WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden “willfully” retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen, including documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other sensitive national security matters, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Justice Department report</a>&nbsp;that nonetheless says no criminal charges are warranted for him or anyone else.

<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Click here to read </a>the special council report

The report from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-hur">special counsel Robert Hur</a>, released Thursday, represents a harshly critical assessment of Biden’s handling of sensitive government materials, but also details the reasons why he should not be charged with the crime.

The findings will likely blunt his ability to forcefully condemn Donald Trump, Biden's likely opponent in November's presidential election, over a criminal indictment charging the former president with illegally hoarding classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," Hur wrote.

Hur’s report says evidence suggests that many of the classified documents recovered by investigators at the Penn Biden Center, in parts of Biden’s Delaware home, and in his Senate papers at the University of Delaware were retained by “mistake.”

Biden said in a statement that he was “pleased” the special counsel had “reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach — that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.”

He made a point of saying that he sat for five hours of in-person interviews over two days on Oct. 8 and 9, “even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis."

“I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed,” Biden said.

The report comes after a yearlong investigation into the improper retention of classified documents by Biden, from his time as a senator and as vice president, that were found at his Delaware home, as well as at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.

The investigation into Biden is separate from special counsel Jack Smith’s inquiry into the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-37a360519244eb3c211a56cd9355adc8">handling of classified documents by Trump</a>&nbsp;after Trump left the White House. Smith’s team has charged Trump with illegally retaining top secret records at Mar-a-Lago home and then obstructing government efforts to get them back. Trump has said he did nothing wrong.

After Biden's lawyers uncovered classified documents at his former office, Biden's representatives promptly contacted the National Archives to arrange their return to the government. The National Archives notified the FBI, which opened an investigation. Biden made his homes available to agents to conduct thorough searches, and that is how the most sensitive documents came to the attention of the Justice Department.

Hur assessed that the evidence did not support that Biden willfully retained some of the classified documents that were recovered — including the ones at the Penn Biden Center that sparked the probe.

Biden could not have been prosecuted as a sitting president, but Hur’s report states that he would not recommend charges against Biden regardless.

“We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president,” the report said.

Part of the report centers on Biden’s handling of classified documents about Afghanistan — specifically, the Obama administration’s decision to send additional troops there — that he retained after he left office as vice president in his Delaware home. Biden preserved materials documenting his opposition to the troop surge, including a 2009 classified handwritten memo to then-President Barack Obama.

“These materials were proof of the stand Mr. Biden took in what he regarded as among the most important decisions of his vice presidency,” the report said.

The documents have classification markings up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information Level and were found in a box in Biden’s Delaware garage “that contained other materials of great significance to him and that he appears to have personally used and accessed.”

Photographs included in the report showed some of the classified Afghanistan documents stored in a worn cardboard box stored in his garage, apparently in a loose collection with other household items, including a ladder and a wicker basket.

Classified documents from the Obama administration were also found in Biden’s basement den, according to the report. Classified documents from his time in the Senate in the 1970s and 1980s were also found in his garage.

Despite signs that Biden knowingly retained and disclosed classified materials, Hur’s report said criminal charges were not merited for multiple reasons. Those include the fact that as vice president, and during his subsequent presidency when the Afghanistan records were found, “he had the authority to keep classified documents at his home.”

As part of the probe, investigators reviewed a recording of a February 2017 conversation between Biden and his ghostwriter in which, referring to the 2009 memo to Obama, Biden said that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Biden was renting a home in Virginia at the time and consolidated his belongings in Delaware when he moved out in 2019. Prosecutors believe that Biden’s comment was a reference to the same classified records that FBI agents later found in his Delaware home.

Though the best case for charges could involve his possession of the Afghanistan documents as a private citizen, prosecutors said, it was possible that Biden could have found those records at his Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after.

“This could convince some reasonable jurors that he did not retain them willfully,” the report.

The report said there was some evidence to suggest that Biden knew he could not keep classified handwritten notes at home after leaving office, citing his deep familiarity “with the measures taken to safeguard classified information and the need for those measures to prevent harm to national security.” Yet his kept notebooks containing classified information in unlocked drawers at home.

“He had strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules for properly handing the classified information in his notebooks,” the report said. “He consulted the notebooks liberally during hours of discussions with his ghostwriter and viewed them as highly private and valued possessions with which he was unwilling to part.”

While the report removes legal jeopardy for the president, it is nonetheless is an embarrassment for Biden, who placed competency and experience at the core of his rationale to voters to send him to the Oval Office.

“Mr. Biden was known to remove and keep classified material from his briefing books for future use, and his staff struggled — and sometimes failed — to retrieve those materials,” the report states. “And there was no procedure at all for tracking some of the classified material Mr. Biden received outside of his briefing books”

In declining to prosecute Biden, Hur’s office also cited what it said was Biden’s “limited memory” both during his 2017 recorded conversations with the ghostwriter and in an interview with investigators last year.

“Given Mr. Biden’s limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghostwriter and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence.”

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” investigators wrote.

There is recent Justice Department precedence for criminal charges against individuals accused of sharing classified information with biographers or ghostwriters. Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to doing exactly that in 2015 and was sentenced to probation.

Yet in this instance, prosecutors say, Biden could have plausibly believed that the notebooks were his personal property and belonged to him, even if they contained classified information.

In an interview with prosecutors, the report said, Biden was emphatic with investigators that the notebooks were “my property” and that “every president before me has done the exact same thing.”

White House lawyer Richard Sauber said Biden takes classified information seriously and “strives to protect it,” but making mistakes when packing documents at the end of an administration can be a common occurrence, as the report noted.

“We disagree with a number of inaccurate and inappropriate comments in the special counsel’s report. Nonetheless, the most important decision the special counsel made — that no charges are warranted — is firmly based on the facts and evidence,” Sauber said.

Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer accused the special counsel of violating “well-established’ norms and “trashing” the president.

“The special counsel could not refrain from investigative excess, perhaps unsurprising given the intense pressures of the current political environment. Whatever the impact of those pressures on the final report, it flouts department regulations and norms,” he said in a statement.

Trump responded to the report in a statement as he traveled to Nevada for Thursday evening’s Republican caucuses. “THIS IS A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE!” he said in a statement, claiming the Biden case was “100 times different and more severe than mine.”

“I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal - He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them,” Trump added, once again claiming “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”

White House lawyers and Biden’s personal attorney were given the opportunity to review and comment on the report. Biden chose not to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report, White House counsel’s office spokesman Ian Sams said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707437029020.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden “willfully” retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen, including documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other sensitive national security matters, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Justice Department report</a>&nbsp;that nonetheless says no criminal charges are warranted for him or anyone else.<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Click here to read </a>the special council reportThe report from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-hur">special counsel Robert Hur</a>, released Thursday, represents a harshly critical assessment of Biden’s handling of sensitive government materials, but also details the reasons why he should not be charged with the crime.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1673546739694.png" alt="Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>The findings will likely blunt his ability to forcefully condemn Donald Trump, Biden's likely opponent in November's presidential election, over a criminal indictment charging the former president with illegally hoarding classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," Hur wrote.Hur’s report says evidence suggests that many of the classified documents recovered by investigators at the Penn Biden Center, in parts of Biden’s Delaware home, and in his Senate papers at the University of Delaware were retained by “mistake.”Biden said in a statement that he was “pleased” the special counsel had “reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach — that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.”He made a point of saying that he sat for five hours of in-person interviews over two days on Oct. 8 and 9, “even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis."“I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed,” Biden said.The report comes after a yearlong investigation into the improper retention of classified documents by Biden, from his time as a senator and as vice president, that were found at his Delaware home, as well as at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.The investigation into Biden is separate from special counsel Jack Smith’s inquiry into the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-37a360519244eb3c211a56cd9355adc8">handling of classified documents by Trump</a>&nbsp;after Trump left the White House. Smith’s team has charged Trump with illegally retaining top secret records at Mar-a-Lago home and then obstructing government efforts to get them back. Trump has said he did nothing wrong.After Biden's lawyers uncovered classified documents at his former office, Biden's representatives promptly contacted the National Archives to arrange their return to the government. The National Archives notified the FBI, which opened an investigation. Biden made his homes available to agents to conduct thorough searches, and that is how the most sensitive documents came to the attention of the Justice Department.Hur assessed that the evidence did not support that Biden willfully retained some of the classified documents that were recovered — including the ones at the Penn Biden Center that sparked the probe.Biden could not have been prosecuted as a sitting president, but Hur’s report states that he would not recommend charges against Biden regardless.“We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president,” the report said.Part of the report centers on Biden’s handling of classified documents about Afghanistan — specifically, the Obama administration’s decision to send additional troops there — that he retained after he left office as vice president in his Delaware home. Biden preserved materials documenting his opposition to the troop surge, including a 2009 classified handwritten memo to then-President Barack Obama.“These materials were proof of the stand Mr. Biden took in what he regarded as among the most important decisions of his vice presidency,” the report said.The documents have classification markings up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information Level and were found in a box in Biden’s Delaware garage “that contained other materials of great significance to him and that he appears to have personally used and accessed.”Photographs included in the report showed some of the classified Afghanistan documents stored in a worn cardboard box stored in his garage, apparently in a loose collection with other household items, including a ladder and a wicker basket.Classified documents from the Obama administration were also found in Biden’s basement den, according to the report. Classified documents from his time in the Senate in the 1970s and 1980s were also found in his garage.Despite signs that Biden knowingly retained and disclosed classified materials, Hur’s report said criminal charges were not merited for multiple reasons. Those include the fact that as vice president, and during his subsequent presidency when the Afghanistan records were found, “he had the authority to keep classified documents at his home.”As part of the probe, investigators reviewed a recording of a February 2017 conversation between Biden and his ghostwriter in which, referring to the 2009 memo to Obama, Biden said that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Biden was renting a home in Virginia at the time and consolidated his belongings in Delaware when he moved out in 2019. Prosecutors believe that Biden’s comment was a reference to the same classified records that FBI agents later found in his Delaware home.Though the best case for charges could involve his possession of the Afghanistan documents as a private citizen, prosecutors said, it was possible that Biden could have found those records at his Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after.“This could convince some reasonable jurors that he did not retain them willfully,” the report.The report said there was some evidence to suggest that Biden knew he could not keep classified handwritten notes at home after leaving office, citing his deep familiarity “with the measures taken to safeguard classified information and the need for those measures to prevent harm to national security.” Yet his kept notebooks containing classified information in unlocked drawers at home.“He had strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules for properly handing the classified information in his notebooks,” the report said. “He consulted the notebooks liberally during hours of discussions with his ghostwriter and viewed them as highly private and valued possessions with which he was unwilling to part.”While the report removes legal jeopardy for the president, it is nonetheless is an embarrassment for Biden, who placed competency and experience at the core of his rationale to voters to send him to the Oval Office.“Mr. Biden was known to remove and keep classified material from his briefing books for future use, and his staff struggled — and sometimes failed — to retrieve those materials,” the report states. “And there was no procedure at all for tracking some of the classified material Mr. Biden received outside of his briefing books”In declining to prosecute Biden, Hur’s office also cited what it said was Biden’s “limited memory” both during his 2017 recorded conversations with the ghostwriter and in an interview with investigators last year.“Given Mr. Biden’s limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghostwriter and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence.”“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” investigators wrote.There is recent Justice Department precedence for criminal charges against individuals accused of sharing classified information with biographers or ghostwriters. Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to doing exactly that in 2015 and was sentenced to probation.Yet in this instance, prosecutors say, Biden could have plausibly believed that the notebooks were his personal property and belonged to him, even if they contained classified information.In an interview with prosecutors, the report said, Biden was emphatic with investigators that the notebooks were “my property” and that “every president before me has done the exact same thing.”White House lawyer Richard Sauber said Biden takes classified information seriously and “strives to protect it,” but making mistakes when packing documents at the end of an administration can be a common occurrence, as the report noted.“We disagree with a number of inaccurate and inappropriate comments in the special counsel’s report. Nonetheless, the most important decision the special counsel made — that no charges are warranted — is firmly based on the facts and evidence,” Sauber said.Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer accused the special counsel of violating “well-established’ norms and “trashing” the president.“The special counsel could not refrain from investigative excess, perhaps unsurprising given the intense pressures of the current political environment. Whatever the impact of those pressures on the final report, it flouts department regulations and norms,” he said in a statement.Trump responded to the report in a statement as he traveled to Nevada for Thursday evening’s Republican caucuses. “THIS IS A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE!” he said in a statement, claiming the Biden case was “100 times different and more severe than mine.”“I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal - He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them,” Trump added, once again claiming “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”White House lawyers and Biden’s personal attorney were given the opportunity to review and comment on the report. Biden chose not to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report, White House counsel’s office spokesman Ian Sams said.

No charges: Read the special counsel report on Biden, classified  documents

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument

It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

In tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.

The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.

Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.

Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.

Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.

The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.

Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.

The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.

The plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.

They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.

Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.

Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.

One thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.

The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.

Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.

Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.

What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.

Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.

If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.

If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.

What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?

Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.

It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Fmr Pres. Trump: &quot;In watching the Supreme Court today I thought it was a very beautiful process. I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas with the weaponization of politics...&quot; <a href="https://t.co/cFn0Lh7TKk">pic.twitter.com/cFn0Lh7TKk</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1755650525855420441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.Some takeaways from the arguments:TRUMP SEEMS LIKELY STAY ON THE BALLOTIn tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.A WAY OUT?Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.JAN. 6 GETS LITTLE MENTIONThe plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.A DIFFERENT HISTORYOne thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.WHAT'S NEXT?Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

🎥 Trump responds to historic Supreme Court ballot ban hearing 

BLAIR, Neb. (AP) — A man accused of killing a priest in a small Nebraska town pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges on Thursday.

Kierre Williams, 43, of Sioux City, Iowa, also is accused of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, burglary and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His next court date is March 5,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-priest-killed-man-charged-pleads-not-guilty/46684987">KETV-TV</a>&nbsp;reported.

Prosecutors have said there doesn’t appear to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-catholic-priest-killed-gutgsell-e634b68f496074893b58eb45229805ed">any connection</a>&nbsp;between Williams and the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10 inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska.

Williams' attorney has declined to discuss the case.

The priest’s death came four months after another seemingly random home invasion killing in the town of 1,100 and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-priest-woman-killed-community-reacts-896ccd64f049303fb79bc36e08b92d01">shook residents’ confidence</a>&nbsp;in their safety.

At a hearing last month, Washington County Deputy Brady Tucker testified that he found Williams lying crossways on top of Gutgsell, whose face was covered with blood. Williams didn’t have a weapon, but investigators later found a broken knife with a serrated blade lying in a blood stain on the floor of Gutgsell’s bedroom, authorities said.

Williams has several felony convictions in other states.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707420437890.jpeg" alt="FILE - Kierre Williams, right, sits with his attorneys in court, Jan. 3, 2024, in Blair, Neb. Williams of Sioux City, Iowa, pleaded not guilty Thursday, Feb. 8, in the attack that killed the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10, 2023, inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in tiny Fort Calhoun, Neb. (AP Photo/Josh Funk, File)" />
 <figcaption>FILE - Kierre Williams, right, sits with his attorneys in court, Jan. 3, 2024, in Blair, Neb. Williams of Sioux City, Iowa, pleaded not guilty Thursday, Feb. 8, in the attack that killed the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10, 2023, inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in tiny Fort Calhoun, Neb. (AP Photo/Josh Funk, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>Associated PressBLAIR, Neb. (AP) — A man accused of killing a priest in a small Nebraska town pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges on Thursday.Kierre Williams, 43, of Sioux City, Iowa, also is accused of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, burglary and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His next court date is March 5,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-priest-killed-man-charged-pleads-not-guilty/46684987">KETV-TV</a>&nbsp;reported.Prosecutors have said there doesn’t appear to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-catholic-priest-killed-gutgsell-e634b68f496074893b58eb45229805ed">any connection</a>&nbsp;between Williams and the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10 inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska.Williams' attorney has declined to discuss the case.The priest’s death came four months after another seemingly random home invasion killing in the town of 1,100 and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-priest-woman-killed-community-reacts-896ccd64f049303fb79bc36e08b92d01">shook residents’ confidence</a>&nbsp;in their safety.At a hearing last month, Washington County Deputy Brady Tucker testified that he found Williams lying crossways on top of Gutgsell, whose face was covered with blood. Williams didn’t have a weapon, but investigators later found a broken knife with a serrated blade lying in a blood stain on the floor of Gutgsell’s bedroom, authorities said.Williams has several felony convictions in other states.

Man accused of killing a priest in Nebraska pleads not guilty

By Nebraska Department of Agriculture

LINCOLN – The Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) is reminding poultry owners to continue to monitor for and protect their birds against Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). Recently, NDA in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, confirmed a case of HPAI in Nebraska in a commercial flock in Gage County.

“Nebraska hasn’t had any reported cases of HPAI for a few months so while we are disappointed, we are not surprised, to see another case, as there have been several confirmed HPAI cases in surrounding states,” said State Veterinarian Dr. Roger Dudley. “Poultry producers need to continue to be vigilant in protecting their flocks. It’s important for producers to know the signs and symptoms of HPAI and to continue to practice good biosecurity measures to help prevent the spread of this disease into their flocks.”

HPAI is a highly contagious virus that spreads easily among birds through nasal and eye secretions, as well as manure. The virus can be spread in various ways from flock to flock, including by wild birds, through contact with infected poultry, by equipment, and on the clothing and shoes of caretakers. Wild birds can carry the virus without becoming sick, while domesticated birds can become very sick and die.

Symptoms of HPAI in poultry include: a decrease in water consumption; lack of energy and appetite; decreased egg production or soft-shelled, misshapen eggs; nasal discharge, coughing, sneezing; incoordination; and diarrhea. HPAI can also cause sudden death in birds even if they aren’t showing any other symptoms. HPAI can survive for weeks in contaminated environments.

Resources are available for poultry producers at&nbsp;<a href="https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html" target="_blank">https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html</a>. Poultry experiencing signs of HPAI or unusual death should be reported to NDA at 402-471-2351 or the USDA at 866-536-7593.

By Nebraska Department of AgricultureLINCOLN – The Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) is reminding poultry owners to continue to monitor for and protect their birds against Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). Recently, NDA in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, confirmed a case of HPAI in Nebraska in a commercial flock in Gage County.“Nebraska hasn’t had any reported cases of HPAI for a few months so while we are disappointed, we are not surprised, to see another case, as there have been several confirmed HPAI cases in surrounding states,” said State Veterinarian Dr. Roger Dudley. “Poultry producers need to continue to be vigilant in protecting their flocks. It’s important for producers to know the signs and symptoms of HPAI and to continue to practice good biosecurity measures to help prevent the spread of this disease into their flocks.”HPAI is a highly contagious virus that spreads easily among birds through nasal and eye secretions, as well as manure. The virus can be spread in various ways from flock to flock, including by wild birds, through contact with infected poultry, by equipment, and on the clothing and shoes of caretakers. Wild birds can carry the virus without becoming sick, while domesticated birds can become very sick and die.Symptoms of HPAI in poultry include: a decrease in water consumption; lack of energy and appetite; decreased egg production or soft-shelled, misshapen eggs; nasal discharge, coughing, sneezing; incoordination; and diarrhea. HPAI can also cause sudden death in birds even if they aren’t showing any other symptoms. HPAI can survive for weeks in contaminated environments.Resources are available for poultry producers at&nbsp;<a href="https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html" target="_blank">https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html</a>. Poultry experiencing signs of HPAI or unusual death should be reported to NDA at 402-471-2351 or the USDA at 866-536-7593.

Nebraska Poultry producers reminded to stay vigilant after reports of HPAI

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.

Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas.

"It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.

The names of the Marines were not immediately released.

“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”

Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.

The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Update: The five 3rd MAW Marines have been confirmed deceased. “To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time.” -Maj. Gen. Borgschulte, 3rd MAW Commanding General <a href="https://t.co/CBLs2jDKWG">pic.twitter.com/CBLs2jDKWG</a>&mdash; 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (@3rdmaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/3rdmaw/status/1755576079710818351?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas."It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.The names of the Marines were not immediately released.“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

5 Marines aboard helicopter that crashed confirmed dead

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral arguments

In more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”

Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.

In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.

Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”

Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.

Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”

Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.

For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.

A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.

The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.

People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.

The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.

In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.

The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707402813598.png" alt="Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral argumentsIn more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

🎧 Supreme Court sounds broadly skeptical of efforts to kick Trump off ballot 

JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.

CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/12/1701652753204.png" alt="Photo U.S. Central Command" />
 <figcaption>Photo U.S. Central Command</figcaption>
 </figure>JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

U.S. responds to new Iran-backed rebel threats in Red Sea

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.

Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.

The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.

The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.

Trump and other Republicans are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation by noting that it was launched by the Biden Justice Department.

But Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-home-wilmington-33479d12c7cf0a822adb2f44c32b88fd">sought to insulate the department from claims of bias and conflicts of interest by last year appointing Hur</a>, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland during the Trump administration, to handle the Biden investigation and by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutor-donald-trump-garland-e1fdb71cfc258bc2be48a8b890a9269b">naming a different special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee investigations into Trump</a>.

While the Trump investigation resulted in dozens of felony charges against the ex-president last year, the outcome of the Biden probe is expected to be different. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and, unlike in the Trump investigation, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Biden engaged in comparable conduct or willfully held onto records he wasn’t supposed to have.

Even so, the White House's response to the discovery of classified documents early last year was delayed and incomplete.

The White House did not disclose the Justice Department’s investigation until January 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">when it acknowledged the discovery two months earlier</a>&nbsp;of a “small number” of classified documents by Biden lawyers as they closed an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank affiliated with the Ivy League school. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-us-department-justice-a45855907a73acb256bb7c4dd5a91610">has said he was surprised</a>&nbsp;by the initial trove discovered by his lawyers.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-delaware-0827b59ee141b33af95023377713e075">FBI subsequently conducted a 13-hour, top-to-bottom check of his Wilmington, Delaware, home</a>, where agents located documents with classified markings from his time as a vice president and senator and took possession of some of his handwritten notes. Biden’s personal lawyers have also revealed that they had found a document bearing classified markings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0">while searching the Wilmington property</a>&nbsp;but said they had not found others during a separate inspection of his Rehoboth Beach home.

The looming conclusion of the investigation had been foreshadowed last fall when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-justice-4c657c8d19e3b1f232952a266eccc9b6">Biden sat for a voluntary interview</a>&nbsp;at the White House with Hur's team. Interviews of key subjects in an investigation are often done near the end.

Justice Department regulations require Congress to be notified of any investigative steps or proposed actions by a special counsel that were rejected by department leadership. There were no such actions, Garland wrote.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1673546739694.png" alt="Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.Trump and other Republicans are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation by noting that it was launched by the Biden Justice Department.But Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-home-wilmington-33479d12c7cf0a822adb2f44c32b88fd">sought to insulate the department from claims of bias and conflicts of interest by last year appointing Hur</a>, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland during the Trump administration, to handle the Biden investigation and by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutor-donald-trump-garland-e1fdb71cfc258bc2be48a8b890a9269b">naming a different special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee investigations into Trump</a>.While the Trump investigation resulted in dozens of felony charges against the ex-president last year, the outcome of the Biden probe is expected to be different. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and, unlike in the Trump investigation, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Biden engaged in comparable conduct or willfully held onto records he wasn’t supposed to have.Even so, the White House's response to the discovery of classified documents early last year was delayed and incomplete.The White House did not disclose the Justice Department’s investigation until January 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">when it acknowledged the discovery two months earlier</a>&nbsp;of a “small number” of classified documents by Biden lawyers as they closed an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank affiliated with the Ivy League school. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-us-department-justice-a45855907a73acb256bb7c4dd5a91610">has said he was surprised</a>&nbsp;by the initial trove discovered by his lawyers.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-delaware-0827b59ee141b33af95023377713e075">FBI subsequently conducted a 13-hour, top-to-bottom check of his Wilmington, Delaware, home</a>, where agents located documents with classified markings from his time as a vice president and senator and took possession of some of his handwritten notes. Biden’s personal lawyers have also revealed that they had found a document bearing classified markings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0">while searching the Wilmington property</a>&nbsp;but said they had not found others during a separate inspection of his Rehoboth Beach home.The looming conclusion of the investigation had been foreshadowed last fall when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-justice-4c657c8d19e3b1f232952a266eccc9b6">Biden sat for a voluntary interview</a>&nbsp;at the White House with Hur's team. Interviews of key subjects in an investigation are often done near the end.Justice Department regulations require Congress to be notified of any investigative steps or proposed actions by a special counsel that were rejected by department leadership. There were no such actions, Garland wrote.

AG: Special counsel has finished Biden classified documents probe

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/06/passionate-battle-over-school-choice-resumes-in-nebraska-legislature/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — The battle over school choice returned to the State Legislature on Tuesday over a proposal to allocate $25 million a year directly from state coffers to organizations that hand out scholarships to private and parochial schools.

Legislative Bill 1402 would serve as a replacement, according to its sponsor, for the Opportunity Scholarship Act passed last year by state lawmakers — a law that allows taxpayers to divert up to half of their state income taxes to Scholarship Granting Organizations for tuition to private and parochial schools.

That law is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for the public to decide whether to retain or repeal it&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/10/10/public-school-advocates-qualify-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarship-law-for-2024-election/">after 117,000 voters signed petitions</a>&nbsp;to force the vote.

Opponents of this year’s proposal called it an “end run” around the “will of the people,” and a university law professor opined that LB 1402 was most likely unconstitutional.

Scott Norby, an attorney for the Nebraska State Education Association,&nbsp; said last year’s law “does indirectly what LB 1402 does directly — the funding of private schools with public dollars.”

Passing LB 1402 would “preempt” the right of the people to vote on the measure, he said.

“The people have decided to decide that issue,” Norby said.

Rita Bennett, one of the petition circulators, compared it to a kids’ game, in which if you’re losing, you change the rules so you win.

“It says that regardless of what the voters say, we’ll find a way,” she said.

But State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the sponsor of last year’s Opportunity Scholarship law and this year’s LB 1402, called the newest measure “an end run” around a ballot initiative that she said was marred by misinformation and —<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/09/sen-linehans-letter-seeks-to-boot-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarships-off-nebraska-ballot/">&nbsp;as she argued in a recent complaint about the ballot issue</a>&nbsp;— should be removed from the ballot.

“They don’t want the competition, folks. It’s so clear,” Linehan told members of the Appropriations Committee, referring to public schools.

She added that it was her intention that if LB 1402 was passed this year, she would ask that the Opportunity Scholarship Act be repealed by the Legislature, which would serve to render the November vote on the measure moot.

Article VII-11 of the Nebraska Constitution

Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof;

Provided,&nbsp;that the Legislature may provide that the state or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.

Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who specializes in the State Constitution, told committee members that LB 1402 was, in his opinion, likely unconstitutional because it appropriated public funds for private schools.

A court could always rule otherwise, Schutz said, but because LB 1402 would send state money directly to the scholarship granting groups, it was more likely to be considered an “appropriation” and likely less defensible than last year’s law, which directed taxpayer money to those groups without passing through the state.

The clearest way to make it constitutional, the professor said after the hearing, was to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so voters could decide whether to allow public funds for private schooling.

But, Schutz said, back in the 1970s when state leaders were considering revisions to the Constitution, the matter of allowing public funds for private schools was dropped as “opening a can of worms” over a variety of issues.

There is also the question of whether voters would approve use of public funds for private schools. Voters in other states have consistently defeated it at the polls.

Voices rose at times during the three hours of often passionate testimony before the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee.

Supporters, including a majority of the committee’s members, maintained that Nebraska families who lack the financial means to send children to a private school deserve the state’s financial help.

They maintained that the competition would improve lagging academic outcomes in public schools and joined Linehan in criticizing anti-school choice petition circulators, claiming that they convinced people to sign by falsely stating that the ballot issue was about property tax relief.

A handful of students from parochial schools testified that switching from a public school had changed their lives and improved their grades and that their parents could not afford a private school without financial help.

Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, said her grade point average increased from 1.8 on a 4.0 scale, to 3.0 after she transferred from Omaha South.

“There are parents like me who need another option,” said Clarice Jackson, a former Omaha school teacher, who called school choice “educational freedom.”

But opponents of school choice were equally passionate, maintaining that diverting $25 million a year of money intended for the state took away funds from public education and that there was no proof that “competition” from private schools improved educational outcomes.

“This bill does not require one iota of accountability, either academically or attendance, from private schools,” said Kathy Danek, a member of the Lincoln School Board.

Shavonna Holman, a member of the Omaha School Board, said she’s proud of the education provided in public schools in Omaha.

Holman said students already have “choice” in that they can transfer to a different school or, like her daughter, choose to attend one that specializes in science.

“Public schools are the best investment to reach the largest number of children,” Holman said.

Bennett and other petition circulators pushed back on criticism that signers were deceived. They said they were well trained and versed on what the ballot initiative would do. They added that the people who misbehaved were petition “blockers” hired by pro-school choice forces to prevent people from signing, or to sign an unofficial petition supporting choice.

The Appropriations Committee took no action on LB 1402 after the lengthy public hearing, but it appeared certain to have enough votes to advance the bill for debate by the full Legislature. The bill has yet to get priority designation, which would ensure another emotional debate over school choice.

One wild card: Secretary of State Bob Evnen has yet to issue a ruling on a complaint lodged by Linehan a month ago that the Opportunity Scholarship ballot issue should be tossed off the ballot.

A ruling from Evnen could come as early as this week.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707335544830.jpeg" alt="Among those testifying in favor of a school choice bill at the State Capitol Tuesday was Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, and her brother, Javier, a second grader at St. Thomas More Catholic School. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>Among those testifying in favor of a school choice bill at the State Capitol Tuesday was Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, and her brother, Javier, a second grader at St. Thomas More Catholic School. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Paul Hammel<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/06/passionate-battle-over-school-choice-resumes-in-nebraska-legislature/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — The battle over school choice returned to the State Legislature on Tuesday over a proposal to allocate $25 million a year directly from state coffers to organizations that hand out scholarships to private and parochial schools.Legislative Bill 1402 would serve as a replacement, according to its sponsor, for the Opportunity Scholarship Act passed last year by state lawmakers — a law that allows taxpayers to divert up to half of their state income taxes to Scholarship Granting Organizations for tuition to private and parochial schools.That law is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for the public to decide whether to retain or repeal it&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/10/10/public-school-advocates-qualify-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarship-law-for-2024-election/">after 117,000 voters signed petitions</a>&nbsp;to force the vote.Opponents of this year’s proposal called it an “end run” around the “will of the people,” and a university law professor opined that LB 1402 was most likely unconstitutional.<h2>‘Preempts’ vote of the people</h2>Scott Norby, an attorney for the Nebraska State Education Association,&nbsp; said last year’s law “does indirectly what LB 1402 does directly — the funding of private schools with public dollars.”Passing LB 1402 would “preempt” the right of the people to vote on the measure, he said.“The people have decided to decide that issue,” Norby said.Rita Bennett, one of the petition circulators, compared it to a kids’ game, in which if you’re losing, you change the rules so you win.“It says that regardless of what the voters say, we’ll find a way,” she said.But State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the sponsor of last year’s Opportunity Scholarship law and this year’s LB 1402, called the newest measure “an end run” around a ballot initiative that she said was marred by misinformation and —<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/09/sen-linehans-letter-seeks-to-boot-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarships-off-nebraska-ballot/">&nbsp;as she argued in a recent complaint about the ballot issue</a>&nbsp;— should be removed from the ballot.<h2>Public schools don’t want competition</h2>“They don’t want the competition, folks. It’s so clear,” Linehan told members of the Appropriations Committee, referring to public schools.She added that it was her intention that if LB 1402 was passed this year, she would ask that the Opportunity Scholarship Act be repealed by the Legislature, which would serve to render the November vote on the measure moot.<h2>Article VII-11 of the Nebraska Constitution</h2>Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof;Provided,&nbsp;that the Legislature may provide that the state or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who specializes in the State Constitution, told committee members that LB 1402 was, in his opinion, likely unconstitutional because it appropriated public funds for private schools.A court could always rule otherwise, Schutz said, but because LB 1402 would send state money directly to the scholarship granting groups, it was more likely to be considered an “appropriation” and likely less defensible than last year’s law, which directed taxpayer money to those groups without passing through the state.The clearest way to make it constitutional, the professor said after the hearing, was to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so voters could decide whether to allow public funds for private schooling.<h2>‘Opening a can of worms’</h2>But, Schutz said, back in the 1970s when state leaders were considering revisions to the Constitution, the matter of allowing public funds for private schools was dropped as “opening a can of worms” over a variety of issues.There is also the question of whether voters would approve use of public funds for private schools. Voters in other states have consistently defeated it at the polls.Voices rose at times during the three hours of often passionate testimony before the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee.<h2>All parents deserve choice</h2>Supporters, including a majority of the committee’s members, maintained that Nebraska families who lack the financial means to send children to a private school deserve the state’s financial help.They maintained that the competition would improve lagging academic outcomes in public schools and joined Linehan in criticizing anti-school choice petition circulators, claiming that they convinced people to sign by falsely stating that the ballot issue was about property tax relief.A handful of students from parochial schools testified that switching from a public school had changed their lives and improved their grades and that their parents could not afford a private school without financial help.Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, said her grade point average increased from 1.8 on a 4.0 scale, to 3.0 after she transferred from Omaha South.“There are parents like me who need another option,” said Clarice Jackson, a former Omaha school teacher, who called school choice “educational freedom.”<h2>No accountability</h2>But opponents of school choice were equally passionate, maintaining that diverting $25 million a year of money intended for the state took away funds from public education and that there was no proof that “competition” from private schools improved educational outcomes.“This bill does not require one iota of accountability, either academically or attendance, from private schools,” said Kathy Danek, a member of the Lincoln School Board.Shavonna Holman, a member of the Omaha School Board, said she’s proud of the education provided in public schools in Omaha.Holman said students already have “choice” in that they can transfer to a different school or, like her daughter, choose to attend one that specializes in science.“Public schools are the best investment to reach the largest number of children,” Holman said.Bennett and other petition circulators pushed back on criticism that signers were deceived. They said they were well trained and versed on what the ballot initiative would do. They added that the people who misbehaved were petition “blockers” hired by pro-school choice forces to prevent people from signing, or to sign an unofficial petition supporting choice.The Appropriations Committee took no action on LB 1402 after the lengthy public hearing, but it appeared certain to have enough votes to advance the bill for debate by the full Legislature. The bill has yet to get priority designation, which would ensure another emotional debate over school choice.One wild card: Secretary of State Bob Evnen has yet to issue a ruling on a complaint lodged by Linehan a month ago that the Opportunity Scholarship ballot issue should be tossed off the ballot.A ruling from Evnen could come as early as this week.

Passionate battle over school choice resumes in Nebraska Legislature

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border package Wednesday, scuttling months of negotiations with Democrats on legislation intended to cut back record numbers of illegal border crossings.

Many Republicans said the election-year compromise&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-bill-ukraine-b386eae0c4947497da931870dbcb28a0">wasn't enough</a>, even as supporters of the bill insisted it was the best possible in divided government.

The 49-50 vote, far short of the 60 ayes needed to take up the bill, came after most Republicans said they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d">would vote against the legislation,</a>&nbsp;which also includes $60 billion in wartime aid to Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel and was backed by President Joe Biden. GOP lawmakers had insisted that the money for conflicts abroad be paired with help for the U.S. border. Nebraska U.S. Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts voted with the majority. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah were the only Republicans who voted to advance.

Forcing the showdown with Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier that he would try to salvage the wartime funding, and would next push ahead on a crucial test vote for tens of billions of dollars for Kyiv, Israel and other U.S. allies — a modified package with the border portion stripped out.

The bipartisan group of senators who negotiated the compromise for the last four months said it was a missed opportunity to try and make some progress toward one of the most intractable issues in American politics.

In a speech on the Senate floor just before the vote, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said that it was a chance for the Senate to decide “if we’re going to do nothing, or something.”

“It’s an issue that’s bedevilled, quite frankly, this body for decades,” Lankford said. “It’s been three decades since we’ve passed anything into law to be able to change border security.”

Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona blamed Republicans for not giving the bill a chance.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707338543070.png" alt="Members of the U.S. Senate during the Wednesday afternoon vote count -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Members of the U.S. Senate during the Wednesday afternoon vote count -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border package Wednesday, scuttling months of negotiations with Democrats on legislation intended to cut back record numbers of illegal border crossings.Many Republicans said the election-year compromise&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-bill-ukraine-b386eae0c4947497da931870dbcb28a0">wasn't enough</a>, even as supporters of the bill insisted it was the best possible in divided government.The 49-50 vote, far short of the 60 ayes needed to take up the bill, came after most Republicans said they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d">would vote against the legislation,</a>&nbsp;which also includes $60 billion in wartime aid to Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel and was backed by President Joe Biden. GOP lawmakers had insisted that the money for conflicts abroad be paired with help for the U.S. border. Nebraska U.S. Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts voted with the majority. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah were the only Republicans who voted to advance.Forcing the showdown with Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier that he would try to salvage the wartime funding, and would next push ahead on a crucial test vote for tens of billions of dollars for Kyiv, Israel and other U.S. allies — a modified package with the border portion stripped out.The bipartisan group of senators who negotiated the compromise for the last four months said it was a missed opportunity to try and make some progress toward one of the most intractable issues in American politics.In a speech on the Senate floor just before the vote, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said that it was a chance for the Senate to decide “if we’re going to do nothing, or something.”“It’s an issue that’s bedevilled, quite frankly, this body for decades,” Lankford said. “It’s been three decades since we’ve passed anything into law to be able to change border security.”Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona blamed Republicans for not giving the bill a chance.“Finally, it seemed, we had the opportunity to solve the nightmare my state has lived for over 40 years,” she said.Four Republicans voted to move forward with the legislation and six Democrats voted against it, some of whom said the border compromise went too far.It is unclear if enough Republicans will vote to move ahead with the standalone legislation for the wartime aid, which also would need 60 votes in the 51-49 Senate. If it did pass, it would still take days for the Senate to reach a final vote.As some Republicans have grown skeptical of sending money to Ukraine in its war with Russia, Schumer said that “history will cast a permanent and shameful shadow” on those who attempt to block it.“Will the Senate stand up to brutish thugs like Vladimir Putin and reassure our friends abroad that America will never abandon them in the hour of need?” Schumer asked as he opened the Senate.The roughly $60 billion in Ukraine aid has been stalled in Congress for months because of growing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-congress-border-immigration-china-31075fce7dfcb3aaa6d3eb595e62ed09">opposition from hardline conservatives</a>&nbsp;in the House and Senate who criticize it as wasteful and demand an exit strategy for the war.“We still need to secure America’s borders before sending another dime overseas,” Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wrote in a post on X.The impasse means that the U.S. has halted arms shipments to Kyiv at a crucial point in the nearly two-year-old conflict, leaving Ukrainian soldiers without ample ammunition and missiles as Russian President Putin has mounted relentless attacks.Ukraine's cause still enjoys support from many Senate Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell, but the question vexing lawmakers has always been how to craft a package that could clear the Republican-controlled House.A pairing of border policies and aid for allies — first proposed by Republicans — was intended to help squeeze the package through the House where archconservatives hold control. But GOP senators —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-15e2e3fac2b29b5b4bbe1eae8eb1c924">some within minutes of the bill's release Sunday</a>&nbsp;— rejected the compromise as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-trump-biden-2d2f804057a77bfaa41e64ab601f9b0e">election-year politics</a>.The wartime funding also would invest in domestic defense manufacturing, send funding to allies in Asia, and provide $10 billion for humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and other places.Schumer said the revamped package would include legislation to authorize sanctions and anti-money laundering tools against criminal enterprises that traffic fentanyl into the U.S. A separate section of the compromise border legislation that would have provided a long-awaited&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/afghan-allies-kabul-congress-taliban-8ffcd4df9398194f1ed2b5369ba33f6a">pathway to residency for tens of thousands of Afghan refugees</a>&nbsp;was dropped in the slimmed-down bill.It was not clear whether the new plan, even if it passed the Senate, would gain support from House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Republicans are still insisting on a border plan, even though they rejected the deal negotiated in the Senate as insufficient.“We'll see what the Senate does,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday morning. “We're going to allow the process to play out.”Some were skeptical that a standalone aid package would be viable in the House.“I don’t see how that moves in this chamber. I don’t know how the speaker puts that on the floor,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said, adding that he still wanted tougher border policies attached.After Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, eviscerated the Senate's bipartisan border proposal, Johnson quickly rejected it. Trump has also led many Republicans to question supporting Ukraine, suggesting he could negotiate an end to the war and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-russia-ukraine-trump-war-130e617cfebebeeba61044a0cb68a933">lavishing praise</a>&nbsp;on Russian President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-dc89488c40360150afeeb25941bd44fc">Vladimir Putin</a>, including after Moscow’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.Johnson said this week he wanted to handle wartime aid for Israel and Ukraine in separate packages, but a bill he advanced that only included funds for Israel failed on the House floor Tuesday night.House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday that the “only path forward” is a comprehensive approach that includes funding for U.S. allies around the world, as well as humanitarian support for civilians caught in conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.The White House said that Biden believes there should be new border policy but would also support moving the aid for Ukraine and Israel alone, as he has from the start.“We support this bill which would protect America’s national security interests by stopping Putin’s onslaught in Ukraine before he turns to other countries, helping Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorists and delivering live-saving humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians," said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.“Even if some congressional Republicans’ commitment to border security hinges on politics, President Biden’s does not.”__