role questioned in their protection of the president. Hunter Biden is also said to be urging his father to stay in the race. As are the grandchildren.

The family was at Camp David over the weekend for what the White House said as a pre-planned photoshoot with legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz.

And Jill Biden will remain her family’s fiercest defender.

Anthony Bernal, her senior adviser who has been close to the Bidens for years, told Vogue: ‘Her family means everything to her—so of course, you could say her ‘Philly’ kicks in when her family gets attacked. It’s cruel. What mother wouldn’t feel that? Especially after everything they’ve gone through, all that tragedy and loss.’

The Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad fired a barrage of rockets into Israel on Monday as fighting raged in Gaza and Israeli tanks advanced deeper in parts of the enclave, residents and officials said.

Islamic Jihad, an ally of Hamas – both of whom are backed by Iran – said its fighters fired rockets towards several Israeli communities near the fence with Gaza in response to “the crimes of the Zionist enemy against our Palestinian people”.

The volley of about 20 rockets caused no casualties, the Israeli military said. But the attack showed militants still possess rocket capabilities almost nine months into an offensive that Israel says is aimed at neutralising threats against it.

Residents of several neighbourhoods in eastern Khan Younis, which is in southern Gaza, said they had received audio messages from Israeli phone numbers ordering them to leave their homes.

“For your safety, you must evacuate immediately to the humanitarian zone,” army spokesperson Avichay Adraee posted on social media platform X in a call to residents and displaced people living in those areas.

Some suggested this could mean Israeli forces will return to the area, which they left several weeks ago. The Israeli military said in a statement earlier on Monday the rockets were fired from the Khan Younis area.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was nearing its goal of taking out the military capabilities of Hamas, the Islamist group that governs Gaza and led the Oct. 7 assault on Israel that sparked the war. Less intense operations would continue, he said.

“We are advancing to the end of the phase of eliminating the terrorist army of Hamas, and there will be a continuation to strike its remnants,” Netanyahu said.

Violence also flared on Monday in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where the Palestinian health ministry said a woman and a boy were killed in the city of Tulkarm during an operation by Israeli forces. A day earlier, an Israeli strike in the same area killed an Islamic Jihad member.

In some parts of Gaza, militants continue to stage attacks on Israeli forces in areas that the army had left months ago.

Israeli tanks deepened incursions into the Shejaia suburb of eastern Gaza City for a fifth day, and tanks advanced further in western and central Rafah, in southern Gaza near the border with Egypt, residents said.

The Israeli military said it had killed a number of militants in combat in Shejaia on Monday and found large amounts of weapons there.

Hamas said its fighters had lured an Israeli force into a booby-trapped house in the east of Rafah and blown it up, causing casualties.

The Israeli military announced the death of a soldier in southern Gaza without providing details. Israel’s Army Radio said the soldier was killed in Rafah in a booby-trapped house – a possible reference to the incident reported by Islamic Jihad.

Also in Rafah, the Israeli military said that an airstrike killed a militant who fired an anti-tank missile at its troops.

Israel has signalled that its operation in Rafah, meant to stamp out Hamas, will soon be concluded. After the intense phase of the war is over, its forces will focus on smaller scale operations meant to stop Hamas reassembling, officials say.

The war began when Hamas-led fighters burst into southern Israel on Oct. 7, killed 1,200 people and took around 250 hostages, including civilians and soldiers, back into Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.

The offensive launched by Israel in retaliation has killed nearly 38,000 people, according to the Gaza health ministry, and has left the heavily built-up coastal enclave in ruins.

The Gaza health ministry does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, but officials say most of the dead are civilians. Israel says 317 of its soldiers have been killed in Gaza and that at least a third of the Palestinian dead are fighters.

Ceasefire Efforts Stalled

Arab mediators’ efforts to secure a ceasefire, backed by the United States, have stalled. Hamas says any deal must end the war and bring a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Israel says it will accept only temporary pauses in the fighting until Hamas is eradicated.

Israeli authorities released 54 Palestinians it had detained during the war, Palestinian border officials said.

Among them was Mohammad Abu Selmeyah, the director of Al Shifa Hospital, arrested by the military when its forces first stormed the medical facility in November.
Israel said Hamas had been using the hospital for military purposes. The military has released the hospital’s CCTV footage from Oct. 7 showing gunmen and hostages on the premises and has taken journalists into a tunnel found at the complex.

Hamas has denied using hospitals for military purposes. Abu Selmeyah rejected the allegations on Monday and said detainees had been abused during their detention, including being deprived of food and medicine, and that some had died.

“I was subjected to severe torture, my little finger was broken, and I was beaten in the head until blood came out, more than once,” Abu Selmeyah told a press conference at a hospital in southern Gaza.

Israel in May said it was investigating the deaths of Palestinians captured during the war as well as a military-run detention camp where released detainees and rights groups have alleged abuse of inmates.

A group of people were detained on suspicion of planning a coup in Kyiv, according to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office.

A post on the Prosecutor General’s official Telegram page on Monday said police “exposed a group of pseudo-activists who were preparing provocations” in the country’s capital on June 30.

Four citizens were charged by local prosecutors over distribution of materials calling for violent overthrow of Ukraine’s government and constitutional order, the post said. Two individuals were remanded in custody.

Investigators said that between May and June, a group of people disseminated posts online discrediting Ukraine’s current leadership and pushing for a seize of state power.

The alleged coup’s organizer, who is said to be a local public union head with prior record of participation in “fruitless” provocations [against the government], rented a hall in Kyiv with a capacity of around 2,000.

Authorities also said he was attempting to recruit servicemen and private militia to help carry out the plan.

The organizer’s accomplices were said to be from the Dnipropetrovsk and Kyiv regions, in the east and north of the country, respectively.

According to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office, the head of an NGO from Prykarpattia was also approached to join the group, but they refused due to the “obvious illegality.”

The Security Service of Ukraine (SSU or SBU) said the group “has been known for its anti-Ukrainian actions since 2015.”

They allegedly hoped to seize the building where Ukraine’s parliament meets, which is located in the center of Kyiv.

The group reportedly communicated via various messaging platforms and would meet in small groups of three people.

Law enforcement said that searches at the homes of involved suspects yielded weapons and ammunition, mobile phones, and computer equipment with “evidence of criminal acts.”

The detainees were arrested under chapters one, two, and three, article nine, of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (actions and calls for action aimed at violent change or overthrow of the constitutional order or seizure of state power), according to a release from the SSU.

People who were encouraged to attend the event by organizers were not fully aware of its true intentions, authorities said.

The SSU said the organizers hoped to “destabilize the socio-political situation inside [Ukraine], which would play in favor of the Russian Federation.”

If found guilty, those involved could face up to 10 years in prison. The investigation is ongoing.

Officials say an 18-year-old was caught on camera doing doughnuts on the Pride mural at the Central Avenue and 25th Street roundabout.

According to the St. Petersburg Police Department, Christian Carroll Maier was captured on video on May 22 at 3:45 a.m. doing circular “doughnut-burnouts” while driving his car.

Florida teen ARRESTED for doing DONUTS over a Pride street mural. 😲‼️

18-year-old Christian Maier is being charged with felony criminal mischief and street racing, sparking outrage in the LGBTQ+ community. pic.twitter.com/LCkorR4hQU

— DramaAlert (@DramaAlert) July 1, 2024

The video showed Maier leaving several tire marks across the mural and causing significant damage, according to SPPD.

Police say he was charged with felony criminal mischief and racing on a street.

According to the police department, the City and volunteers restored the mural in time for the Pride Month festivities.

The investigation is ongoing.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

“The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive,” he said.

“The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party,” he continued.

Read the supreme court opinion.

The question stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with 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.

Those charges stem from Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the U.S.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

“Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President … the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent,” she said.

Smith’s case against the former president and its trial have been pending amid the high court’s consideration of the issue.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, “I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken.”

“This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll—by a lot—and we will make America great again,” he said.

The justices heard arguments from Trump attorney John Sauer and Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department attorney representing Special Counsel Jack Smith, on April 25 on whether presidents should have “absolute immunity.”

During those arguments, both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications of the question for future presidents but raised sharply different concerns.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned the repercussions of charging a former president.

“Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent,” Alito asked, “will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” he said.

Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, asked if the “potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?”

“If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country,” she said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes for the court’s decision: “This will have huge implications for the presidency.”

“I’m not talking about the present, so I’m talking about the future,” Kavanaugh said.

And Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed during questioning: “We’re writing a rule for, yes, for the ages.”

As for Alito’s question, the former president has repeatedly claimed that he is being prosecuted by his political opponents, warning Americans and voters that all cases against him, in all jurisdictions, are being brought by his opponent — President Biden — and being done in coordination with the White House.

Meanwhile, the ruling comes after a New York jury found Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation.

Hunter Biden is suing Fox News for its The Trial of Hunter Biden series, according to a Sunday court filing in New York County Supreme Court.

Biden’s attorneys said the “series intentionally manipulates the facts, distorts the truth, narrates happenings out of context, and invents dialogue intended to entertain.” They’re also taking issue with the outlet’s publication of photos “depicting him in the nude … as well as engaged in sex acts.”

The lawsuit fulfills a threat made by Biden’s lawyers that they would sue over the series, which the network took down in April.

The series on Fox Nation, its streaming service, offered a fictionalized version of what a trial against Biden might look like. The television personality overseeing it, Judge Joe Brown, warned viewers that what they were seeing was not a real trial and that Biden was not facing charges.

“Far from reporting on a newsworthy event, Fox sought to commercialize Mr. Biden’s personality through a form of treatment distinct from the dissemination of news or information,” the lawsuit notes.

“Indeed, the entire miniseries is fictionalized and based on a nonexistent criminal case. … While using certain true information, the series intentionally manipulates the facts, distorts the truth, narrates happenings out of context, and invents dialogue intended to entertain. Thus, the viewer of the series cannot decipher what is fact and what is fiction, which is highly damaging to Mr. Biden.”

Biden’s attorneys cite three causes of action: a violation of Biden’s civil rights due to the intimate images “disseminated and published” by Fox, alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress by Fox, and Fox News’s alleged unjust enrichment from the series.

Biden’s attorneys also cite the Dominion Voting Systems judgement against Fox News as to “not be the first time that Fox knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct.”

Biden is seeking punitive and compensatory damage awards, an order directing Fox News to “take down, remove and delete any publication of an Intimate Image of Mr. Biden,” a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from publishing, disseminating, disclosing, posting, or uploading any intimate images of Biden, and disgorgement of profits from The Trial of Hunter Biden, among other things.

Meanwhile, Biden is dealing with litigation against him as well, as he was recently convicted in his gun trial and faces more criminal charges in his California tax case.

House Republicans on Monday filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland for the audio recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with a special counsel in his classified documents case, asking the courts to enforce their subpoena and reject the White House’s effort to withhold the materials from Congress.

The lawsuit filed by the House Judiciary Committee marks Republicans’ latest broadside against the Justice Department as partisan conflict over the rule of law animates the 2024 presidential campaign. The legal action comes weeks after the White House blocked Garland from releasing the audio recording to Congress by asserting executive privilege.

Republicans in the House responded by voting to make Garland the third attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress. But the Justice Department refused to take up the contempt referral, citing the agency’s “longstanding position and uniform practice” to not prosecute officials who don’t comply with subpoenas because of a president’s claim of executive privilege.

The lawsuit states that Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., made a “last-ditch effort” last week to Garland to resolve the issue without taking legal action but the attorney general referred the Republicans to the White House, which rebuffed the “effort to find a solution to this impasse.”

The congressional inquiry began with the release of special counsel Robert Hur’s report in February, which found evidence that Biden, a Democrat, willfully retained and shared highly classified information when he was a private citizen. Yet Hur concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.

Republicans, incensed by Hur’s decision, issued a subpoena for audio of his interviews with Biden during the spring. But the Justice Department turned over only some of the records, leaving out audio of the interview with the president.

“The audio recordings, not the cold transcripts, are the best available evidence of how President Biden presented himself during the interview,” the lawsuit reads. “The Committee thus needs those recordings to assess the Special Counsel’s characterization of the President, which he and White House lawyers have forcefully disputed, and ultimate recommendation that President Biden should not be prosecuted.”

On the last day to comply with the Republicans’ subpoena for the audio, the White House blocked the release by invoking executive privilege. It said that Republicans in Congress only wanted the recordings “to chop them up” and use them for political purposes.

Executive privilege gives presidents the right to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of decision-making, though it can be challenged in court. Administrations of both major political parties have long held the position that officials who assert a president’s claim of executive privilege can’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress, a Justice Department official told Republicans last month.

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte cited a committee’s decision in 2008 to back down from a contempt effort after President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege to keep Congress from getting records involving Vice President Dick Cheney.

It’s unclear how the lawsuit will play out. Courts have not had much to say about executive privilege. But in the 1974 case over President Richard Nixon’s refusal to release Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation, the Supreme Court held that the privilege is not absolute. In other words, the case for turning over documents or allowing testimony may be more compelling than arguments for withholding them. In that context, the court ruled 8-0 that Nixon had to turn over the tapes.

When it came to the Watergate tapes, the Supreme Court said it had the final word, and lower courts have occasionally weighed in to resolve other disputes. But courts also have made clear they prefer that the White House and Congress resolve their disagreements without judicial intervention, when possible.

Despite his public support for the president, Barack Obama is privately lobbying to get rid of Joe Biden, telling insiders he cannot defeat Trump, according to what Tucker Carlson described as an “unusually good source.”

Biden got completely embarrassed during Thursday night’s debate, spreading panic amongst top Democrats and leading the New York Times to insist that he should step aside.

Despite the backlash, Obama tweeted his support for Biden, asserting that “bad debate nights happen” and that people should still stick with him. However, Obama is reportedly saying very different things in private.

From an unusually good source: Obama’s tweet supporting Joe Biden was disingenuous. In private, Obama is telling people Biden can’t win, and he is therefore in favor of an open convention. Obama will not say whom he supports, nor as of yesterday afternoon had he met personally…

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) July 1, 2024

“From an unusually good source: Obama’s tweet supporting Joe Biden was disingenuous. In private, Obama is telling people Biden can’t win, and he is therefore in favor of an open convention,” Tucker Carlson posted on X.

“Obama will not say whom he supports, nor as of yesterday afternoon had he met personally with Biden to deliver the message,” he added.

Carlson made it clear that relations between the Obamas and Bidens have “deteriorated further,” and that Jill Biden is driving her husband’s reckless decision to stay in the presidential race.

“In the hours and days after the debate, she kept her husband cloistered away from anyone who might convince him to drop out. Jill Biden is the driving force behind her husband’s reelection campaign, just as she was in 2020, when other members of the family (including Biden’s sister Val) considered him too impaired to run.”

“The next generation of potential Democratic candidates understands all this as an opportunity and they’re circling, particularly Gretchen Whitmer, who is promoting herself aggressively.”

Meanwhile, the Biden family held a crunch meeting at Camp David yesterday during which they urged the president to stay in the race despite his shocking debate performance.

Rather ludicrously, Jill Biden and others are telling Joe Biden that not only can he continue his campaign and defeat Trump, but is also fit to serve another four years.

Yes, they seriously believe that a man who is already clearly showing signs of dementia in July 2024 can be the most powerful man in the world with the nuclear codes until January 2029, at which point he will be 86-years-old.