First News Broadcast

#presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #News #TrumpRally #TrumpSpeech

#barakobama #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #channelstv #Democrat #Republican #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #FreeBiafraNow #EndNigeriaNow #FulaniMustGo #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday

#barakobama #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #channelstv #Democrat #Republican #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #FreeBiafraNow #EndNigeriaNow #FulaniMustGo #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday President Donald J. Trump at 40 Wall Street_ 'This is all about election interference

#barakobama #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #channelstv #Democrat #Republican #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #FreeBiafraNow #EndNigeriaNow #FulaniMustGo #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday

Putin Wins Russian Presidential Poll, Secures Another Six-Year Term. Putin wins 88% of votes in election where opposition was banned, early results show. Victory for the 71-year-old was never in doubt, with all his major opponents dead, in prison or exiled. Vladimir Putin has secured another six-year term as Russian president, exit polls showed Sunday, paving the way for the hardline former spy to become the longest-serving Russian leader in more than 200 years. Summary: Putin wins 88% of vote - exit poll. New term gives Putin six more years in power. War hung over the election. Ukraine strikes Russia with drones and rockets. Thousands come out for 'noon against Putin' protest. Victory for the 71-year-old was never in doubt, with all his major opponents dead, in prison or exiled, and authorities waging an unrelenting crackdown on those who publicly oppose the Kremlin or its military offensive on Ukraine. The government-run VTsIOM pollster projected that Putin had sailed to an easy victory with 87 percent of the vote after polls closed in Russia’s western-most region of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. The three-day election was marked by a surge in deadly Ukrainian bombardments, incursions into Russian territory by pro-Kyiv sabotage groups and vandalism at polling stations. The Kremlin had cast the election as moment for Russians to throw their weight behind the full-scale military operation in Ukraine, where voting is also being staged in Russian-controlled territories. Kyiv and its allies slammed the vote as a sham and President Volodymyr Zelensky lashed out at Putin as a “dictator” who was “drunk from power”. “There is no evil he will not commit to prolong his personal power,” Zelensky said in a message on social media. MOSCOW, March 17, 2024 (FIRST BROADCAST) - President Vladimir Putin won a record post-Soviet landslide in Russia's election on Sunday, cementing his already tight grip on power in a victory he said showed Moscow had been right to stand up to the West and send its troops into Ukraine. Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel who first rose to power in 1999, made it clear that the result should send a message to the West that its leaders will have to reckon with an emboldened Russia, whether in war or in peace, for many more years to come. Ukrainian ally Poland said the vote was not “legal, free and fair,” in a statement issued by the foreign ministry. EU chief Charles Michel had sarcastically congratulated Putin on his “landslide victory” on the first day of polls opening on Friday. Allies of the late Alexei Navalny — Putin’s most prominent rival, who died in an Arctic prison last month — had urged voters to flood polling stations at noon and spoil their ballots for a “Noon Against Putin” protest. His wife, Yulia Navalnaya, was greeted by supporters with flowers and applause in Berlin. She said she had written her late husband’s name on her ballot after voting at the Russian embassy. Some voters in Moscow appeared to heed Navalny’s call, telling AFP they had come to honour his memory and show their opposition in the only legal way possible. “I came to show that there are many of us, that we exist, that we are not some insignificant minority,” said 19-year-old student Artem Minasyan at a polling station in central Moscow. The outcome means Putin, 71, is set to embark on a new six-year term that will see him overtake Josef Stalin and become Russia's longest-serving leader for more than 200 years if he completes it. Putin won 87.8% of the vote, the highest ever result in Russia's post-Soviet history, according to an exit poll by pollster the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM). The Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (VCIOM) put Putin on 87%. First official results indicated the polls were accurate. The United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and other nations have said the vote was neither free nor fair due to the imprisonment of political opponents and censorship. Leonid Volkov, a senior aide to the late opposition leader who was recently attacked in Lithuania where he fled political persecution in Russia, dismissed the results published by Moscow. “The percentages drawn for Putin have, of course, not the slightest relation to reality,” Volkov, Navalny’s former chief of staff wrote on social media. Former Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev meanwhile congratulated Putin on his “splendid victory” long before the final results were due to be announced. And state-run television praised how Russians and rallied with “colossal support for the president” as well as the “unbelievable consolidation” of the country behind its leader. Communist candidate Nikolai Kharitonov finished second with just under 4%, newcomer Vladislav Davankov third, and ultra-nationalist Leonid Slutsky fourth, partial results suggested. Putin told supporters in a victory speech in Moscow that he would prioritise resolving tasks associated with what he called Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine and would strengthen the Russian military. "We have many tasks ahead. But when we are consolidated - no matter who wants to intimidate us, suppress us - nobody has ever succeeded in history, they have not succeeded now, and they will not succeed ever in the future," said Putin. Tributes to Navalny: At Navalny’s grave in a Moscow cemetery, AFP reporters saw spoiled ballot papers with his name scrawled across them on a pile of flowers. Navalny had galvanised mass protests and tried to run against Putin in the 2018 election — touring Russia to drum up support — but his candidacy was rejected. “We live in a country where we will go to jail if we speak our mind. So when I come to moments like this and see a lot of people, I realise that we are not alone,” said 33-year-old Regina. There were repeated acts of protest in the first days of polling, with a spate of arrests of Russians accused of pouring dye into ballot boxes or arson attacks. Any public dissent in Russia has been harshly punished since the start of Moscow’s offensive in Ukraine on February 24, 2022 and there were repeated warnings from the authorities against election protests. The OVD-Info police monitoring group announced that at least 80 people had been detained across nearly 20 cities in Russia for protest actions linked to the elections. A surge in Ukrainian strikes on Russia continued unabated with the Russian defence ministry reporting at least eight regions attacked overnight and on Sunday morning. Supporters chanted "Putin, Putin, Putin" when he appeared on stage and "Russia, Russia, Russia" after he had delivered his acceptance speech. Inspired by opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in an Arctic prison last month, thousands of opponents protested at noon against Putin at polling stations inside Russia and abroad. Putin told reporters he regarded Russia's election as democratic and said the Navalny-inspired protest against him had had no effect on the election's outcome. In his first comments on his death, he also said that Navalny's passing had been a "sad event" and confirmed that he had been ready to do a prisoner swap involving the opposition politician. When asked by a NBC, a U.S. TV network, whether his re-election was democratic, Putin criticised the U.S. political and judicial systems. "The whole world is laughing at what is happening (in the United States)," he said. "This is just a disaster, not a democracy." "...Is it democratic to use administrative resources to attack one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States, using the judiciary among other things?" he asked, making an apparent reference to four criminal cases against Republican candidate Donald Trump. Fatal border attacks: Three airports serving the capital briefly suspended operations following the barrage, while a drone attack in the south sparked a fire at an oil refinery. In Russia’s border region of Belgorod, multiple rounds of shelling killed two — a man and a 16-year-old girl — and wounded 12 more, the region’s governor said Sunday. Eight more were wounded in other bombardments later as polls were closing, he said. The governor had already ordered the closure of shopping centres and schools in Belgorod and the surrounding area for two days because of the strikes. In the Russian-controlled territory of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region, where voting is also taking place, “kamikaze drones” set a polling station ablaze, according to the Moscow-installed authorities. 'Difficult period’ Putin, a former KGB agent, has been in power since the last day of 1999 and is set to extend his grip over the country until at least 2030. If he completes another Kremlin term, he will have stayed in power longer than any Russian leader since Catherine the Great in the 18th century. In a pre-election address Putin said Russia was going through a “difficult period” and called on the country to be “united and self-confident.” A concert on Red Square is being staged on Monday to mark 10 years since Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula — an event that is also expected to serve as a victory celebration for Putin. The Russian election comes just over two years since Putin triggered the deadliest European conflict since World War Two by ordering the invasion of Ukraine. War has hung over the three-day election: Ukraine has repeatedly attacked oil refineries in Russia, shelled Russian regions and sought to pierce Russian borders with proxy forces - a move Putin said would not be left unpunished. Putin said Russia might need to create a buffer zone inside Ukraine to prevent such attacks in future. While Putin's re-election was not in doubt given his control over Russia and the absence of any real challengers, the former KGB spy had wanted to show he had the overwhelming support of Russians. Nationwide turnout was 74.22% at 1800 GMT when polls closed, election officials said, surpassing 2018 levels of 67.5%. There was no independent tally of how many of Russia's 114 million voters took part in the opposition demonstrations, amid tight security involving tens of thousands of police and security officials. Reuters journalists saw an increase in the flow of voters, especially younger people, at noon at polling stations in Moscow, St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, with queues of several hundred people and even thousands. Some said they were protesting, though there were few outward signs to distinguish them from ordinary voters. At least 74 people were arrested on Sunday across Russia, according to OVD-Info, a group that monitors crackdowns on dissent. Over the previous two days, there were scattered incidents of protest as some Russians set fire to voting booths or poured green dye into ballot boxes. Opponents posted some pictures of ballots spoiled with slogans insulting Putin. But Navalny's death has left the opposition deprived of its most formidable leader, and other major opposition figures are abroad, in jail or dead. The West casts Putin as an autocrat and a killer. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Sunday that Putin wanted to rule forever and that the vote had been illegitimate. Putin portrays the war as part of a centuries-old battle with a declining West that he says humiliated Russia after the Cold War by encroaching on Moscow's sphere of influence. Russia's election comes at what Western spy chiefs say is a crossroads for the Ukraine war and the wider West. Support for Ukraine is tangled in U.S. domestic politics ahead of the November presidential election. Though Kyiv recaptured territory after the invasion in 2022, Russian forces have made gains after a failed Ukrainian counter-offensive last year. The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here. Writing by Guy Faulconbridge in Moscow, Andrew Osborn in London and Lidia Kelly in Melbourne Editing by Frances Kerry, Peter Graff, Ros Russell and Lisa Shumaker.

#presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush FULL SPEECH: President Trump Holds a "Get Out The Vote Rally" in Rome, GA - 3/9/24 Former president Donald Trump mocked President Biden’s stutter at a campaign rally in Rome, Ga., on Saturday, the latest in a series of insults he has hurled at his rival but one that disability advocates regard as a demeaning form of bullying. Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter. Trump asked the crowd sarcastically if Biden would “bring the country t-t-t-together” while talking about Biden’s State of the Union address. “I’m gonna bring it together,” Trump added, slurring the words. But according to transcripts of the speech, Biden did not say that. It was similar to an attack on Biden earlier in January, where Trump accused Biden of stuttering through a speech and then play-acted as if he were Biden. “He’s saying I’m a threat to democracy,” Trump said earlier this year, segueing into a taunt in which he imitates Biden. “He’s a threat to d-d-democracy.”

#Democrat #Republican #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #FreeBiafraNow #EndNigeriaNow #FulaniMustGo #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday

LIVE! TRUMP CALLS SUPREME COURT DECISION 'UNIFYING AND INSPIRATIONAL'. US SUPREME COURT RULING ALLOWS TRUMP TO STAY ON PRIMARY BALLOTS NATIONWIDE.

#Democrat #Republican #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #FreeBiafraNow #EndNigeriaNow #FulaniMustGo #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday We move on to the news headline and updates: LIVE! TRUMP CALLS SUPREME COURT DECISION 'UNIFYING AND INSPIRATIONAL'. US SUPREME COURT RULING ALLOWS TRUMP TO STAY ON PRIMARY BALLOTS NATIONWIDE. Ruling set to allow Trump to stay on ballots nationwide. The US supreme court’s unanimous ruling overturning a decision by Colorado’s top court that barred Donald Trump from the ballot for his involvement in January 6 will resolve the question of the former president’s ability to run for office nationwide. The headline says it all. In a post on Truth Social following the supreme court’s unanimous ruling allowing him to remain on presidential ballots, Donald Trump said: BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!! For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. 'BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!' TRUMP SAYS, AFTER SUPREME COURT ALLOWS HIM TO KEEP RUNNING. Donald Trump says today's Supreme Court decision that he cannot be banned from Colorado's presidential ballot, is "both unifying and inspirational". Speaking to Fox News, Trump said: "A great win for America. Very, very important!" He went on to highlight another legal case that is set to fall to the Supreme Court: that of presidential immunity. "Equally important for our country will be the decision that they will soon make on immunity for a president - without which, the presidency would be relegated to nothing more than a ceremonial position, which is far from what the founders intended. "No president would be able to properly and effectively function without complete and total immunity." The Supreme Court will hear arguments in April on whether Trump is immune from being prosecuted on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election. Trump had claimed that he was immune from all criminal charges for acts that he said fell within his duties as president. A US Court of Appeals panel has already rejected Trump's argument. Republican National Committee chair hails Trump ruling. The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) - which filed a brief in support of their party's frontrunner in this case - has hailed the court's ruling. Ronna McDaniel, who will be stepping down from her RNC post this month, says: "Today's ruling confirms what Republicans have been arguing: the American people get to pick their candidates, not activists or bureaucrats." McDaniel also describes the initial ruling from Colorado's top court to remove Donald Trump from the state's ballot as, "pure election interference from the left. "We look forward to continuing to fight and beat Democrats in court over the coming months." Trump allies line up to applaud Supreme Court ruling. Allies of Donald Trump are now taking to social media to show their support after the Supreme Court ruling. Republican senator JD Vance, who was elected off the back of Trump's endorsement, describes it as a "great ruling for our country and the rule of law". "In America the people decide who the president is," he says. Representative Byron Donalds, from the hard-right flank of the Republican party, says the Supreme Court has "chosen the side of freedom". "Colorado's ruling was an unprecedented display of rank political partisanship at the hands of unelected officials," he says. Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says: "Trump stays on the ballot in communist states committing election interference by trying to block Americans from being able to vote for the candidate of their choice!" 'Trump will go down in history as an insurrectionist' - plaintiff The case against Donald Trump in Colorado was brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an ethics watchdog organisation that considers itself non-partisan. In an email to supporters, CREW President Noah Bookbinder takes solace in the ruling because "while the Court stopped short of removing Trump from the ballot, they did not exonerate Donald Trump for inciting insurrection". "The Court had the opportunity to clear Trump of the finding that he incited insurrection, and the Court chose not to. Instead it simply ruled that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment unless Congress says they can," he goes on. Bookbinder says it is "disappointing" that the court faced a big test and "failed to meet the moment". "They let Trump off the hook on a technicality," he writes, joining a list of institutions that has "failed to step up and use the tools our Constitution provides to protect us" from imminent threats to democracy. "But in this ruling, there is a win for our democracy: Trump will go down in history as an insurrectionist." Colorado Secretary of State 'disappointed' by ruling. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold has released a statement on social media saying she is "disappointed" by the Supreme Court's decision that Colorado cannot disqualify Trump from its presidential primary. As a reminder, Griswold declined to unilaterally block Trump from the state's primary - the decision came from the state's Supreme Court. Griswold says the ruling "strips states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment". "Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot," she says. Griswold has defended the legal procedures in Colorado that disqualified Trump, but has also expressed her personal views on the case. After the Supreme Court heard the case last month, she told reporters: "I don't believe that the presidency is a 'get out of jail free' card and I hope the justices hold him accountable." Court suggests states can kick candidates off local ballots, Matt Murphy (US reporter). In the ruling, justices appear to suggest that states can still rely on the 14th Amendment to remove candidates for local elections from the ballot. The justices observe that while only Congress can strike candidates from federal ballots, historically states retained the power to remove those seeking state-wide office. "States did disqualify persons from holding state offices following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment," the justices wrote. "That pattern of disqualification with respect to state, but not federal offices provides 'persuasive evidence of a general understanding' that the States lacked enforcement power with respect to the latter." In practice, the court appears to be suggesting that Colorado has the power to strike candidates for governor or the state legislature under the 14th Amendment, but not those seeking federal offices such as election to the US Senate, House or the presidency. Colorado voters were ready for this outcome. Emma Vardy, Reporting from Colorado. This won’t come as a surprise to many voters in Colorado. Many here expected the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado’s ruling, and in fact it will be welcomed by some voters on both sides of the political divide. At an ice hockey game in Denver, several ardent anti-Trump voters tell us that despite despising what he stands for, they still don’t believe people should be denied the right to vote for him if they choose to. “I think we kick ourselves in the booty by taking someone off the ballot, why force someone off a ballot,” shouts one woman in between cheers for the hockey. “I’m not a Trump fan, but the game still has to be fair. And if you win when it’s not fair, then you haven’t won.” How the court's liberal wing disagreed, Sam Cabral, US reporter. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - who represent the Supreme Court's liberal minority - agreed that Colorado or any other state cannot unilaterally keep Donald Trump off the ballot. "Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case." But they argue that Tuesday's ruling seeks to "decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and [Trump] from future controversy" by announcing "that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation". "In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of enforcement," they write. "We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment." Why Justice Barrett agreed - but not entirely, Sam Cabral, US reporter. Though the court's ruling is unanimous, the justices do not all agree on the way in which Section 3 of the 14th Amendment works and can be enforced. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins her colleagues in the final decision, writing: "I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that." But she makes clear that she is not on board with the question of "whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced". "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," writes the Trump appointee in her brief opinion. "For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity." Justices ignore one aspect of Trump's claim, Matt Murphy, US reporter. In their ruling, the nine justices appear to have ignored one element of Donald Trump's case: that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency. In his filing, Trump claimed that as the presidency was not listed among the "officers" of the United States set out in Section 3, the 14th Amendment could not be applied against him. Those filing against Trump had argued that the presidency is listed as an "officer" around 20 other times throughout the constitution. While the ruling acknowledges that the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed with this argument in December, the justices avoided issuing a ruling on it themselves. Trump says court's decision is a 'big win for America' Donald Trump has just responded to the Supreme Court ruling that Colorado cannot disqualify him from its Republican presidential primary. "BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!", Trump posted on Truth Social. Moments later, the former president sent out a fundraising email urging supporters to donate to his campaign. "The unhinged Democrat plan to ERASE MY NAME crashed & burned, but our fight to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN is far from over," the email read. Congress - not states - has enforcing power, court rules. We're combing through the text of the Supreme Court's decision, which says that it's Congress, rather than individual states, that has the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Section 3 bars federal, state and military officials who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the country from holding office again. The justices say: "For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States." This line in the judgement reflects earlier scepticism around whether individual states should have the power to enforce federal provisions. Please viewers if it is your first time on FIRST NEWS BROADCAST TV CHANNEL, do us a favour to share to your friends and family, like and subscribe. We see again, Thanks for watching!   USA presidential Campaign 2024, Former President Trump Holds Rally in Richmond, Virginia. We shall be taking you to the event now! The crowd of Trump supporters gathered in Richmond, Virginia to hear Donald Trump speak on Saturday night went silent as the former president appeared to mix up Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama yet again. “Shortly after we win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” Mr Trump said on Saturday. “I know them both very well and we will restore peace through strength. Get that war settled. It’s a bad war. And Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word,” Mr Trump added, seemingly in the false belief that Mr Biden’s former boss remains in charge.

#Democrat #Republican #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush Alright! We move on to the news headline and updates: LIVE! US supreme court ruling allows Trump to stay on primary ballots nationwide. Ruling set to allow Trump to stay on ballots nationwide The US supreme court’s unanimous ruling overturning a decision by Colorado’s top court that barred Donald Trump from the ballot for his involvement in January 6 will resolve the question of the former president’s ability to run for office nationwide. At issue was whether states could enforce section three of the 14th amendment to disqualify someone from running for federal office, such as the presidency. That part of the constitution has been cited by state-level judges, including in Colorado, who removed Trump from ballots in lawsuits brought by pro-democracy groups. In their decision, the US supreme court writes: We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. While no members of the court’s three-justice liberal minority dissented, they make clear in their concurrence that they aren’t happy with the conclusion reached by the majority. They open with a quote from the conservative chief justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states to ban abortion, where he writes: “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” The liberals argue that the majority weighed in on more issues than were necessary in their ruling keeping Trump on the ballot: Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oath breaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy … Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment. They sum up their argument by accusing the majority of trying to water down laws that bar insurrectionists from federal office: By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office. While no members of the court’s three-justice liberal minority dissented, they make clear in their concurrence that they aren’t happy with the conclusion reached by the majority. They open with a quote from the conservative chief justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states to ban abortion, where he writes: “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” The liberals argue that the majority weighed in on more issues than were necessary in their ruling keeping Trump on the ballot: Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oath breaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy … Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment. They sum up their argument by accusing the majority of trying to water down laws that bar insurrectionists from federal office: By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office. Beneath the supreme court’s unanimous opinion on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president were deep fractures over how far the decision should go. We’ll start off with the majority’s view, which was signed onto by five of the court’s conservative justices – chief justice John Roberts and associate justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Fearing that allowing states to enforce the constitution’s disqualification clause would upend presidential elections, the opinion reads: An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behaviour of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute, and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result – if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos - arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration. For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. 'BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!' TRUMP SAYS, AFTER SUPREME COURT ALLOWS HIM TO KEEP RUNNING The headline says it all. In a post on Truth Social following the supreme court’s unanimous ruling allowing him to remain on presidential ballots, Donald Trump said: BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!! Former finance chief not expected to testify against Trump despite guilty plea - report The Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg is expected to this morning enter a guilty plea to perjury charges, but is not expected to testify against Donald Trump, CNN reports. Weisselberg is accused of perjuring himself while testifying at Trump’s civil fraud trial, and by pleading guilty, he may avoid being called as a witness in his separate trial on criminal charges related to a hush money payment. Here’s more on Weisselberg’s expected guilty plea, from CNN: Weisselberg has been in plea talks with Manhattan prosecutors for several weeks relating to his testimony taken during the New York attorney general’s civil investigation into the former president in 2020 and when he testified last year, several people familiar with the investigation said. The exact charges he will plead guilty to are not clear. As part of the plea talks, Weisselberg is not expected to turn on Trump and will not testify against him at the criminal trial scheduled to start later this year, the people said. Trump is indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment and reimbursement before the 2016 presidential election. Weisselberg was central to the financial dealings but neither prosecutors nor Trump’s attorneys said they plan to call him as a witness. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges. It will be the second guilty plea by Weisselberg, who in 2022 pleaded guilty to 15 counts of tax fraud and testified in the trial of two Trump Org. entities. Weisselberg was credited with giving truthful testimony and the entities were convicted and fined. The judge sentenced Weisselberg to five months in jail and supervised release. He served about 100 days in Rikers Island jail. Here’s the Guardian’s Lauren Aratani with a look at how Weisselberg’s alleged perjury affects two major cases involving the former president: Supreme court expected to turn down challenges to Trump's ballot eligibility If the supreme court rules on Donald Trump’s ballot eligibility this morning, do not be surprised if they issue an unanimous, or near-unanimous, ruling allowing him to remain on ballots. Six conservative justices, three of whom Trump appointed, outnumber the three liberals, but just about all of the justices sounded skeptical of the Colorado supreme court’s ruling barring Trump from the state’s primary ballot over his participation in January 6, which was the issue at hand when the judges heard the case last month. What’s less clear is if the court’s decision will only affect Colorado, or be written to decide the issue nationwide. From February, here’s the Guardian’s Sam Levine with a rundown of how the justices appeared to be leaning: The US supreme court appeared skeptical of a Colorado decision removing Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot during nearly two hours of oral arguments on Thursday. It seems poised to rule Trump is not constitutionally disqualified from running for president. The case is perhaps the most high-stakes legal dispute to arrive at the court this century and thrusts the court to the center of a politically charged election. A majority of justices, including some from the court’s liberal wing, voiced concern about the chaos that would ensue if they allowed states to decide whether to disqualify candidates from the ballot. “What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big, plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked Jason Murray, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Colorado voters. “I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added. The US supreme court appeared skeptical of a Colorado decision removing Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot during nearly two hours of oral arguments on Thursday. It seems poised to rule Trump is not constitutionally disqualified from running for president. The case is perhaps the most high-stakes legal dispute to arrive at the court this century and thrusts the court to the center of a politically charged election. A majority of justices, including some from the court’s liberal wing, voiced concern about the chaos that would ensue if they allowed states to decide whether to disqualify candidates from the ballot. “What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big, plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked Jason Murray, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Colorado voters. “I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added. Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s liberal justices, echoed Roberts’ line of questioning. While the constitution grants states an enormous amount of power, Kagan said to Murray, there are some national questions where states are not the “repository of authority”. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for president?,” she said. The case, Donald J Trump v Norma Anderson et al, came about after six Colorado voters filed a lawsuit last year alleging Trump was ineligible to run for president under a little-used provision of the constitution’s 14th amendment. The provision says that any member of Congress or officer of the United States who takes an oath to defend the constitution and subsequently engages in insurrection is barred from holding office. The ban can only be overridden by a two-thirds vote by both chambers of Congress. Nikki Haley campaigns in South Carolina Republican National Committee wants Nikki Haley to drop out to boost funds. We Read more! Trump’s conduct during the January 6 Capitol attack disqualifies him from holding federal office, the Colorado voters claimed in their suit, filed last year in state court. After a five-day trial, a judge found Trump had engaged in insurrection, but was not an “officer of the United States” and declined to remove him from the ballot. In a 4-3 decision in December, the Colorado supreme court reversed that ruling and barred him from the ballot. The US supreme court agreed to hear the case in January. Much of Thursday’s argument focused on whether states have the power to enforce section 3 on their own and exclude a candidate from the ballot without Congress first passing a statute with an enforcement mechanism. Aside from a single question from Jackson, there was no discussion of Trump’s conduct on 6 January 2021 and whether it constituted an insurrection. Instead, nearly all of the justices suggested that a state could not disqualify Trump from the ballot absent some action from Congress. “I guess my question is why the framers would have designed a system that could result in interim disuniformity in this way where we have elections pending and different states suddenly saying, ‘you are eligible, you’re not’ on the basis of this kind of thing,” Jackson said. While there have been several suits seeking to remove Trump from the ballot, only Colorado and Maine have done so thus far. A Maine judge last month ordered the secretary of state there to hold off on excluding Trump until the US supreme court issued a decision. It is generally believed that Trump has the upper hand at the court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority and Trump nominated three of the justices. In their briefing to the supreme court, Trump’s lawyers have claimed there will be “chaos and bedlam” in the US if a leading presidential candidate is blocked from the ballot. They gave an array of arguments to the justices for why he should not be disqualified, including that the word “officer” does not apply to the president and that he did not engage in insurrection. A decision upholding the Colorado supreme court’s ruling would not automatically remove Trump from the ballot across the country. While some states have rebuffed efforts to remove Trump from the primary ballot, a supreme court saying Trump can be disqualified would probably set off a flurry of fast challenges in state courts and other tribunals to disqualify him from the ballot in the general election. “In our system of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people’, the American people – not courts or election officials – should choose the next President of the United States,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. The Colorado voters, backed by the left-leaning non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), argue that it is absurd to claim the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency and that it would be a danger to democracy to allow him to hold office again. “The reason we’re here is [Trump tried] to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the constitution doesn’t require that you be given another chance,” Murray said. The 14th amendment was enacted after the civil war to bar former Confederates from holding office and has never been used to bar a presidential candidate. In 2022, the amendment was used to remove a New Mexico county commissioner from office, the first time it had been used that way in a century. The case marks the court’s most direct intervention in a presidential election since its controversial decision in Bush v Gore in 2000. Seeking to preserve its reputation as an apolitical body, the court is usually hesitant to get involved in heated political disputes, but the arrival of the Trump case makes the court’s intervention in the most controversial of political cases unavoidable. It comes as public confidence in the court continues to decline amid a series of ethics scandals and politically charged decisions. While the court appeared poised to allow Trump to remain on the ballot, the rationale it chooses will be significant. A decision on procedural grounds that does not definitively say whether or not Trump is disqualified could lead to chaos after the election if Trump wins, Murray warned. “If this court concludes that Colorado did not have the authority to exclude President Trump from the presidential ballot on procedural grounds, I think this case would be done, but I think it could come back with a vengeance,” he said. “Because ultimately members of Congress may have to make the determination after an election if President Trump wins, about whether or not he’s disqualified from office and whether to count votes cast for him.” What would another Donald Trump presidency mean for the planet? The United States’s first major climate legislation dismantled, a crackdown on government scientists, a frenzy of oil and gas drilling, the Paris climate deal not only dead but buried. A blueprint is emerging for a second Donald Trump term that is even more extreme for the environment than his first. But, before he does any of that, Trump needs to win in November.

#Democrat #Republican #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu #FreeBiafraNow #EndNigeriaNow #FulaniMustGo #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday #seunokinbaloye #channelstv #Politicstoday Igbo Refused zoo protest PEOPLE MOCK THE ONE NIGERIANIST, IN THEIR EFFORT TO DRAG NDI IGBO INTO NATIONAL PROTEST AGAINST THE LEADERSHIP OF JAGABAM Mazi Nnamdi Kanu live broadcast Studion With Bishop Kuka, Tinubu, Buhari and Funaly 08-FEB -2021 If #ESN catch bandit, we hand them over to Elohim

#presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush

#presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush LIVE! USA presidential Campaign 2024, Former President Trump Holds Rally in Waterford Township, Michigan. Alright viewers! We shall be taking you the event during a Waterford Township, Michigan, campaign rally, 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addressed the decision against him in a civil fraud case. A judge ruled that the former president must pay more than $350 million, and barred Mr. Trump and his sons from conducting business in New York for three years. The former president called the judge “crooked” and “a radical left-wing judge.” Mr. Trump defended his business practices, saying that he had made a lot of people a lot of money. Please viewers if it is your first time on FIRST NEWS BROADCAST TV CHANNEL, do us a favour to share to your friends and family, like and subscribe. See again, Thanks for watching! Facebook.com/1stNewsBroadcast Youtube.com/@1stNewsBroadcast Rumble.com/1stNewsBroadcast

#presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush President-trump-in-laconia-nh #Trump #News #TrumpRally #TrumpSpeech

#donaldtrump #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush #News #TrumpRally #TrumpSpeech President Donald Trump in Rock Hill, SC

#Trump #News #TrumpRally #TrumpSpeech #presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush Trump asks court to dismiss charges accusing him of mishandling classified documents

Unveiling the Unseen S3xual Crimes in Israeli report says Hamas s3xual vioIence

#presidentdonaldtrump #republicday #barakobama #billclinton #georgebush Trump moves to dismiss his classified documents indictment, citing presidential immunity

Scottish National Party accuses the Commons speaker of tipping the scales in favor of Labour.

A Nigerian senator, his wife and a medical middleman have been jailed for conspiring to traffic a market trader to the UK to harvest his kidney - FIRST NEWS BROADCAST TV CHANNEL

Alright! We move on to the news headline and updates: A Nigerian senator, his wife and a medical "middleman" have been jailed for conspiring to traffic a market trader to the UK to harvest his kidney. The case marked the first time defendants have been convicted under the Modern Slavery Act of an organ harvesting conspiracy. Though it is lawful to donate a kidney, it becomes criminal if money or another material advantage is rewarded. Politician Ike Ekweremadu, 60, and his wife Beatrice, 56, stood trial accused of a conspiracy to bring the man to Britain from Lagos so he could provide an organ for their 25-year-old daughter Sonia Ekweremadu. The couple, along with medical "middleman" Dr Obinna Obeta, 50, were found guilty in the Old Bailey in March. Sonia Ekweremadu - who has a serious kidney condition - wept in court as she was cleared of the same charge. At a sentencing hearing on Friday, Ekweremadu was jailed for nine years and eight months, his wife Beatrice was sentenced to four years and six months in prison, while Obeta received a 10-year prison term. Mr Justice Johnson told the defendants: "In each of your cases the offence you committed is so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified." It was alleged the 21-year-old market trader was to be rewarded for donating the organ in an £80,000 private procedure at London's Royal Free Hospital. The prosecution claimed the donor, who cannot be identified for legal reason, was offered up to £7,000 along with the promise of a better life in the UK. The donor did not understand until his first appointment with a consultant at the hospital that he was there for a kidney transplant, the Old Bailey was told. Advertisement According to the consultant, he had a "limited understanding" of why he was there and was "visibly relieved" at being told the operation would not go ahead. It was claimed the man was falsely presented as Sonia Ekweremadu's cousin in a failed attempt to persuade medics to carry out the procedure at the Royal Free Hospital. Defendants 'intended harm' to donor On the question of harm to the victim, the judge said: "The transplant did not go ahead but each intended that it should go ahead and you each intended the harm to the donor that would result. "He would have faced spending the rest of his life with only one kidney and without the requisite funding for the required aftercare." He added that the risks had not been properly explained to the victim and there had been no consent "in any meaningful sense". The Ekweremadus, who have an address in Willesden Green, northwest London, and Dr Obeta, from Southwark, south London, had denied the charge against them. Sonia Ekweremadu, who takes dialysis weekly, declined to give evidence but it was said on her behalf she knew nothing of a reward offered to donors. The case marked the first time defendants have been convicted under the Modern Slavery Act of an organ harvesting conspiracy. While it is lawful to donate a kidney, it becomes criminal if money or another material advantage is rewarded.