Fetterman hammers ‘a–hole’ anti-Israel protesters, slams own party for response to Iranian attack: ‘Crazy’
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., reiterated his criticisms of activists calling for cease-fire in Gaza, and slammed fellow Democrats for their “crazy” response to the attacks Iran has launched against Israel, in an interview with Fox Digital. “It is not appropriate or legal or helpful to advance your argument if you show up in a Starbucks with a bullhorn and start yelling at people,” he told Fox News Digital in a Friday interview. He also claimed such protests don’t “make you noble.” “It just makes you an a–hole,” Fetterman said. FETTERMAN HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR ‘SAFE, PURE, TAXED’ MARIJUANA IN 4/20 PUSH TO LEGALIZE WEED Since the onset of the war between Israel and terrorist group Hamas, anti-Israel demonstrations have erupted across the U.S. The protesters have gone to extreme lengths at times to telegraph their displeasure with U.S. policy in regard to Israel. Some have trespassed in government buildings, blocked high-traffic bridges and entered private businesses with bullhorns, chanting at employees. SENATE PASSES FISA SURVEILLANCE TOOL RENEWAL MINUTES AFTER MIDNIGHT DEADLINE Fetterman clarified that he is supportive of the right to protest and hold different opinions. “It’s very American to protest and to do that in the appropriate way,” he said. “I absolutely support that.” What he takes issue with, he said, is when those demonstrations “disrupt lives.” He noted the serious implications of protesters who block traffic with their bodies on high-volume bridges and roads, explaining, “There could be people that [are in] an emergency, or they’re going to be late for work – that they could lose their job, or they have to pick up their kids or drop kids off.” GOP LAWMAKERS SLAM BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S NEW TITLE IX PROTECTIONS FOR ‘GENDER IDENTITY’ While he opposes such forms of protest, he didn’t signal interest in legislation to address them, telling Fox News Digital, it’s “not really my priority.” “My priority is to talk about hostages,” he said, referring to those still in Hamas’ custody in Gaza. The Pennsylvania senator has emerged as one of the most vocally supportive Democrats of Israel, which he reiterated in the interview, emphasizing, “We can’t ever forget Hamas started this, and they have chosen to do the most terrible, awful, unspeakable things.” And until the hostages, including the Americans still held in Gaza, are released, Fetterman doesn’t believe the Palestinian cause for statehood can go anywhere. “They have the power to decide, today – send everyone home and surrender, and all the trauma, the death, and everything in Gaza can end. And you can get back on the path of peace and a two-state solution,” he said. REPUBLICANS ACCUSE BIDEN, SCHUMER OF EMBOLDENING IRAN PRIOR TO ATTACK ON ISRAEL Many in the Democratic Party were not supportive of Israel’s decision to retaliate against Iran, which attacked the country directly last weekend. They feared any counterattacks could stoke a regional war that has the potential to draw in the U.S. But Fetterman said, “I am not going to be in a position to tell Israel what it should do. That’s their choice.” “I certainly hope none of this escalates and turns into [a] more widespread” conflict, he added. He was critical of fellow Democrats who did not immediately condemn Iran for directly attacking Israel. “I was appalled that there were members of our party – Democrats that can’t even condemn Iran,” Fetterman remarked. “That’s crazy.” Prompted on growing division within the Democratic Party over support for Israel, he said he can’t speak for other members. However, he reaffirmed his position as “a very confirmed and consistent voice in standing with Israel throughout all of this.”
GOP congresswoman demands Columbia University ‘restore order and safety’ amid anti-Israel protests
Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, sent a letter to Columbia University leaders demanding they take action against the anti-Israel protests on campus that have made Jewish students feel unsafe. Foxx’s letter on Sunday was addressed to Columbia President Minouche Shafik and Columbia Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Claire Shipman. “I am gravely concerned by the ongoing chaos at Columbia University caused by the radical, unlawful Gaza Solidarity Encampment, which has now entered its fifth day,” Foxx, R-N.C., wrote. “The encampment and related activities have created a severe and pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students at Columbia. A Jewish chaplain at the University has recommended Jewish students depart campus due to the University’s inability to guarantee their safety. Multiple Jewish students have already sought shelter off-campus.” “Columbia’s continued failure to restore order and safety promptly to campus constitutes a major breach of the University’s Title VI obligations, upon which federal financial assistance is contingent, and which must immediately be rectified,” she continued. “If you do not rectify this danger, then the Committee will not hesitate in holding you accountable.” ANTI-ISRAEL AGITATORS OCCUPY COLUMBIA CAMPUS AS UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT FACES GRILLING FROM CONGRESS Anti-Israel agitators occupied Columbia’s south lawn in New York City for hours on Wednesday as Shafik testified before Congress about antisemitism on the university’s campus. An encampment with tents was set up on the main lawn of campus and the protests continued into the night for several days. Protests at the university have called for an intifada and the death of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One Jewish Columbia University student was told to “kill yourself” and was repeatedly kicked in the stomach. Foxx wrote: “The encampment and related activities have resulted in widespread antisemitic harassment and intimidation, assaults, frequent celebration of terrorism, and major disruptions of Columbia’s learning environment. … The Committee is aware of multiple Jewish students seeking shelter off-campus due to their well-founded fears regarding their physical safety and continuing to be subjected to what is clearly a hostile environment.” On Thursday, the New York City Police Department arrested 108 people who refused to leave the encampment, each of whom was issued a summons for trespassing. The university also began handing out suspension notices to the students who were arrested. “This situation is unacceptable, and it is imperative that Columbia’s leaders restore order and safety without further delay, in line with their commitments before the Committee at its April 17 hearing,” Foxx said, referring to comments made by Shafik, Greenwald and Shipman stressing the importance of student safety. WHITE HOUSE CONDEMNS ‘BLATANTLY ANTISEMITIC’ PROTESTS AS AGITATORS ENGULF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY “Columbia is failing to deliver on these commitments, as Jewish students are being harassed, assaulted, threatened, and intimidated to the point where they are departing campus for safer environments,” she added. The congresswoman said students, faculty, and staff are “responsible for this mayhem,” including members of the campus groups Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, Columbia University Apartheid Divest and Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine. She said these groups have “repeatedly and flagrantly” violated multiple university rules and even federal law in some cases. “The University must decisively hold them accountable in a manner commensurate with the severity of their offenses, including expulsion and termination of employment,” Foxx concluded. New York City Mayor Eric Adams, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and the White House have criticized the protests at Columbia as antisemitic and dangerous. “The First Amendment protects the right to protest, but students also have a right to learn in an environment free from harassment or violence,” Hochul said. “At Columbia or on any campus, threatening Jewish students with violence or glorifying the terror of October 7 is antisemitism.” On Monday, students are planning a walk out to demand amnesty for student and faculty protesters as well as the university’s divestment from “Israeli apartheid.” Shafik’s office said in a statement to Fox News Digital that students have a right to protest, but they may not harass and intimidate other students. “As President Shafik has said repeatedly, the safety of our community is our number one priority,” the statement said. “Columbia students have the right to protest, but they are not allowed to disrupt campus life or harass and intimidate fellow students and members of our community. We are acting on concerns we are hearing from our Jewish students and are providing additional support and resources to ensure that our community remains safe.” Fox News’ Greg Wehner contributed to this report.
House GOP chairman accuses key government agency of acting as Biden ‘campaign arm’
FIRST ON FOX: The top Republican on the House Small Business Committee is accusing the Biden administration of using a key government agency as its “campaign arm” in a critical swing state ahead of the 2024 election. “Earlier this month, my colleagues and I sent a letter to the SBA inquiring into their Memorandum of Understanding with the Michigan Department of State. It appears that the SBA is diverting its resources away from assisting Main Street so it can register Democrat voters,” Chairman Roger Williams, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. “Federal agencies should not act as campaign arms for their Administrations, period. Americans have a right to know the extent of the SBA’s involvement, and based on further investigation, it appears even more concerning. I look forward to hearing from Administrator Guzman as to why her agency is engaging in election efforts on the taxpayer’s dime.” BIDEN ADMIN ACCUSED OF USING TAXPAYER FUNDS TO HELP HIS OWN CAMPAIGN WITH STUDENT VOTER REGISTRATION SCHEME It comes as President Biden’s re-election campaign eyes Michigan as a must-win state in the 2024 race. Biden beat former President Trump by less than 3% there in 2020. Williams’ committee is investigating the Small Business Administration’s collaboration with the Michigan Department of State on a program “to promote civic engagement and voter registration in Michigan,” according to a press release announcing the partnership. The press release said the Michigan Department of State would “create a unique URL for the SBA to use to drive online visitors to register to vote,” and that the SBA’s Michigan field office would allow state government officials to facilitate in-person voter registration at the federal agency’s business outreach events. It is part of an overall effort by the Biden administration to expand access to voter registration, launched by a 2021 executive order. BEWARE OF WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS DISGUISED AS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES: GOP ATTORNEYS GENERAL LETTER TO DOE An investigation by the House Small Business Committee found that 22 out of 25 of such outreach events have taken place in counties with the highest population of Democratic National Committee (DNC) target demographics. Meanwhile, 11 of 15 Michigan counties that showed the largest voter registration increase over the last year have ranked highest in population of young voters and Black voters, according to the committee – two of the left’s most-sought voting blocs. Williams sent a letter last week to SBA Administrator Isabel Guzman demanding more information on whether her federal office is helping expand Biden’s voter base. POLL REVEALS BATTLEGROUND STATE VOTERS PREFER TRUMP OVER BIDEN IN HEATED 2024 CONTEST “The Committee wrote to you on April 4, 2024, requesting further information about your involvement in voter registration in Michigan. You failed to provide a briefing, narrative response, or any documents by the deadline. The Committee is incredibly concerned that the Small Business Administration (SBA) improperly involved the federal government in America’s electoral processes,” Williams wrote. Fox News Digital reached out to the Biden campaign and the SBA for comment.
Trump trial: Opening arguments to begin as Trump flouts gag order and attorney previews defense
Opening arguments in former President Trump’s historic and unprecedented criminal trial are set to begin Monday morning, and the judge is also expected to rule on several motions that could make the trial even more difficult for the former president. The full jury of 12, plus six alternate jurors, were selected and sworn in on Friday after four days of jury selection. Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, instructed jurors on Friday not to discuss or to research anything relating to the former president’s case over the weekend or while serving on the panel. TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL ‘CROOKED’ JOE BIDEN Merchan said opening arguments will be delivered by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team and Trump defense attorneys. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The charges are related to alleged hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts. He has blasted the trial as pure politics, a “political persecution” and maintains his innocence. The former president, and the first ever to be a defendant in a criminal trial, vowed to “tell the truth” if he takes the stand. TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL: MEET THE JURORS WHO WILL HEAR BRAGG’S CASE AGAINST THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Trump attorney Will Scharf told Fox News Channel on Sunday that the case should never have been brought, and that the facts are on his client’s side. “While the prosecution and the media are hell-bent on sensationalizing this case, we’re focusing on the facts because the facts show that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong,” Scharf said. “This is a business records case, those business records accurately reflected payments to one of President Trump’s lawyers as legal retainer fees. Additionally, those records weren’t actually entered by President Trump. He was busy running the country from the White House while all this was happening in Trump Tower in New York.” The former president is subject to a gag order, which Merchan imposed upon him last month before the trial began. Merchan ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case – other than Bragg – or about court staff, DA staff or family members of staff. Merchan also ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about any prospective juror or chosen juror. But on Saturday, he let loose with an all-caps rant on his social media platform. “THIS SCAM “RUSHED” TRIAL TAKING PLACE IN A 95% DEMOCRAT AREA IS A PLANNED AND COORDINATED WITCH HUNT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT 8 YEARS AGO, BUT EVERYBODY PASSED,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “INSTEAD THEY WAITED AND BROUGHT IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE WORST AND MOST INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT EVER, CROOKED JOE BIDEN. IT IS BEING PRESIDED OVER BY PERHAPS THE MOST CONFLICTED JUDGE IN JUDICIAL HISTORY, WHO MUST BE REMOVED FROM THIS HOAX IMMEDIATELY. I DID NOTHING WRONG!” Bragg argued in the first week of the trial that Trump has violated his gag order more than seven times, and wants him to pay a $1,000 fine. Bragg, in his motion, urged the judge to warn the former president that another violation could be punishable by up to 30 days’ incarceration. Trump and his defense attorneys have argued that the former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee should not be bound by the gag order, and said it violates his First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of his supporters. The judge is expected to rule on whether Trump actually violated the order by early next week. Also Monday, Merchan said he would make a decision on what evidence Bragg’s team can use in their effort to “discredit” the former president should he testify in his own defense. TRUMP SAYS BIDEN ‘SHOULD BE IN JAIL’ AND ‘ON TRIAL,’ WHILE BLASTING NY CASE: ‘THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING’ Bragg, in a filing last week, said he intends to use Trump’s alleged prior “misconduct and criminal acts” to discredit him. But Trump has never been convicted of a crime. Bragg’s office said it intends to refer to information from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case against the former president and the determination from New York Judge Arthur Engoron after the months-long non-jury civil fraud trial against Trump and his family. Engoron ruled Trump was liable for fraud and “falsifying business records,” “issuing false financial statements,” “conspiracy to falsify false financial statements,” “insurance fraud” and “conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.” Trump was required to post a slashed judgment bond of $175 million as he appeals the ruling. BRAGG SAYS HE WILL TRY TO ‘DISCREDIT’ TRUMP IF HE TESTIFIES IN HIS DEFENSE DURING CRIMINAL TRIAL That trial took place without a jury. Trump’s defense attorneys Friday objected to any cross-examination of the former president related to James’ case and Engoron’s ruling due to the appellate division’s decision to put the judgment on pause during appeal. But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the findings from Engoron showed “persistent and repeated fraud and illegality.” While the appellate division did pause the judgment, Colangelo said it says nothing about the merits of the case. Meanwhile, Bragg’s office also intends to use information from E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against Trump, and more. Trump defense attorneys on Friday said each piece of “evidence” Bragg’s team hopes to use are “just distractions.” Trump has said he will testify in his defense at the trial, telling reporters last week: “I tell the truth.” Merchan said he will reserve his decision on what information prosecutors can cross-examine the president with until Monday morning.
Supreme Court prepares to debate Trump immunity claim in election interference case
In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference. The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president’s personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court’s 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself. The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office? This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted. The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL ENTERS DAY 2 On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots. The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question. “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the three-judge panel wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.” Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Those charges stemmed from Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August. In its brief on the merits submitted this month, the Special Counsel told the high court that “presidents are not above the law.” “The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts,” said the government. But Trump’s legal team told the high court, “A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents.” His lawyers added: “The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency.” In a series of supporting briefs, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress are among those backing Trump’s legal positions. Some of the issues the court will have to consider: Can a former president ever be prosecuted for “official acts,” or does he enjoy “absolute immunity?” By including the words “whether and to what extent” in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may be prepared to limit or narrow “absolute immunity,” at least in this case. But court precedent may give Trump some protection – that former presidents should not face civil liability “predicated on his official acts” (Fitzgerald v. Nixon, 1982). Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: Will the court now extend any implied civil protection to a criminal prosecution? What constitutes an official act of a president? Will the court distinguish between Trump’s alleged election interference as clearly acting in his executive capacity, or was he acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an incumbent candidate? A federal appeals court that rejected Trump’s arguments in a separate civil lawsuit alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his “Stop the Steal” rally remarks on Jan. 6, 2021 concluded that “his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act.” Trump is making the same immunity claims in those pending lawsuits. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate 2020 case involving Trump financial records sought by New York prosecutors, wrote, “This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from ‘damages liability predicated on his official acts,’ But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President’s nonofficial conduct.” Thomas cited the 1997 Clinton v. Jones case, which determined that a sitting president did not have immunity from civil suits over his conduct prior to taking office and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal prosecution, and the justices may weigh whether that deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims from both sides. What acts are within the outer rim of a president’s constitutional duties? The lower federal courts deciding the matter pointedly avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. Questions or hypotheticals from the bench may offer hints about how broadly the justices may want to explore the orbit of presidential authority, when weighing political or “discretionary” acts vs. duty-bound or “ministerial” acts. During January oral arguments before the DC-based federal appeals court, Trump’s lawyer,
Key provisions of CAA may violate Indian Constitution: US Congressional report
At an election rally in West Bengal, Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh defended CAA and asserted that no one can stop its implementation.
SC permits minor rape survivor to undergo medical termination of 30-week pregnancy
It also set aside the Bombay High Court order declining the plea, filed by the father of the minor, seeking medical termination of her pregnancy.
Delhi School News: Government issues advisory as temperature soars in Delhi-NCR
The directorate said that some steps need to be taken to protect students from these heat-related diseases during the summer.
Himansh Verma: Former 19-year-old billionaire who built Navrattan a billion dollar company
Hailing from Patiala, Verma rose to prominence as the youngest billionaire in India at the tender age of 19
Banswara Lok Sabha Polls 2024: Check key candidates, date of voting and other important details
The Election Commission of India officially declared the voting date for Banswara, which will be part of Phase 2 of the Lok Sabha elections