BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>

WASHINGTON — Nearly 30 million Americans by Thursday had cast their ballots ahead of Election Day, with 13 million choosing to vote in person at early voting centers and another 17 million submitting mail-in ballots, according to data from the University of Florida’s election lab.

The total number of early votes is expected to increase significantly in the days leading up to Election Day on Nov. 5.

Voters will determine whether Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris or Republican candidate Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office for the next four years. On the national level, they’ll also decide which political party controls the U.S. House and U.S. Senate for the next two years.

The nonpartisan Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics say the presidential race is still very much up for grabs, rating the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as toss-ups.

Early voting is higher in several of those purple states than some of their counterparts, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/" target="_blank">data</a>&nbsp;from the University of Florida’s election lab.

Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia have each received at least 1.2 million early ballots, while California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas have all received at least 2 million early votes.

The University of Florida data shows that among states that disclose party breakdowns, Democrats have cast nearly 42% of ballots while Republicans have submitted 35% and other voters have sent in about 23%.

Sabato’s Crystal Ball projects that Republicans are at least slightly favored to win 212 House seats, with Democrats holding onto at least 209 seats in that chamber. Another 14 races are rated as toss-ups, meaning control of the chamber is still far from decided.

“Overall, our ratings show just 7 Republican-held Toss-ups and 7 Democratic-held Toss-ups, for 14 total,” Managing Editor Kyle Kondik and Associate Editor J. Miles Coleman&nbsp;<a href="https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/rating-changes-pushing-house-toss-ups-nebraska-senate-to-leans-republican/" target="_blank">wrote in the latest update</a>, released Thursday morning.

“Splitting the Toss-ups down the middle would produce a 219-216 Republican House, so the ratings technically have the Republicans very narrowly ahead—but neither side is favored in the race for the House majority, even at this late stage,” they wrote.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairwoman Suzan DelBene of Washington state told reporters Thursday the organization has several voter protection efforts underway to ensure Americans who want to vote have an opportunity to do so.

Those efforts won’t stop when the polls close on Election Day, but will continue as absentee ballots are counted, she said in a virtual meeting with the Regional Reporters Association.

“So this is obviously a priority for us, and some of these races are very, very close, so we want to make sure we’re there to help make sure ballots are counted across the country,” DelBene said.

Control of the House might not be announced on election night, or for several days afterward. It took more than a week after the 2022 midterm elections before The<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-house-control-79475a4fc11e4375cd0dded651b9eede" target="_blank">&nbsp;Associated Press called control&nbsp;</a>for the GOP.

The Senate is leaning slightly toward Republican control, with GOP candidates on track to pick up seats in West Virginia and Montana.

Sabato’s has, however, moved Nebraska’s rating from likely Republican to leans Republican, “as the Republican cavalry has had to ride in to help” incumbent GOP Sen. Deb Fischer maintain her seat against independent challenger Dan Osborn.

“Unlike Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL), the only other two GOP incumbents in races that we rate as something other than Safe Republican, Fischer has, arguably, never had to run in a legitimately competitive statewide general election,” Kondik and Coleman wrote.

<a href="https://vote.gov/guide-to-voting#earlyvoting" target="_blank">Early in-person voting</a>&nbsp;as well as&nbsp;<a href="https://vote.gov/guide-to-voting#mail-absentee" target="_blank">who is eligible for mail-in ballots</a>&nbsp;is determined by each state, meaning when and where voters can cast early ballots varies considerably.

All states are required to host in-person voting on Election Day, scheduled for Nov. 5. More information about voting can be found&nbsp;<a href="https://www.vote.gov/" target="_blank">here</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729870329996.png" alt="Voters in line this week in Sedgwick County-photos courtesy KWCH" />
 <figcaption>Voters in line this week in Sedgwick County-photos courtesy KWCH</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>WASHINGTON — Nearly 30 million Americans by Thursday had cast their ballots ahead of Election Day, with 13 million choosing to vote in person at early voting centers and another 17 million submitting mail-in ballots, according to data from the University of Florida’s election lab.The total number of early votes is expected to increase significantly in the days leading up to Election Day on Nov. 5.Voters will determine whether Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris or Republican candidate Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office for the next four years. On the national level, they’ll also decide which political party controls the U.S. House and U.S. Senate for the next two years.The nonpartisan Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics say the presidential race is still very much up for grabs, rating the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as toss-ups.Early voting is higher in several of those purple states than some of their counterparts, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/" target="_blank">data</a>&nbsp;from the University of Florida’s election lab.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729870269518.png" alt="Photo courtesy KWCH" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy KWCH</figcaption>
 </figure>Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia have each received at least 1.2 million early ballots, while California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas have all received at least 2 million early votes.The University of Florida data shows that among states that disclose party breakdowns, Democrats have cast nearly 42% of ballots while Republicans have submitted 35% and other voters have sent in about 23%.<h2>U.S. House control up in the air</h2>Sabato’s Crystal Ball projects that Republicans are at least slightly favored to win 212 House seats, with Democrats holding onto at least 209 seats in that chamber. Another 14 races are rated as toss-ups, meaning control of the chamber is still far from decided.“Overall, our ratings show just 7 Republican-held Toss-ups and 7 Democratic-held Toss-ups, for 14 total,” Managing Editor Kyle Kondik and Associate Editor J. Miles Coleman&nbsp;<a href="https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/rating-changes-pushing-house-toss-ups-nebraska-senate-to-leans-republican/" target="_blank">wrote in the latest update</a>, released Thursday morning.“Splitting the Toss-ups down the middle would produce a 219-216 Republican House, so the ratings technically have the Republicans very narrowly ahead—but neither side is favored in the race for the House majority, even at this late stage,” they wrote.Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairwoman Suzan DelBene of Washington state told reporters Thursday the organization has several voter protection efforts underway to ensure Americans who want to vote have an opportunity to do so.Those efforts won’t stop when the polls close on Election Day, but will continue as absentee ballots are counted, she said in a virtual meeting with the Regional Reporters Association.“So this is obviously a priority for us, and some of these races are very, very close, so we want to make sure we’re there to help make sure ballots are counted across the country,” DelBene said.Control of the House might not be announced on election night, or for several days afterward. It took more than a week after the 2022 midterm elections before The<a href="https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-house-control-79475a4fc11e4375cd0dded651b9eede" target="_blank">&nbsp;Associated Press called control&nbsp;</a>for the GOP.<h2>U.S. Senate tilts toward GOP</h2>The Senate is leaning slightly toward Republican control, with GOP candidates on track to pick up seats in West Virginia and Montana.Sabato’s has, however, moved Nebraska’s rating from likely Republican to leans Republican, “as the Republican cavalry has had to ride in to help” incumbent GOP Sen. Deb Fischer maintain her seat against independent challenger Dan Osborn.“Unlike Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL), the only other two GOP incumbents in races that we rate as something other than Safe Republican, Fischer has, arguably, never had to run in a legitimately competitive statewide general election,” Kondik and Coleman wrote.<a href="https://vote.gov/guide-to-voting#earlyvoting" target="_blank">Early in-person voting</a>&nbsp;as well as&nbsp;<a href="https://vote.gov/guide-to-voting#mail-absentee" target="_blank">who is eligible for mail-in ballots</a>&nbsp;is determined by each state, meaning when and where voters can cast early ballots varies considerably.All states are required to host in-person voting on Election Day, scheduled for Nov. 5. More information about voting can be found&nbsp;<a href="https://www.vote.gov/" target="_blank">here</a>.

Millions of Americans flock to early voting, in person and via mail

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

<a>OMAHA, Neb. –&nbsp;</a>The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in collaboration with more than 4,000 law enforcement partners, will host the 27th&nbsp;National Prescription Drug Take Back Day Saturday, October 26, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. More than 160 Take Back sites across the five state DEA Omaha Division, encompassing Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, will be open for the public to safely dispose of tablets, capsules, patches and other solid forms of prescription drugs.

Collection sites will not accept syringes, sharps and illicit drugs. Liquid products, such as cough syrup, should remain tightly sealed in their original containers to prevent leakage. Vaping devices and cartridges will also be accepted; however, lithium batteries must be removed. To locate a collection site, visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.deatakeback.com/" target="_blank">www.DEATakeBack.com</a>.

For 15 years, DEA’s National Prescription Drug Take Back Day has provided Americans with an easy, accessible way to rid their homes of medications<a>&nbsp;that could pose a threat if misused</a>. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), opioids such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine and morphine, are among the most frequently misused prescription pain medications.

“We hope people will take advantage of the beautiful weather expected this Saturday and head to a Take Back location to get rid of their unneeded medications,” DEA Omaha Division Special Agent in Charge Steven T. Bell said. “But don’t stop there. Have a conversation on the importance of prescription safety. Prescriptions should be filled by a licensed pharmacist, only taken by those to whom they’re prescribed and used as directed by a trusted medical professional. Doing otherwise can lead to life-threatening consequences.”

For those unable to participate in tomorrow’s National Prescription Drug Take Back Day, there are nearly 17,000 pharmacies, hospitals, and businesses that offer safe medication disposal year-round. In addition, many police departments provide permanent drop boxes to ensure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dea.gov/everyday-takeback-day" target="_blank">Every Day is Take Back Day</a>.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration<a>OMAHA, Neb. –&nbsp;</a>The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in collaboration with more than 4,000 law enforcement partners, will host the 27th&nbsp;National Prescription Drug Take Back Day Saturday, October 26, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. More than 160 Take Back sites across the five state DEA Omaha Division, encompassing Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, will be open for the public to safely dispose of tablets, capsules, patches and other solid forms of prescription drugs.Collection sites will not accept syringes, sharps and illicit drugs. Liquid products, such as cough syrup, should remain tightly sealed in their original containers to prevent leakage. Vaping devices and cartridges will also be accepted; however, lithium batteries must be removed. To locate a collection site, visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.deatakeback.com/" target="_blank">www.DEATakeBack.com</a>.For 15 years, DEA’s National Prescription Drug Take Back Day has provided Americans with an easy, accessible way to rid their homes of medications<a>&nbsp;that could pose a threat if misused</a>. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), opioids such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, codeine and morphine, are among the most frequently misused prescription pain medications.“We hope people will take advantage of the beautiful weather expected this Saturday and head to a Take Back location to get rid of their unneeded medications,” DEA Omaha Division Special Agent in Charge Steven T. Bell said. “But don’t stop there. Have a conversation on the importance of prescription safety. Prescriptions should be filled by a licensed pharmacist, only taken by those to whom they’re prescribed and used as directed by a trusted medical professional. Doing otherwise can lead to life-threatening consequences.”For those unable to participate in tomorrow’s National Prescription Drug Take Back Day, there are nearly 17,000 pharmacies, hospitals, and businesses that offer safe medication disposal year-round. In addition, many police departments provide permanent drop boxes to ensure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dea.gov/everyday-takeback-day" target="_blank">Every Day is Take Back Day</a>.

National Prescription Drug Take Back Day Set for Saturday

United States Attorney Susan Lehr announced the federal Grand Jury for the District of Nebraska has returned eleven (11) unsealed Indictments charging 15 defendants. Indictments are charging documents that contain one or more individual counts that are merely accusations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Rebecca Marie Hernandez, age 53, of Lincoln, Nebraska, is charged with failure to appear on or about or between December 12, 2023, and January 2, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is up to 10 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp;

Christopher Gerald Ryan, age 52, of Lincoln, Nebraska, is charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Ryan with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine on or about August 1, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $10,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Ryan with possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about August 1, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Stephanie Marie Bartels,&nbsp;age 30, of Lincoln, Nebraska, and&nbsp;Xavier Rashaad Blanton, age 33, of Lincoln, Nebraska, are charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Bartels and Blanton with conspiracy to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl beginning on or about December 1, 2023, and continuing to on or about June 27, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to 40 years’ imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Bartels and Blanton with possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl, cocaine, and marijuana on or about June 27, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to 40 years’ imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment.

Michael A. Paris, age 37, and&nbsp;Kelcee Elizabeth Albin, age 28, both of Osmond, Nebraska, are charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Paris and Albin with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of meth on or about August 31, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $10,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 5 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Paris and Albin with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about August 31, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.

Alfredo Venancio Dominguez, age 27,&nbsp;and&nbsp;Nathaniel Lee Stephenson, age 27, both of Lincoln, Nebraska, are charged in a three-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Venancio Dominguez and Stephenson with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of meth with prior serious violent felony convictions, beginning on or about June 11, 2024, and continuing to on or about July 15, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 15 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $20,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 10 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Venancio Dominguez with using and carrying a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about July 15, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count III charges Stephenson with distribution of 50 grams or more of meth on or about June 13, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 15 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $20,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 10 years up to life, and a $100 special assessment.

Bernie Charles Campbell, age 54, of Lincoln, Nebraska, is charged with conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of meth beginning on or about June 10, 2024, and continuing to on or about August 12, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, an $8,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 8 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment.

Brandon M. McEvoy, age 33, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged in a four-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges McEvoy with wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information on or about August 14, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges McEvoy with wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information on or about August 14, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 1 year imprisonment, a $50,000 fine, a 1-year term of supervised release, and a $25 special assessment. Count III charges McEvoy with misuse of a social security number on or about August 14, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count IV charges McEvoy with a false statement or representation made to a department or agency of the United States on or about August 28, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Paul M. Hughes, age 36, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged in a nine-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud between on or about March 17, 2021, and March 19, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud on or about June 16, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count III charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud between on or about August 19, 2021, and August 23, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count IV charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by using the registration of another between on or about April 1, 2021, and April 2, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count V charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by using the registration of another on or about February 17, 2022.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count VI charges Hughes with a false statement on or about March 21, 2020.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count VII charges Hughes with a false statement on or about February 21, 2020.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count VIII charges Hughes with a false statement on or about May 16, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count IX charges Hughes with social security fraud on or about June 22, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Clara Phillips, age 44, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged with distribution and possession with the intent to distribute 100 grams or more of fentanyl on or about September 10, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $10,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 5 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment.

Steven Staley, age 28, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Staley with possession with intent to distribute 10 grams or more of fentanyl on or about October 10, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to 40 years’ imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Staley with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about October 10, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment consecutive, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 5 years, and a $100 special assessment.

Lindsay Helm,&nbsp;age 39, and&nbsp;Harold Helm, age 40, both of Council Bluffs, Iowa, are charged in a three-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Lindsay and Harold Helm with disaster fraud beginning on or about March 21, 2019, and continuing through May 2020.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not more than 30 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 5 years, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Lindsay Helm with a false statement to law enforcement on or about December 14, 2021. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not more than 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count III charges Lindsay Helm with a false statement to law enforcement on or about December 14, 2021. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not more than 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.

United States Attorney's OfficeUnited States Attorney Susan Lehr announced the federal Grand Jury for the District of Nebraska has returned eleven (11) unsealed Indictments charging 15 defendants. Indictments are charging documents that contain one or more individual counts that are merely accusations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.Rebecca Marie Hernandez, age 53, of Lincoln, Nebraska, is charged with failure to appear on or about or between December 12, 2023, and January 2, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is up to 10 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp;Christopher Gerald Ryan, age 52, of Lincoln, Nebraska, is charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Ryan with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine on or about August 1, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $10,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Ryan with possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about August 1, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.Stephanie Marie Bartels,&nbsp;age 30, of Lincoln, Nebraska, and&nbsp;Xavier Rashaad Blanton, age 33, of Lincoln, Nebraska, are charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Bartels and Blanton with conspiracy to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl beginning on or about December 1, 2023, and continuing to on or about June 27, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to 40 years’ imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Bartels and Blanton with possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl, cocaine, and marijuana on or about June 27, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to 40 years’ imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment.Michael A. Paris, age 37, and&nbsp;Kelcee Elizabeth Albin, age 28, both of Osmond, Nebraska, are charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Paris and Albin with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of meth on or about August 31, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $10,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 5 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Paris and Albin with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about August 31, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.Alfredo Venancio Dominguez, age 27,&nbsp;and&nbsp;Nathaniel Lee Stephenson, age 27, both of Lincoln, Nebraska, are charged in a three-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Venancio Dominguez and Stephenson with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of meth with prior serious violent felony convictions, beginning on or about June 11, 2024, and continuing to on or about July 15, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 15 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $20,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 10 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Venancio Dominguez with using and carrying a firearm during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about July 15, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count III charges Stephenson with distribution of 50 grams or more of meth on or about June 13, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 15 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $20,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 10 years up to life, and a $100 special assessment.Bernie Charles Campbell, age 54, of Lincoln, Nebraska, is charged with conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of meth beginning on or about June 10, 2024, and continuing to on or about August 12, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, an $8,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 8 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment.Brandon M. McEvoy, age 33, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged in a four-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges McEvoy with wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information on or about August 14, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges McEvoy with wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information on or about August 14, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 1 year imprisonment, a $50,000 fine, a 1-year term of supervised release, and a $25 special assessment. Count III charges McEvoy with misuse of a social security number on or about August 14, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count IV charges McEvoy with a false statement or representation made to a department or agency of the United States on or about August 28, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.Paul M. Hughes, age 36, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged in a nine-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud between on or about March 17, 2021, and March 19, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud on or about June 16, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count III charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud between on or about August 19, 2021, and August 23, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count IV charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by using the registration of another between on or about April 1, 2021, and April 2, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count V charges Hughes with obtaining a controlled substance by using the registration of another on or about February 17, 2022.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 4 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count VI charges Hughes with a false statement on or about March 21, 2020.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count VII charges Hughes with a false statement on or about February 21, 2020.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count VIII charges Hughes with a false statement on or about May 16, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count IX charges Hughes with social security fraud on or about June 22, 2021.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a 3-year term of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.Clara Phillips, age 44, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged with distribution and possession with the intent to distribute 100 grams or more of fentanyl on or about September 10, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 10 years’ and up to life imprisonment, a $10,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 5 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment.Steven Staley, age 28, of Omaha, Nebraska, is charged in a two-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Staley with possession with intent to distribute 10 grams or more of fentanyl on or about October 10, 2024.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to 40 years’ imprisonment, a $5,000,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not less than 4 years and up to life, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Staley with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on or about October 10, 2024. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not less than 5 years’ and up to life imprisonment consecutive, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 5 years, and a $100 special assessment.Lindsay Helm,&nbsp;age 39, and&nbsp;Harold Helm, age 40, both of Council Bluffs, Iowa, are charged in a three-count Indictment.&nbsp; Count I charges Lindsay and Harold Helm with disaster fraud beginning on or about March 21, 2019, and continuing through May 2020.&nbsp; The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not more than 30 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 5 years, and a $100 special assessment. Count II charges Lindsay Helm with a false statement to law enforcement on or about December 14, 2021. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not more than 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.&nbsp; Count III charges Lindsay Helm with a false statement to law enforcement on or about December 14, 2021. The maximum possible penalty if convicted is not more than 5 years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a $100 special assessment.

 Grand Jury for the District of Nebraska             

UNL&nbsp;Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources

&nbsp; Lincoln, Neb. — The findings of a recent study on food deserts in Nebraska will be covered during a free webinar at 4 p.m. Central time, Oct. 29. It will address challenges rural grocery stores face and solutions for improving access to affordable and nutritious food. The webinar will be presented by The Nebraska Cooperative Development Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the Nebraska Grocery Industry Association.

The study, conducted by Greg McKee, an economics professor at Brigham Young University-Idaho, and Shawn Kaskie, an educator with Nebraska Extension and PhD candidate in Human Sciences-Leadership, assesses the extent of limited access areas in Nebraska to affordable, nutritious food and describes how changes in food markets affect food access for households in Nebraska.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food deserts based on the accessibility and affordability of healthy food in a geographical area. While that definition measures affordability on income alone, the study by McKee and Kaskie modifies the affordability criterion to include a measure of spending potential relevant to consumers in rural Nebraska.

The webinar will cover potential remedies that can influence food retail markets, such as public policy, corporate-based solutions and community-based efforts. Grocery retailers, community leaders and individuals interested in rural economic development are encouraged to attend.

Registration is available on the Nebraska Cooperative Development Center’s Website,&nbsp;<a href="https://unl233.acemlnb.com/lt.php?x=3DZy~GDDJFPP6HOtyt~OV.Oh2q-giQ~0k~sxkKI4KXTO5HR9_Uy.0eFr1X_ziN~vkvY0X6HFIneb6m" target="_blank">https://ncdc.unl.edu</a>.

UNL&nbsp;Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources&nbsp; Lincoln, Neb. — The findings of a recent study on food deserts in Nebraska will be covered during a free webinar at 4 p.m. Central time, Oct. 29. It will address challenges rural grocery stores face and solutions for improving access to affordable and nutritious food. The webinar will be presented by The Nebraska Cooperative Development Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the Nebraska Grocery Industry Association.The study, conducted by Greg McKee, an economics professor at Brigham Young University-Idaho, and Shawn Kaskie, an educator with Nebraska Extension and PhD candidate in Human Sciences-Leadership, assesses the extent of limited access areas in Nebraska to affordable, nutritious food and describes how changes in food markets affect food access for households in Nebraska.The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food deserts based on the accessibility and affordability of healthy food in a geographical area. While that definition measures affordability on income alone, the study by McKee and Kaskie modifies the affordability criterion to include a measure of spending potential relevant to consumers in rural Nebraska.The webinar will cover potential remedies that can influence food retail markets, such as public policy, corporate-based solutions and community-based efforts. Grocery retailers, community leaders and individuals interested in rural economic development are encouraged to attend.Registration is available on the Nebraska Cooperative Development Center’s Website,&nbsp;<a href="https://unl233.acemlnb.com/lt.php?x=3DZy~GDDJFPP6HOtyt~OV.Oh2q-giQ~0k~sxkKI4KXTO5HR9_Uy.0eFr1X_ziN~vkvY0X6HFIneb6m" target="_blank">https://ncdc.unl.edu</a>.

Webinar on Nebraska food deserts to highlight rural grocery challenges and solutions

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>

WASHINGTON — The next U.S. president must steer the nation through crises across the globe, including worsening violence in the Middle East, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to retreat from Ukraine and U.S-China trade relations.

The Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, largely built her career as a prosecutor, but once in Washington she sat on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a position that comes with access to highly classified national security files.

As vice president she’s represented the U.S. at high-profile international meetings, including the Munich Security Conference and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

The Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, who followed his wealthy father’s path into real estate and ascended to the status of celebrity businessman, has already held the elected position of Commander-in-Chief for four years — though high-ranking officials who served under him&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e" target="_blank">say</a>&nbsp;he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bolton-excoriates-trump-fresh-introduction-his-memoir-2024-01-30/" target="_blank">should</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/30/mark-esper-wont-vote-for-trump-wont-say-he-will-vote-for-biden-sot-nr-vpx.cnn" target="_blank">not</a>&nbsp;occupy that seat again.

Trump and Harris’ track records can provide clues on how, if elected, they would handle complex and challenging national and economic security policies.

But overall on the campaign trail, foreign policy “has played a back seat role to domestic politics in the 2024 election,” James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy for the Council on Foreign Relations, told States Newsroom in an interview.

That’s not unusual, Lindsay said, as presidential year politics generally tend to have a domestic focus.

“This has been more a campaign about personalities than about specific policy prescriptions. It’s safe to say that the two candidates have very different world views,” Lindsay said.

Harris centers relationship building, and promised in her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech to “stand strong” with NATO allies.

In Trump’s convention speech he lamented that the U.S. has “long been taken advantage of” by “so-called allies.”

Observers say the former president leads with a transactional outlook: In other words, nations must pay for access to U.S. markets and security.

“Trump thinks that U.S. support to allies is a bad deal for America, whereas Harris realizes that the United States benefits immensely from them,” Matthew Waxman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and chair of Columbia Law School’s National Security Law Program, told States Newsroom.

But predicting how a presidential candidate would act on the global stage, if elected, is tricky. Conflicts continue to evolve, and those in top defense and diplomatic jobs are likely to turn over.

“It’s partly because a President Harris or President Trump could face a very different situation in the Middle East or in Ukraine come Inauguration Day, but it’s also because in Washington personnel are policy, people are policy,” Lindsay said.

Here are some of the serious international situations either administration will face:

The deadly Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, launched from the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip, reignited smoldering regional tensions and highlighted the inextricable U.S. role. Hamas militants killed roughly 1,200 in the brutal and unexpected incursion, and took 250 hostages, many of whom still remain in captivity.

President Joe Biden immediately&nbsp;<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47828" target="_blank">surged</a>&nbsp;weapons and security aid to the key U.S. defense partner, and in April Congress approved his request for $8.7 billion more in foreign military financing and missile defense.

Israel’s year-long campaign to completely eliminate Iranian-allied Hamas militants from the Gaza Strip has resulted in a staggering death toll, now over 41,000, according to Gaza health officials.

Hamas’ assault also set in motion attacks from other Iranian-backed militias, opening up a war front between Israel and Hezbollah fighters to the north in Lebanon. And for months, Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthis have terrorized commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Biden has faced fierce criticism for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war tactics.

Harris, as early as March,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas" target="_blank">publicly</a>&nbsp;criticized Israel over the humanitarian “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vp-harris-urges-israeli-government-do-more-boost-aid-into-gaza-2024-03-03/" target="_blank">catastrophe</a>” in Gaza and called for an immediate six-week cease-fire.

Harris, who became the Democratic presidential nominee in mid-summer after Biden dropped his bid, has repeatedly said she defends Israel’s right to defend itself but that “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-of-israel/" target="_blank">how it does so matters</a>.”

Protesters could be heard in the distance Monday as Harris planted a memorial tree at the vice president’s residence to mark the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack. Pro-Palestinian activists protesting the death toll in Gaza have marched and rallied throughout the U.S. during the past year.

Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/one-year-oct-7-attack-israel-us-leaders-honor-victims-and-protesters-march" target="_blank">told</a>&nbsp;reporters that the administration is “not giving up” on negotiating a cease-fire deal and release of hostages, an effort that has so far floundered.

“It’s one of the most important ways we will be able to end this war and bring any type of stability to the region. It’s one of the highest priorities of this administration,” she said.

She has not indicated any slowdown or conditions on assistance to Israel if elected — though she continues to advocate for a two-state solution.

“Trump may give Jerusalem less public chastising and criticism, but I’m not sure the policy differences would be that great either,” Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and foreign policy research director at the Brookings Institution, told States Newsroom. O’Hanlon recently published an article arguing the Trump and Harris defense strategies would at least “<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-partially-convergent-trump-and-harris-defense-policies/" target="_blank">partially</a>” converge.

Trump maintains that Oct. 7 “would never have happened” had he been in office, and he accuses the Biden administration of inviting the attack because of its “weak” relationship with Iran.

“What is needed more than ever is a return of unwavering American leadership and unquestioned American strength. We were strong, we were powerful … That’s what I intend to deliver as the 47th president of the United States,” he said Monday while in Miami marking one year since the ambush on Israel.

The attack also wrecked any forward progress on the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/" target="_blank">Abraham Accords</a>&nbsp;— Trump’s signature Middle East achievement that created full diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. While those established channels remain steady, the Biden administration’s efforts to strike a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia are now at a standstill.

Trump is increasingly selling himself on the campaign trail as the candidate of stability who can quash Iran’s aggression — which is pretty much a “standard approach to campaigning,” Lindsay said.

“He is not the first challenger to argue that the incumbent president has been weak.”

But Lindsay said, “the important question isn’t whether he was tougher, it’s whether his policies were more effective.”

For example, the Iranian-backed so-called “axis of resistance” militias currently upending the Middle East were also operating during Trump’s presidency.

“(They) pre-dated his coming into office but it’s not that a Trump administration ended that network of anti-Western, anti-Israeli groups,” Lindsay said. “And during the Trump administration it was the case that Iran both underwrote attacks on American troops and actually launched attacks on American troops.”

Trump drew attention last week to an early January 2020 barrage on U.S. troops in Iraq when he again&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-describes-traumatic-brain-injuries-sustained-us-troops-iraq-headache" target="_blank">described</a>&nbsp;the traumatic brain injuries they suffered as “headaches.”

U.S. troops&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/us-troops-middle-east-mapping-military-presence" target="_blank">in Iraq and Syria</a>, already a target, have come under increasing fire from Iran-backed militants, with more than 100&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/drone-strike-risks-dangerous-us-iran-escalation" target="_blank">attacks</a>&nbsp;on U.S. service members since Israel began its post-Oct. 7 offensive. A drone strike in January&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/28/politics/us-troops-drone-attack-jordan/index.html" target="_blank">killed</a>&nbsp;three U.S. soldiers and injured 30 at an outpost in Jordan on the Syrian border. The U.S. retaliated by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1228132782/us-biden-iran-drone-response-strike" target="_blank">launching</a>&nbsp;more than 100 precision rockets at 85 of Iran military sites in Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. assisted Israel&nbsp;<a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3923123/us-assets-in-mediterranean-again-helped-defend-israel-against-iranian-missiles/" target="_blank">twice</a>&nbsp;in 2024 in intercepting rockets fired directly from Iran — once in April following Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and again in September after Israel’s assassination of Iranian-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, Lebanon.

“We’re in the last months of the Biden presidency, and Biden’s own, I think, personal influence here is quite diminished. And you know, I can’t predict what Trump policy really would be. I assume he would be less likely to be trying to restrain the Israelis, but so is the Biden administration. And maybe that is a Biden-Harris policy,” Elliott Abrams, CFR’s senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, told reporters on Oct. 2, the day after Iran launched its second direct&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/01/iran-imminent-ballistic-missile-attack-israel-us-warns" target="_blank">attack</a>.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with both&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/zelenskyy-washington-meets-us-leaders-beef-support-ukraine" target="_blank">Harris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/09/27/u-s-government-unveils-charges-against-iranians-who-hacked-into-trump-2024-campaign/" target="_blank">Trump</a>&nbsp;in recent weeks to shore up continued U.S. support for his country’s ongoing war against Russia’s occupation.

Harris’ meeting with the Ukrainian leader was her seventh, and she pledged continued aid for the eastern European nation on the principle that Putin would continue marching into Europe if allies relent on Ukraine.

Harris supports continued U.S. assistance, which has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine" target="_blank">totaled</a>&nbsp;roughly $175 billion since 2022. At the Ukraine peace&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/06/16/joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework-summit-on-peace-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">summit</a>&nbsp;in Switzerland in June, Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20240723-from-gaza-to-china-where-kamala-harris-stands-on-foreign-policy-issues" target="_blank">pledged</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-15-2024-/vice-president-kamala-harris-announces-over-1-billion-bolster-ukraines-energy-sector-address-humanitarian-needs-and-strengthen-civilian-security" target="_blank">nearly</a>&nbsp;$2 billion, some new and some redirected, to bolster the country’s energy sector and add to humanitarian efforts.

The vice president has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/19/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference/" target="_blank">represented</a>&nbsp;the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/18/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-2/" target="_blank">three</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/16/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-munich-germany/" target="_blank">times</a>&nbsp;at the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, where she praised the NATO alliance and said the U.S. commitment to its principles is “ironclad.”

When facing Harris on the presidential debate stage in September, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/harris-tears-trump-over-abortion-rights-and-race-tense-presidential-debate" target="_blank">refused</a>&nbsp;to answer whether he wants Ukraine to be victorious over Russia.

Trump’s rhetoric and past behavior “spells bad news for Ukraine,” Waxman said.

“He is likely to reduce American support for Ukraine and push Ukraine to make concessions to Russia. Overall, Trump’s transactional approach to leader-to-leader diplomacy is likely to benefit Putin,” Waxman continued. “Whereas Harris wants to invest in alliances like NATO, Trump is skeptical of them.”

That type of leader-to-leader communication was notoriously highlighted in 2019 when U.S. House lawmakers&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-9/ALDE_00000035/" target="_blank">impeached</a>&nbsp;Trump for directly threatening to withhold Ukraine aid if Zelenskyy did not announce an investigation into Biden — Trump’s presidential campaign rival at the time. The Senate acquitted Trump.

Like his campaign line on the Israel attack, Trump also repeatedly claims that had he been in office, instead of Biden, Russia would have never launched its February 2022 attack on Ukraine.

“The war in Ukraine did not begin in February of ‘22, it began back in 2014,” Lindsay said, referring to Putin’s forced annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

Trump’s own administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/" target="_blank">expanded</a>&nbsp;Obama-era sanctions meant to punish Russia’s actions in Crimea.

“Experts can argue about how to dole out criticism across administrations, but clearly the issue of Russian support for a notionally independent insurrection in eastern Ukraine was not solved during the Trump presidency,” Lindsay continued.

Foreign trade is a “political hot potato,” and neither Harris nor Trump are offering much clarity for U.S. trading partners around the world, Mary E. Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told States Newsroom in an interview.

Lovely described the Biden-Harris approach as multipronged, in that they’ve instituted policies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. while also aiming to maintain good trade relationships with partner nations.

The tightrope walk becomes even trickier as U.S. policy also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/while-us-and-china-decouple-eu-and-china-deepen-trade-dependencies" target="_blank">disincentivizes</a>&nbsp;materials and components from China — one of the world’s largest trading nations — in the final products imported from trading partners. Think: components in solar panels and electric vehicles.

The Biden administration’s major legislative accomplishments — the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act — provided major subsidies for “reshoring,” or returning to the U.S., clean energy and semiconductor production. But the policies were not without risks to U.S. trading partners.

“We had a lot of things (in the legislation), including things that upset the allies — you know, subsidies for American businesses, that they saw potentially as pulling investment out of their economies,” Lovely said.

“These are things that the European Union, Japan, Korea were concerned about,” Lovely continued. “So we’ve seen it there — this tension between foreign policy and this idea of economic security.”

While Lovely said she worries about how some of the Biden-Harris trade policies might affect competition and the nation’s ability to sign timely trade agreements, she said Trump’s plans are overall “destabilizing.”

“The increased use of tariffs is misguided at best,” Lovely said.

Trump’s promise to not only increase tariffs on Chinese imports to 60%, but also to slap flat 10% to 20% tariffs on all imports across the board is akin to “starting a trade war with the entire world.”

“We’re not going to see those kinds of tariffs without retaliation,” Lovely said.

If enacted, the tariffs would be particularly challenging for Indo-Pacific countries that rely on U.S. partnership in the face of China’s regional dominance.

“I mean, you can imagine how this will go down in, say, Japan and Korea, two countries which rely on the U.S. for a security umbrella, which is why Trump thinks that he can do stuff to them. But they also have to protect their own economies,” Lovely said. “So it’s going to put them in a really terrible position because it’s very important for them to maintain their alliance with the U.S., economic as well as military.”

But one thing is for sure, Lovely said: “Everybody wants to know what’s going to happen. Everybody in every embassy here in Washington.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/9/1695389171060.png" alt="File photo -President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy&nbsp; and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin- photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>File photo -President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy&nbsp; and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin- photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>WASHINGTON — The next U.S. president must steer the nation through crises across the globe, including worsening violence in the Middle East, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to retreat from Ukraine and U.S-China trade relations.The Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, largely built her career as a prosecutor, but once in Washington she sat on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a position that comes with access to highly classified national security files.As vice president she’s represented the U.S. at high-profile international meetings, including the Munich Security Conference and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.The Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, who followed his wealthy father’s path into real estate and ascended to the status of celebrity businessman, has already held the elected position of Commander-in-Chief for four years — though high-ranking officials who served under him&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e" target="_blank">say</a>&nbsp;he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bolton-excoriates-trump-fresh-introduction-his-memoir-2024-01-30/" target="_blank">should</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/30/mark-esper-wont-vote-for-trump-wont-say-he-will-vote-for-biden-sot-nr-vpx.cnn" target="_blank">not</a>&nbsp;occupy that seat again.Trump and Harris’ track records can provide clues on how, if elected, they would handle complex and challenging national and economic security policies.But overall on the campaign trail, foreign policy “has played a back seat role to domestic politics in the 2024 election,” James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy for the Council on Foreign Relations, told States Newsroom in an interview.That’s not unusual, Lindsay said, as presidential year politics generally tend to have a domestic focus.“This has been more a campaign about personalities than about specific policy prescriptions. It’s safe to say that the two candidates have very different world views,” Lindsay said.<h2>Relationships with allies</h2>Harris centers relationship building, and promised in her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech to “stand strong” with NATO allies.In Trump’s convention speech he lamented that the U.S. has “long been taken advantage of” by “so-called allies.”Observers say the former president leads with a transactional outlook: In other words, nations must pay for access to U.S. markets and security.“Trump thinks that U.S. support to allies is a bad deal for America, whereas Harris realizes that the United States benefits immensely from them,” Matthew Waxman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and chair of Columbia Law School’s National Security Law Program, told States Newsroom.But predicting how a presidential candidate would act on the global stage, if elected, is tricky. Conflicts continue to evolve, and those in top defense and diplomatic jobs are likely to turn over.“It’s partly because a President Harris or President Trump could face a very different situation in the Middle East or in Ukraine come Inauguration Day, but it’s also because in Washington personnel are policy, people are policy,” Lindsay said.Here are some of the serious international situations either administration will face:<h2>Middle East</h2>The deadly Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, launched from the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip, reignited smoldering regional tensions and highlighted the inextricable U.S. role. Hamas militants killed roughly 1,200 in the brutal and unexpected incursion, and took 250 hostages, many of whom still remain in captivity.President Joe Biden immediately&nbsp;<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47828" target="_blank">surged</a>&nbsp;weapons and security aid to the key U.S. defense partner, and in April Congress approved his request for $8.7 billion more in foreign military financing and missile defense.Israel’s year-long campaign to completely eliminate Iranian-allied Hamas militants from the Gaza Strip has resulted in a staggering death toll, now over 41,000, according to Gaza health officials.Hamas’ assault also set in motion attacks from other Iranian-backed militias, opening up a war front between Israel and Hezbollah fighters to the north in Lebanon. And for months, Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthis have terrorized commercial shipping in the Red Sea.Biden has faced fierce criticism for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war tactics.Harris, as early as March,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas" target="_blank">publicly</a>&nbsp;criticized Israel over the humanitarian “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vp-harris-urges-israeli-government-do-more-boost-aid-into-gaza-2024-03-03/" target="_blank">catastrophe</a>” in Gaza and called for an immediate six-week cease-fire.Harris, who became the Democratic presidential nominee in mid-summer after Biden dropped his bid, has repeatedly said she defends Israel’s right to defend itself but that “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-of-israel/" target="_blank">how it does so matters</a>.”Protesters could be heard in the distance Monday as Harris planted a memorial tree at the vice president’s residence to mark the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack. Pro-Palestinian activists protesting the death toll in Gaza have marched and rallied throughout the U.S. during the past year.Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/one-year-oct-7-attack-israel-us-leaders-honor-victims-and-protesters-march" target="_blank">told</a>&nbsp;reporters that the administration is “not giving up” on negotiating a cease-fire deal and release of hostages, an effort that has so far floundered.“It’s one of the most important ways we will be able to end this war and bring any type of stability to the region. It’s one of the highest priorities of this administration,” she said.She has not indicated any slowdown or conditions on assistance to Israel if elected — though she continues to advocate for a two-state solution.“Trump may give Jerusalem less public chastising and criticism, but I’m not sure the policy differences would be that great either,” Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and foreign policy research director at the Brookings Institution, told States Newsroom. O’Hanlon recently published an article arguing the Trump and Harris defense strategies would at least “<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-partially-convergent-trump-and-harris-defense-policies/" target="_blank">partially</a>” converge.Trump maintains that Oct. 7 “would never have happened” had he been in office, and he accuses the Biden administration of inviting the attack because of its “weak” relationship with Iran.“What is needed more than ever is a return of unwavering American leadership and unquestioned American strength. We were strong, we were powerful … That’s what I intend to deliver as the 47th president of the United States,” he said Monday while in Miami marking one year since the ambush on Israel.The attack also wrecked any forward progress on the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/" target="_blank">Abraham Accords</a>&nbsp;— Trump’s signature Middle East achievement that created full diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. While those established channels remain steady, the Biden administration’s efforts to strike a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia are now at a standstill.Trump is increasingly selling himself on the campaign trail as the candidate of stability who can quash Iran’s aggression — which is pretty much a “standard approach to campaigning,” Lindsay said.“He is not the first challenger to argue that the incumbent president has been weak.”But Lindsay said, “the important question isn’t whether he was tougher, it’s whether his policies were more effective.”For example, the Iranian-backed so-called “axis of resistance” militias currently upending the Middle East were also operating during Trump’s presidency.“(They) pre-dated his coming into office but it’s not that a Trump administration ended that network of anti-Western, anti-Israeli groups,” Lindsay said. “And during the Trump administration it was the case that Iran both underwrote attacks on American troops and actually launched attacks on American troops.”Trump drew attention last week to an early January 2020 barrage on U.S. troops in Iraq when he again&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-describes-traumatic-brain-injuries-sustained-us-troops-iraq-headache" target="_blank">described</a>&nbsp;the traumatic brain injuries they suffered as “headaches.”U.S. troops&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/us-troops-middle-east-mapping-military-presence" target="_blank">in Iraq and Syria</a>, already a target, have come under increasing fire from Iran-backed militants, with more than 100&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/drone-strike-risks-dangerous-us-iran-escalation" target="_blank">attacks</a>&nbsp;on U.S. service members since Israel began its post-Oct. 7 offensive. A drone strike in January&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/28/politics/us-troops-drone-attack-jordan/index.html" target="_blank">killed</a>&nbsp;three U.S. soldiers and injured 30 at an outpost in Jordan on the Syrian border. The U.S. retaliated by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1228132782/us-biden-iran-drone-response-strike" target="_blank">launching</a>&nbsp;more than 100 precision rockets at 85 of Iran military sites in Iraq and Syria.The U.S. assisted Israel&nbsp;<a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3923123/us-assets-in-mediterranean-again-helped-defend-israel-against-iranian-missiles/" target="_blank">twice</a>&nbsp;in 2024 in intercepting rockets fired directly from Iran — once in April following Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and again in September after Israel’s assassination of Iranian-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, Lebanon.“We’re in the last months of the Biden presidency, and Biden’s own, I think, personal influence here is quite diminished. And you know, I can’t predict what Trump policy really would be. I assume he would be less likely to be trying to restrain the Israelis, but so is the Biden administration. And maybe that is a Biden-Harris policy,” Elliott Abrams, CFR’s senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, told reporters on Oct. 2, the day after Iran launched its second direct&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/01/iran-imminent-ballistic-missile-attack-israel-us-warns" target="_blank">attack</a>.<h2>Ukraine and NATO</h2>Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with both&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/zelenskyy-washington-meets-us-leaders-beef-support-ukraine" target="_blank">Harris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/09/27/u-s-government-unveils-charges-against-iranians-who-hacked-into-trump-2024-campaign/" target="_blank">Trump</a>&nbsp;in recent weeks to shore up continued U.S. support for his country’s ongoing war against Russia’s occupation.Harris’ meeting with the Ukrainian leader was her seventh, and she pledged continued aid for the eastern European nation on the principle that Putin would continue marching into Europe if allies relent on Ukraine.Harris supports continued U.S. assistance, which has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine" target="_blank">totaled</a>&nbsp;roughly $175 billion since 2022. At the Ukraine peace&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/06/16/joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework-summit-on-peace-in-ukraine/" target="_blank">summit</a>&nbsp;in Switzerland in June, Harris&nbsp;<a href="https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20240723-from-gaza-to-china-where-kamala-harris-stands-on-foreign-policy-issues" target="_blank">pledged</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-15-2024-/vice-president-kamala-harris-announces-over-1-billion-bolster-ukraines-energy-sector-address-humanitarian-needs-and-strengthen-civilian-security" target="_blank">nearly</a>&nbsp;$2 billion, some new and some redirected, to bolster the country’s energy sector and add to humanitarian efforts.The vice president has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/19/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference/" target="_blank">represented</a>&nbsp;the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/18/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-2/" target="_blank">three</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/16/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-the-munich-security-conference-munich-germany/" target="_blank">times</a>&nbsp;at the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, where she praised the NATO alliance and said the U.S. commitment to its principles is “ironclad.”When facing Harris on the presidential debate stage in September, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/harris-tears-trump-over-abortion-rights-and-race-tense-presidential-debate" target="_blank">refused</a>&nbsp;to answer whether he wants Ukraine to be victorious over Russia.Trump’s rhetoric and past behavior “spells bad news for Ukraine,” Waxman said.“He is likely to reduce American support for Ukraine and push Ukraine to make concessions to Russia. Overall, Trump’s transactional approach to leader-to-leader diplomacy is likely to benefit Putin,” Waxman continued. “Whereas Harris wants to invest in alliances like NATO, Trump is skeptical of them.”That type of leader-to-leader communication was notoriously highlighted in 2019 when U.S. House lawmakers&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-9/ALDE_00000035/" target="_blank">impeached</a>&nbsp;Trump for directly threatening to withhold Ukraine aid if Zelenskyy did not announce an investigation into Biden — Trump’s presidential campaign rival at the time. The Senate acquitted Trump.Like his campaign line on the Israel attack, Trump also repeatedly claims that had he been in office, instead of Biden, Russia would have never launched its February 2022 attack on Ukraine.“The war in Ukraine did not begin in February of ‘22, it began back in 2014,” Lindsay said, referring to Putin’s forced annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.Trump’s own administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/" target="_blank">expanded</a>&nbsp;Obama-era sanctions meant to punish Russia’s actions in Crimea.“Experts can argue about how to dole out criticism across administrations, but clearly the issue of Russian support for a notionally independent insurrection in eastern Ukraine was not solved during the Trump presidency,” Lindsay continued.<h2>China and trade</h2>Foreign trade is a “political hot potato,” and neither Harris nor Trump are offering much clarity for U.S. trading partners around the world, Mary E. Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told States Newsroom in an interview.Lovely described the Biden-Harris approach as multipronged, in that they’ve instituted policies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. while also aiming to maintain good trade relationships with partner nations.The tightrope walk becomes even trickier as U.S. policy also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/while-us-and-china-decouple-eu-and-china-deepen-trade-dependencies" target="_blank">disincentivizes</a>&nbsp;materials and components from China — one of the world’s largest trading nations — in the final products imported from trading partners. Think: components in solar panels and electric vehicles.The Biden administration’s major legislative accomplishments — the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act — provided major subsidies for “reshoring,” or returning to the U.S., clean energy and semiconductor production. But the policies were not without risks to U.S. trading partners.“We had a lot of things (in the legislation), including things that upset the allies — you know, subsidies for American businesses, that they saw potentially as pulling investment out of their economies,” Lovely said.“These are things that the European Union, Japan, Korea were concerned about,” Lovely continued. “So we’ve seen it there — this tension between foreign policy and this idea of economic security.”While Lovely said she worries about how some of the Biden-Harris trade policies might affect competition and the nation’s ability to sign timely trade agreements, she said Trump’s plans are overall “destabilizing.”“The increased use of tariffs is misguided at best,” Lovely said.Trump’s promise to not only increase tariffs on Chinese imports to 60%, but also to slap flat 10% to 20% tariffs on all imports across the board is akin to “starting a trade war with the entire world.”“We’re not going to see those kinds of tariffs without retaliation,” Lovely said.If enacted, the tariffs would be particularly challenging for Indo-Pacific countries that rely on U.S. partnership in the face of China’s regional dominance.“I mean, you can imagine how this will go down in, say, Japan and Korea, two countries which rely on the U.S. for a security umbrella, which is why Trump thinks that he can do stuff to them. But they also have to protect their own economies,” Lovely said. “So it’s going to put them in a really terrible position because it’s very important for them to maintain their alliance with the U.S., economic as well as military.”But one thing is for sure, Lovely said: “Everybody wants to know what’s going to happen. Everybody in every embassy here in Washington.”

Foreign policy: Where do Harris and Trump stand?

The NSP has posted that&nbsp;Holden has been located and is safe.

&nbsp; The Knox County Sheriff’s Office is searching for a boy that went missing from Crofton on October 22, 2024. Holden DUNCAN, age 11, was last seen around 4:15 p.m. getting off the bus by Crofton High School. He was reported missing at approximately 9:50 p.m. 

DUNCAN is described as 4’3” and weighing roughly 80 lbs. with sandy brown hair and hazel eyes. He was last seen wearing a black long-sleeved shirt, black sweatpants, and black Nike shoes with a white “swoosh.” If anyone has seen Holden please contact the Knox County Sheriff's Office at 402-288-4261.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729712265055.jpeg" alt="Holden Duncan (Knox County Sherrif's Office)" />
 <figcaption>Holden Duncan (Knox County Sherrif's Office)</figcaption>
 </figure>Nebraska State PatrolUPDATE 10/24/24The NSP has posted that&nbsp;Holden has been located and is safe.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Excellent news! Holden has been located and is safe! Thank you to everyone who helped look and spread the word. This EMA has been canceled. <a href="https://t.co/wCAtQoyeKO">https://t.co/wCAtQoyeKO</a> <a href="https://t.co/RzEPTCmgU3">pic.twitter.com/RzEPTCmgU3</a>&mdash; Nebraska State Patrol (@NEStatePatrol) <a href="https://twitter.com/NEStatePatrol/status/1849491229089931314?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>-----&nbsp; The Knox County Sheriff’s Office is searching for a boy that went missing from Crofton on October 22, 2024. Holden DUNCAN, age 11, was last seen around 4:15 p.m. getting off the bus by Crofton High School. He was reported missing at approximately 9:50 p.m. DUNCAN is described as 4’3” and weighing roughly 80 lbs. with sandy brown hair and hazel eyes. He was last seen wearing a black long-sleeved shirt, black sweatpants, and black Nike shoes with a white “swoosh.” If anyone has seen Holden please contact the Knox County Sheriff's Office at 402-288-4261.&nbsp;&nbsp;

ENDANGERED MISSING ADVISORY CANCELLED: Holden has been located and is safe

SEATTLE&nbsp;– Frontline Boeing workers voted 64% against accepting the latest contract proposal put forth by their employer, according to a media release from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Jon Holden, President of IAM District 751 and Brandon Bryant, President of IAM District W24, issued the following joint statement following the votes being tallied:

“The elected negotiating committee of workers did not recommend for or against this particular proposal. After 10 years of sacrifices, we still have ground to make up, and we’re hopeful to do so by resuming negotiations promptly. This is workplace democracy – and also clear evidence that there are consequences when a company mistreats its workers year after year. Workers across America know what it’s like for a company to take and take – and Boeing workers are saying they are fully and strongly committed to balancing that out by winning back more of what was taken from them by the company for more than a decade. Ten years of holding workers back unfortunately cannot be undone quickly or easily, but we will continue to negotiate in good faith until we have made gains that workers feel adequately make up for what the company took from them in the past.”

IAM International President Brian Bryant&nbsp;issued the following statement:

“The entire IAM Union, all 600,000 members across North America, stand with our District 751 and W24 membership. Their fight is our fight – and we support their decision to continue this strike for fairness and dignity for Boeing workers.”

33,000 IAM District 751 and W24 members at Boeing in Washington state, Oregon and California are seeking to make up ground for nearly 10 years of stagnant wages and many givebacks that were part of prior negotiations. Their strike will continue and the union said it plans to immediately send new dates for further negotiations to the company.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1727171580133.png" alt="Photo International Association of Machinists &amp; Aerospace Workers" />
 <figcaption>Photo International Association of Machinists &amp; Aerospace Workers</figcaption>
 </figure>SEATTLE&nbsp;– Frontline Boeing workers voted 64% against accepting the latest contract proposal put forth by their employer, according to a media release from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.Jon Holden, President of IAM District 751 and Brandon Bryant, President of IAM District W24, issued the following joint statement following the votes being tallied:“The elected negotiating committee of workers did not recommend for or against this particular proposal. After 10 years of sacrifices, we still have ground to make up, and we’re hopeful to do so by resuming negotiations promptly. This is workplace democracy – and also clear evidence that there are consequences when a company mistreats its workers year after year. Workers across America know what it’s like for a company to take and take – and Boeing workers are saying they are fully and strongly committed to balancing that out by winning back more of what was taken from them by the company for more than a decade. Ten years of holding workers back unfortunately cannot be undone quickly or easily, but we will continue to negotiate in good faith until we have made gains that workers feel adequately make up for what the company took from them in the past.”IAM International President Brian Bryant&nbsp;issued the following statement:“The entire IAM Union, all 600,000 members across North America, stand with our District 751 and W24 membership. Their fight is our fight – and we support their decision to continue this strike for fairness and dignity for Boeing workers.”33,000 IAM District 751 and W24 members at Boeing in Washington state, Oregon and California are seeking to make up ground for nearly 10 years of stagnant wages and many givebacks that were part of prior negotiations. Their strike will continue and the union said it plans to immediately send new dates for further negotiations to the company.

Boeing workers reject new labor contract, extending strike

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/10/23/gov-pillen-abortion-rights-campaign-clash-over-ectopic-pregnancies-miscarriages-and-abortion/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — Gov. Jim Pillen spent Tuesday seeking to explain how Nebraska physicians should care for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages while wading into the waters of competing abortion-related ballot measures.

Pillen did not directly refer to either ballot measure at a news conference he held with four medical providers, Lt. Gov. Joe Kelly and the state chief medical officer. State law prohibits elected officials from directly using state resources for campaigning. Pillen held his press conference in the governor’s hearing room at the State Capitol.&nbsp;

But the group made clear they were speaking against a “political agenda for abortion.”&nbsp;

They said they were seeking to fight “misinformation” about ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, but they repeatedly declined to specify where they had heard the “misinformation” other than “in media” and “on TV.”

Ads promoting the abortion-rights ballot issue offered by Protect Our Rights feature doctors who say Nebraska patients struggle to get certain types of care for nonviable pregnancies or in emergency situations.&nbsp;

“To be clear, crystal clear, under&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Final/LB574.pdf" target="_blank">current law</a>, a woman in Nebraska can obtain care for miscarriage throughout her entire pregnancy,” Pillen said. “It is unconscionable for anyone to claim otherwise.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

Nebraska is the first state nationally where voters will weigh&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/10/15/hearings-on-competing-nebraska-abortion-initiatives-mirror-campaign/">two competing abortion-related constitutional amendments</a>&nbsp;this general election:

Both campaigns have spent millions in advertising.

Sponsors and backers of the abortion-rights constitutional amendment, from Protect Our Rights, said the timing of Pillen’s news conference seemed “absolutely intentional.” In a statement, the campaign derided the event as “desperate misleading propaganda.”

Dr. Emily Patel, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Omaha, was one of four medical providers who took part in a counter event later Tuesday organized by Protect Our Rights.

Patel said pregnancy is a high-risk condition that can threaten the life of expecting mothers, cause infertility or lead to death.

Patel told the Nebraska Examiner that Pillen’s event raised multiple “red flags” by focusing on current law without specifying where the “misinformation” came from. She said she and other supporters of the abortion-rights ballot measure have spent their own time combating information about their campaign.

“Being truthful with patients, to me, means giving them all the options that are available to them,” Patel said.&nbsp;

Dr. Catherine Brooks, a neonatologist who supports the abortion restrictions amendment by Protect Women and Children, said “fetal viability” has no clear medical definition and is “a gray area” for providers.

“Women expect precision from their health care professionals, but fetal viability has no precise definition,” Brooks said in a statement. “[Initiative] 439 is not medically acceptable.”

The current 2023 law prohibits most abortions after 12 weeks gestational age, or at the end of the first trimester, during which most abortions are performed.

The current scientific standard for fetal viability is at about 22-24 weeks gestation.

Dr. Timothy Tesmer, the state chief medical officer, said his duty is to ensure that the medical community understands clearly what the law means.

“The confusion is out there,” Tesmer said. “Not only with patients in the public, but also with medical providers.”

Current state law, adopted in 2023, included explicit language protecting treatment of ectopic pregnancies, and Tesmer said most questions he fields from medical providers relate to the exceptions language. He noted that the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services offered&nbsp;<a href="https://dhhs.ne.gov/Documents/TesmerGuidance042723.pdf" target="_blank">guidance</a>&nbsp;on exceptions at least once in spring 2023, when the Legislature was debating a near-total abortion ban.&nbsp;

Tesmer said in vitro fertilization is allowed under current state law.&nbsp;

Lt. Gov. Kelly said the law includes no criminal penalties for doctors, and Tesmer said no Nebraska doctor’s license has been sanctioned or revoked since LB 574 took effect in May 2023.

“If they follow the law and exercise their reasonable medical judgment, there are no adverse consequences to their medical license,” Tesmer said.

Pillen encouraged any Nebraska women who have been told by a medical professional that they can’t receive care for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies to reach out to DHHS.

Tesmer said he has heard no complaints from women about access to care. If physicians have questions, he said they should reach out to their legal representatives or to DHHS.

Patel said Tesmer’s answer illuminated some of the concern doctors are feeling. She said asking for legal advice could delay care.

“At 2 a.m. on a Sunday, that’s not the kind of situation that you want your doctor to be in when you’re in a life-threatening situation,” Patel said.

Dr. Elizabeth Constance, a reproductive endocrinologist in Omaha, said the governor’s news conference often conflated care for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies with treatment for patients with non-viable pregnancies.

“There is no confusion about whether this [miscarriages] can be managed,” Constance said.

Constance said if voters adopt the abortion-restrictions ballot measure offered by Protect Women and Children, there would be no way later to add other&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/22/i-made-a-mistake-lawmaker-who-sank-nebraskas-near-total-abortion-ban-seeks-changes/">exceptions</a>. That could include&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/lawmaker-reviewing-options-after-proposal-stalls-to-amend-nebraska-abortion-ban/">lethal fetal anomalies</a>, or conditions that physicians decide will result in an infant’s death at or shortly after birth.

Tesmer said he would leave any decision on fetal anomalies to the Legislature.

Kimberly Paseka of Lincoln took part in the event supporting the abortion-rights measure and is appearing in ads for Protect Our Rights.

Paseka said Tuesday she miscarried early on in her first pregnancy and had a tough second pregnancy before giving birth to a healthy boy in 2021. Then last year, she was pregnant for a third time, and while she said she was fearful after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Paseka and her husband, hoped for the best.

Partway through her pregnancy, facing a diminishing fetal heartbeat, Paseka’s doctor sent her home for “expectant management,” meaning her condition would be closely monitored,without providing treatment, unless symptoms changed.

By then Paseka’s pregnancy was past the 12-week abortion limit. She said her doctor didn’t act because of confusion over LB 574. She described having intense pain and contractions that took a heavy toll on her mental and physical state, until she lost her baby at home.

“The tough part was knowing that my health wasn’t in immediate danger, but I had to wait for death to happen inside me,” Paseka said.

“I use the term ‘like a walking coffin,’ and I don’t know how to explain it any better than that, that it’s just waiting,” Paseka continued. “You’re just, you know death is happening, but there’s nothing you can do about it.”

In her fourth pregnancy, Paseka said, she got an abortion after facing complications early on, which she said gave a sense of control over her own care.

The physicians who joined Pillen said they have been with women in their worst moments but feared that some of the rhetoric being used in the current political campaigns would discourage some women from seeking care.

For example, Dr. Richard Wurtz, a family medicine doctor with a specialty in obstetrics, said when faced with challenging medical situations, physicians “step up to the plate” and “rise to the challenge.”

He said current law ensures that life is respected and that women get proper care.

“Anyone who says this is not the case is not telling you the truth,” Wurtz said. “This is predicated on sound medical practice and on sound law.”

The physicians with Protect Our Rights said other more restrictive laws nationwide have harmed women or access to IVF. They said they oppose any impediment to care.

Patel said physicians will support patients no matter what path they choose.

“I think it’s really important for people to understand that we are not pushing a patient toward a termination or an abortion,” Patel said. “We are simply providing them with that option because that is what our standard of care is as obstetricians.”

Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/10/23/gov-pillen-abortion-rights-campaign-clash-over-ectopic-pregnancies-miscarriages-and-abortion/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — Gov. Jim Pillen spent Tuesday seeking to explain how Nebraska physicians should care for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages while wading into the waters of competing abortion-related ballot measures.Pillen did not directly refer to either ballot measure at a news conference he held with four medical providers, Lt. Gov. Joe Kelly and the state chief medical officer. State law prohibits elected officials from directly using state resources for campaigning. Pillen held his press conference in the governor’s hearing room at the State Capitol.&nbsp;But the group made clear they were speaking against a “political agenda for abortion.”&nbsp;They said they were seeking to fight “misinformation” about ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, but they repeatedly declined to specify where they had heard the “misinformation” other than “in media” and “on TV.”Ads promoting the abortion-rights ballot issue offered by Protect Our Rights feature doctors who say Nebraska patients struggle to get certain types of care for nonviable pregnancies or in emergency situations.&nbsp;“To be clear, crystal clear, under&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Final/LB574.pdf" target="_blank">current law</a>, a woman in Nebraska can obtain care for miscarriage throughout her entire pregnancy,” Pillen said. “It is unconscionable for anyone to claim otherwise.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Nebraska is the first state nationally where voters will weigh&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/10/15/hearings-on-competing-nebraska-abortion-initiatives-mirror-campaign/">two competing abortion-related constitutional amendments</a>&nbsp;this general election:<ul>
 <li>Initiative Measure 434, offered by Protect Women and Children, seeks to prohibit most abortions after the first trimester.</li><li>Initiative Measure 439, offered by Protect Our Rights, seeks to allow abortions up to the point of fetal viability, as determined by the treating health care provider.</li>
 </ul>Both campaigns have spent millions in advertising.<h2>‘Desperate misleading propaganda’</h2>Sponsors and backers of the abortion-rights constitutional amendment, from Protect Our Rights, said the timing of Pillen’s news conference seemed “absolutely intentional.” In a statement, the campaign derided the event as “desperate misleading propaganda.”Dr. Emily Patel, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Omaha, was one of four medical providers who took part in a counter event later Tuesday organized by Protect Our Rights.Patel said pregnancy is a high-risk condition that can threaten the life of expecting mothers, cause infertility or lead to death.Patel told the Nebraska Examiner that Pillen’s event raised multiple “red flags” by focusing on current law without specifying where the “misinformation” came from. She said she and other supporters of the abortion-rights ballot measure have spent their own time combating information about their campaign.“Being truthful with patients, to me, means giving them all the options that are available to them,” Patel said.&nbsp;Dr. Catherine Brooks, a neonatologist who supports the abortion restrictions amendment by Protect Women and Children, said “fetal viability” has no clear medical definition and is “a gray area” for providers.“Women expect precision from their health care professionals, but fetal viability has no precise definition,” Brooks said in a statement. “[Initiative] 439 is not medically acceptable.”The current 2023 law prohibits most abortions after 12 weeks gestational age, or at the end of the first trimester, during which most abortions are performed.The current scientific standard for fetal viability is at about 22-24 weeks gestation.<h2>‘The confusion is out there’</h2>Dr. Timothy Tesmer, the state chief medical officer, said his duty is to ensure that the medical community understands clearly what the law means.“The confusion is out there,” Tesmer said. “Not only with patients in the public, but also with medical providers.”Current state law, adopted in 2023, included explicit language protecting treatment of ectopic pregnancies, and Tesmer said most questions he fields from medical providers relate to the exceptions language. He noted that the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services offered&nbsp;<a href="https://dhhs.ne.gov/Documents/TesmerGuidance042723.pdf" target="_blank">guidance</a>&nbsp;on exceptions at least once in spring 2023, when the Legislature was debating a near-total abortion ban.&nbsp;Tesmer said in vitro fertilization is allowed under current state law.&nbsp;Lt. Gov. Kelly said the law includes no criminal penalties for doctors, and Tesmer said no Nebraska doctor’s license has been sanctioned or revoked since LB 574 took effect in May 2023.“If they follow the law and exercise their reasonable medical judgment, there are no adverse consequences to their medical license,” Tesmer said.Pillen encouraged any Nebraska women who have been told by a medical professional that they can’t receive care for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies to reach out to DHHS.Tesmer said he has heard no complaints from women about access to care. If physicians have questions, he said they should reach out to their legal representatives or to DHHS.<h2>Possible delays in care?</h2>Patel said Tesmer’s answer illuminated some of the concern doctors are feeling. She said asking for legal advice could delay care.“At 2 a.m. on a Sunday, that’s not the kind of situation that you want your doctor to be in when you’re in a life-threatening situation,” Patel said.Dr. Elizabeth Constance, a reproductive endocrinologist in Omaha, said the governor’s news conference often conflated care for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies with treatment for patients with non-viable pregnancies.“There is no confusion about whether this [miscarriages] can be managed,” Constance said.Constance said if voters adopt the abortion-restrictions ballot measure offered by Protect Women and Children, there would be no way later to add other&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/22/i-made-a-mistake-lawmaker-who-sank-nebraskas-near-total-abortion-ban-seeks-changes/">exceptions</a>. That could include&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/lawmaker-reviewing-options-after-proposal-stalls-to-amend-nebraska-abortion-ban/">lethal fetal anomalies</a>, or conditions that physicians decide will result in an infant’s death at or shortly after birth.Tesmer said he would leave any decision on fetal anomalies to the Legislature.<h2>‘A walking coffin’</h2>Kimberly Paseka of Lincoln took part in the event supporting the abortion-rights measure and is appearing in ads for Protect Our Rights.Paseka said Tuesday she miscarried early on in her first pregnancy and had a tough second pregnancy before giving birth to a healthy boy in 2021. Then last year, she was pregnant for a third time, and while she said she was fearful after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Paseka and her husband, hoped for the best.Partway through her pregnancy, facing a diminishing fetal heartbeat, Paseka’s doctor sent her home for “expectant management,” meaning her condition would be closely monitored,without providing treatment, unless symptoms changed.By then Paseka’s pregnancy was past the 12-week abortion limit. She said her doctor didn’t act because of confusion over LB 574. She described having intense pain and contractions that took a heavy toll on her mental and physical state, until she lost her baby at home.“The tough part was knowing that my health wasn’t in immediate danger, but I had to wait for death to happen inside me,” Paseka said.“I use the term ‘like a walking coffin,’ and I don’t know how to explain it any better than that, that it’s just waiting,” Paseka continued. “You’re just, you know death is happening, but there’s nothing you can do about it.”In her fourth pregnancy, Paseka said, she got an abortion after facing complications early on, which she said gave a sense of control over her own care.<h2>The standards of care</h2>The physicians who joined Pillen said they have been with women in their worst moments but feared that some of the rhetoric being used in the current political campaigns would discourage some women from seeking care.For example, Dr. Richard Wurtz, a family medicine doctor with a specialty in obstetrics, said when faced with challenging medical situations, physicians “step up to the plate” and “rise to the challenge.”He said current law ensures that life is respected and that women get proper care.“Anyone who says this is not the case is not telling you the truth,” Wurtz said. “This is predicated on sound medical practice and on sound law.”The physicians with Protect Our Rights said other more restrictive laws nationwide have harmed women or access to IVF. They said they oppose any impediment to care.Patel said physicians will support patients no matter what path they choose.“I think it’s really important for people to understand that we are not pushing a patient toward a termination or an abortion,” Patel said. “We are simply providing them with that option because that is what our standard of care is as obstetricians.”

Gov. Pillen, abortion-rights campaign clash over ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and abortion

Maywood, Neb.- A school administrator with Maywood Public Schools has been arrested and charged with child abuse according to officials.&nbsp;

According to the Frontier County Sheriff's Office (FCSO), the department was made aware of an incident that occurred at Maywood Public Schools between the administrator and a 12-year-old student which was caught on the school's surveillance camera. The incident occurred on October 1st.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The administrator was identified as Mark Bejot, the superintendent for Maywood Public Schools. FCSO says after the investigation, the Nebraska Attorney General's Office filed a criminal complaint against Bejot for child abuse not resulting in serious bodily injury, a class 3A felony. Bejot is set to appear in court on November 1st.&nbsp;

&nbsp;The investigation is ongoing and if anyone has any information is encouraged to contact the Frontier County Sheriff's Office at 308-367-4411.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/5/1716320706146.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Maywood, Neb.- A school administrator with Maywood Public Schools has been arrested and charged with child abuse according to officials.&nbsp;According to the Frontier County Sheriff's Office (FCSO), the department was made aware of an incident that occurred at Maywood Public Schools between the administrator and a 12-year-old student which was caught on the school's surveillance camera. The incident occurred on October 1st.&nbsp;&nbsp;The administrator was identified as Mark Bejot, the superintendent for Maywood Public Schools. FCSO says after the investigation, the Nebraska Attorney General's Office filed a criminal complaint against Bejot for child abuse not resulting in serious bodily injury, a class 3A felony. Bejot is set to appear in court on November 1st.&nbsp;&nbsp;The investigation is ongoing and if anyone has any information is encouraged to contact the Frontier County Sheriff's Office at 308-367-4411.

Southwest Nebraska School Superintendent arrested and charged with child abuse

This is one in a series of States Newsroom reports on the major policy issues in the presidential race.

WASHINGTON — Democrats have increasingly cried out for new rules for the nation’s highest court, and the 2024 presidential election reflects a clear party divide over how Supreme Court justices should behave and whether they should remain on the bench for life.

The erasure of a nearly 50-year-old national right to abortion, the granting of wide latitude for former presidents to escape criminal accountability and several ethics scandals magnified these questions. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are giving voters very different answers.

Harris’&nbsp;<a href="https://kamalaharris.com/issues/" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;calls for “common-sense” reforms that include term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code that mirrors the rules that apply to lower federal judges.

When President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/biden-urges-term-limits-us-supreme-court-justices-new-ethics-rules" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;his proposals for Supreme Court ethics reform roughly one week after dropping his bid for reelection, Harris issued a statement reinforcing the need to “restore confidence” in the court.

“That is why President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms — from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House,” she said.

While Harris’ campaign did not provide additional details on her platform, Harris has a record of supporting such measures. As a senator in 2019, Harris co-sponsored a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/393?s=4&amp;r=476" target="_blank">bill</a>&nbsp;to enforce a uniform ethics code at every level of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.

When asked for comment about Trump’s stance on enforceable ethics rules or term limits at the Supreme Court, Trump campaign Senior Advisor Brian Hughes responded: “President Trump has said that, apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make. As president, he appointed constitutionalist judges who interpret the law as written, and he will do so again when voters send him back to the White House.”

The former president has made his opposition to change known on social media.

Nearly two weeks before Biden’s speech in July to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/" target="_blank">roll out</a>&nbsp;his ideas for improving the court, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112798594310559815" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;on Truth Social that the “Radical Left Democrats are desperately trying to ‘Play the Ref’ by calling for an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court.”

“The reason that these Communists are so despondent is that their unLawful Witch Hunts are failing everywhere. The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court. We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country. MAGA2024!” he continued, randomly capitalizing words as he often does.

The Republican National Committee stated in its&nbsp;<a href="https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/?_gl=1*1rfs4mg*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3Mjc3MDk0MDAuQ2owS0NRandtT20zQmhDOEFSSXNBT1NiYXBWZlV5WUV5Z0VCSlVrdS1UUFhsSzlBdFlzU1d0cUxVSEJ6Y0dNaEEyaFNrR2NsTm5GOU9TNGFBamVlRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*MTc2MjY5MTQ3Ny4xNzI1Mzc2OTQwLjg5MTAzNzIyNy4xNzI4Mzk4NzIwLjE3MjgzOTg5MDQ.&amp;_ga=2.5949424.2129307976.1729440058-1161412080.1725376940&amp;_gac=1.186981850.1727709400.Cj0KCQjwmOm3BhC8ARIsAOSbapVfUyYEygEBJUku-TPXlK9AtYsSWtqLUHBzcGMhA2hSkGclNnF9OS4aAjeeEALw_wcB" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;that the party unequivocally opposes any changes to the number of Supreme Court justices.

“We will maintain the Supreme Court as it was always meant to be, at 9 Justices. We will not allow the Democrat Party to increase this number, as they would like to do, by 4, 6, 8, 10, and even 12 Justices. We will block them at every turn.”

At the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct. 15, Trump appeared to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?539131-1/president-trump-interview-economic-club-chicago" target="_blank">accuse</a>&nbsp;Democrats of wanting to add up to 25 new justices to the Supreme Court bench.

Harris’ 2024 campaign position on the Supreme Court does not include a plan to change the number of justices. During her 2020 presidential run, Harris expressed an openness to expanding the court, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/31/harris-biden-supreme-court-reform-00172010?is_magic_link=true&amp;template_id=OTJIR2CRKUD6&amp;template_variant_id=OTVPXN5JGTYRX" target="_blank">Politico</a>&nbsp;and other reports. Biden, at the time, remained&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/NewsHour/status/1320842408549093378" target="_blank">opposed</a>&nbsp;to changes, including justice term limits.

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>This is one in a series of States Newsroom reports on the major policy issues in the presidential race.WASHINGTON — Democrats have increasingly cried out for new rules for the nation’s highest court, and the 2024 presidential election reflects a clear party divide over how Supreme Court justices should behave and whether they should remain on the bench for life.The erasure of a nearly 50-year-old national right to abortion, the granting of wide latitude for former presidents to escape criminal accountability and several ethics scandals magnified these questions. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are giving voters very different answers.Harris’&nbsp;<a href="https://kamalaharris.com/issues/" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;calls for “common-sense” reforms that include term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code that mirrors the rules that apply to lower federal judges.When President Joe Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/biden-urges-term-limits-us-supreme-court-justices-new-ethics-rules" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;his proposals for Supreme Court ethics reform roughly one week after dropping his bid for reelection, Harris issued a statement reinforcing the need to “restore confidence” in the court.“That is why President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms — from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House,” she said.While Harris’ campaign did not provide additional details on her platform, Harris has a record of supporting such measures. As a senator in 2019, Harris co-sponsored a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/393?s=4&amp;r=476" target="_blank">bill</a>&nbsp;to enforce a uniform ethics code at every level of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.<h2>Trump position</h2>When asked for comment about Trump’s stance on enforceable ethics rules or term limits at the Supreme Court, Trump campaign Senior Advisor Brian Hughes responded: “President Trump has said that, apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make. As president, he appointed constitutionalist judges who interpret the law as written, and he will do so again when voters send him back to the White House.”The former president has made his opposition to change known on social media.Nearly two weeks before Biden’s speech in July to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/" target="_blank">roll out</a>&nbsp;his ideas for improving the court, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112798594310559815" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;on Truth Social that the “Radical Left Democrats are desperately trying to ‘Play the Ref’ by calling for an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court.”“The reason that these Communists are so despondent is that their unLawful Witch Hunts are failing everywhere. The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court. We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country. MAGA2024!” he continued, randomly capitalizing words as he often does.The Republican National Committee stated in its&nbsp;<a href="https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/?_gl=1*1rfs4mg*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3Mjc3MDk0MDAuQ2owS0NRandtT20zQmhDOEFSSXNBT1NiYXBWZlV5WUV5Z0VCSlVrdS1UUFhsSzlBdFlzU1d0cUxVSEJ6Y0dNaEEyaFNrR2NsTm5GOU9TNGFBamVlRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*MTc2MjY5MTQ3Ny4xNzI1Mzc2OTQwLjg5MTAzNzIyNy4xNzI4Mzk4NzIwLjE3MjgzOTg5MDQ.&amp;_ga=2.5949424.2129307976.1729440058-1161412080.1725376940&amp;_gac=1.186981850.1727709400.Cj0KCQjwmOm3BhC8ARIsAOSbapVfUyYEygEBJUku-TPXlK9AtYsSWtqLUHBzcGMhA2hSkGclNnF9OS4aAjeeEALw_wcB" target="_blank">platform</a>&nbsp;that the party unequivocally opposes any changes to the number of Supreme Court justices.“We will maintain the Supreme Court as it was always meant to be, at 9 Justices. We will not allow the Democrat Party to increase this number, as they would like to do, by 4, 6, 8, 10, and even 12 Justices. We will block them at every turn.”At the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct. 15, Trump appeared to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?539131-1/president-trump-interview-economic-club-chicago" target="_blank">accuse</a>&nbsp;Democrats of wanting to add up to 25 new justices to the Supreme Court bench.Harris’ 2024 campaign position on the Supreme Court does not include a plan to change the number of justices. During her 2020 presidential run, Harris expressed an openness to expanding the court, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/31/harris-biden-supreme-court-reform-00172010?is_magic_link=true&amp;template_id=OTJIR2CRKUD6&amp;template_variant_id=OTVPXN5JGTYRX" target="_blank">Politico</a>&nbsp;and other reports. Biden, at the time, remained&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/NewsHour/status/1320842408549093378" target="_blank">opposed</a>&nbsp;to changes, including justice term limits.<h2>Immunity ruling</h2>When Trump was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fueled-lies-trump-charged-seeking-overturn-2020-election-6" target="_blank">charged</a>&nbsp;with federal fraud and obstruction crimes for his attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results, he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-pause-federal-trial-over-presidential-immunity-question" target="_blank">escalated</a>&nbsp;his appeal for presidential immunity all the way to the Supreme Court.On July 1, the justices issued a 6-3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>&nbsp;granting former presidents criminal immunity for “core constitutional” duties and presumptive immunity for actions on the “outer perimeter” of official duties, but none for unofficial, personal acts.Two of the justices who joined the conservative majority ruling — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were Trump appointees. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also appointed during Trump’s time in the Oval Office, joined them, concurring in part.Trump’s case was delayed for the better part of 2024, tied up in the high court process as he campaigned for a second presidency. The delay ultimately closed the door on a trial before November’s election.The high-profile case not only highlighted the fact that Trump was being judged by his own appointees, but also that two other justices had been recently exposed in ethics scandals involving Republican donors and appearing to show support for Trump’s false claims that he won the 2020 election.In April 2023, ProPublica&nbsp;<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow" target="_blank">uncovered</a>&nbsp;that Justice Clarence Thomas had been accepting luxury travel and other big ticket gifts from Republican billionaire donor Harlan Crow.In May of this year, the New York Times&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html" target="_blank">published</a>&nbsp;photos of an upside-down American flag flying outside the home of Justice Samuel Alito following the violent riot by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The upside-down flag, a general symbol of protest, had been adopted by Trump supporters who believed the 2020 election was stolen.All parties have denied any wrongdoing, and Alito&nbsp;<a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20from%20Justice%20Alito%20to%20Senators%20Durbin%20and%20Whitehouse.pdf" target="_blank">declined</a>&nbsp;to recuse himself from Trump’s 2020 election subversion case, and another&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/divided-us-supreme-court-wrestles-case-pennsylvania-man-who-joined-jan-6-mob" target="_blank">case</a>&nbsp;brought by a Jan. 6 defendant.<h2>The call for a new ethics code</h2>While the Thomas and Alito scandals attracted the most attention, observers of the court say many of the justices’ actions raise ethics questions.Gabe Roth, founder of the nonpartisan nonprofit Fix the Court, said “no justice has totally behaved ethically.”Roth cited transgressions by both conservative and liberal justices: socializing with litigants who argue before the court, the use of government resources to promote a personal book and instances of justices not recusing themselves from cases in which they appear to have a stake.“It hasn’t been to the scale of the things that ProPublica uncovered, but no justice is fully pure when it comes to ethics issues, which is not to say that they’re all corrupt or they’re all compromised by any means. It’s just more, to me, a fact that the whole institution needs to focus more on ethical leadership,” Roth said.ProPublica&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/propublica-work-joshua-kaplan-justin-elliott-brett-murphy-alex-mierjeski-and-kirsten-berg" target="_blank">published</a>&nbsp;numerous stories in 2023 detailing gifts Thomas never disclosed, as well as a luxury fishing expedition Alito took with a Republican billionaire who argued before the court.The Supreme Court currently polices itself with its own&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf" target="_blank">code</a>&nbsp;of conduct and maintains justices already follow rules that apply to lower federal judges.Congressional Democrats have introduced several bills aiming to impose ethics rules on the justices and limit life-time appointments, for example to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4423/text?s=1&amp;r=1&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22supreme+court+term+limits%22%7D" target="_blank">18 years</a>.A bill led by Senate Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ethics-rules-supreme-court-justices-approved-party-line-vote-us-senate-panel" target="_blank">passed</a>&nbsp;the Democratic-led Senate Committee on the Judiciary in July 2023.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/359/text?s=1&amp;r=4&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22supreme+court+ethics%22%5D%7D" target="_blank">legislation</a>&nbsp;aimed to mandate an enforceable ethics code, tighten recusal and gift disclosure requirements, and establish a complaints process similar to that of the lower courts.An&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1djxXNlOjOkGZ" target="_blank">attempt</a>&nbsp;at unanimous consent passage on the Senate floor in June was blocked by Senate Judiciary’s top Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.“Let’s be clear, this is not about improving the court, this is about undermining the court,” Graham said on the floor.Roth said no matter who wins the presidency and which party takes control of the Senate, the longtime fight for an ethics overhaul and term limits at the high court will continue — and that it shouldn’t be partisan.“If they’re done right, it doesn’t favor one party or another or one ideology or another. It’s a bit weird that one side is saying they don’t love ethics right now,” Roth continued. “I don’t get it.”