https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/1790767282366370015

Juanita Broderick?  She’s still around?  There’s a blast from the (Klintoon) past!

I think that's the plan.

The benefit of busing the illegal migrants to Blue States ... Dems don't steal electoral votes from Red States.

Michael Cohen once swore Trump wasn't involved in Stormy Daniels payment, his ex-attorney testifies

A lawyer who formerly advised Michael Cohen claims the ex-Trump attorney said the former president had nothing to do with a hush money payment made to pornographic performer Stormy Daniels and that Cohen took care of the arrangement himself.

Robert Costello, an attorney who advised Cohen after Cohen was hit with federal charges in 2018, testified before the House Weaponization Committee on Capitol Hill Wednesday during the same week Cohen has been testifying against his former boss in a Manhattan courtroom.

Costello, a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, explained he is able to discuss his interactions with Cohen because he "waived the attorney-client privilege and the duty of loyalty of a lawyer to a client." ..........

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-cohen-said-trump-had-nothing-stormy-daniels-hush-money-payment-his-ex-attorney-testifies

Doubt very much there will be any debate between the two.

Doubt very much Biden will be on their ticket come Election Day.

Agreed.

Texas Tribune By William Melhado May 14, 2024

The 5th Circuit expressed skepticism about arguments from both sides in considering whether a coalition of Black and Latino voters should be granted the same protections as a single racial group under the Voting Rights Act.

A full panel of federal appellate court judges was split over whether a coalition of voters of color should be afforded the same protections under the Voting Rights Act as a single group of protected citizens during Tuesday’s oral arguments over a Galveston County redistricting case.

The hearing before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was not tasked with determining if Galveston County commissioners discriminated against Black and Latino voters by dismantling a district made of a majority of voters of color. Rather, the judges are considering whether a coalition of Black and Latino voters should be granted the same protections as a single racial or language minority group under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Some appellate judges on Tuesday warned that extending protections to groups of minority voters would result in an avalanche of discrimination claims.

But others were open to including coalitions in the Voting Rights Act as a means of preventing voter dilution.

“What the Supreme Court has said is that the Voting Rights Act should be interpreted in a manner that provides the broadest scope possible in combating racial discrimination,” Judge Dana Douglas said.

The original case stems from the question of whether local officials violated the rights of Black and Latino voters when they redrew a precinct of the Galveston County Commissioners Court primarily composed of voters of color.

Nicolas Riley, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that Galveston County’s redistricting efforts harmed both Black and Latino voters. Thus, those two groups of voters should be interpreted as a single “class” under the Voting Rights Act given they were similarly injured. Riley rejected the definition of class in the federal voting legislation to refer to a single racial group.

Judge Edith Brown Clement said this interpretation would extend the precedent set by Thornburg v. Gingles, a 1986 Supreme Court case that affirmed that a North Carolina redistricting plan had unlawfully discriminated against Black voters. If the Justice Department’s interpretation of coalition was correct, then the Supreme Court would have stated so in previous rulings, Clement said.

More: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/14/galveston-county-redistricting-case-5th-circuit/