Will the 'Big Beautiful Bill' Impact Republican Success at Midterms? Josh Kraushaar Weighs In
Listen to the full interview below:
Listen to the full podcast below:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
City council wants public hearing to consider impeachment of Mayor Weddle
What began as an effort to formally charge London Mayor Randall Weddle with misconduct devolved into a heated and inconclusive City Council meeting — with the legality of the vote and whether the resolution will move forward remaining unclear. The resolution, presented during the council's Monday meeting, alleged multiple violations by Weddle. The discussed resolution proposed holding a public hearing on August 20 to consider removing the mayor from office for misconduct and willful neglect. Council Member Anthony Ortega moved to amend the regular meeting's agenda to include the proposal, which was read aloud by Acting City Clerk Ashley Taylor and ultimately approved. The charges against Weddle include the following allegations: — Hired and paid individuals for city positions not formally established or approved by the City Council, violating KRS 83A.0703 — Removed and appointed members of the London Housing Authority in violation of KRS 80.090 and KRS 80.030 — Directed Housing Authority staff to ignore laws and regulations, misused police resources and made inappropriate remarks during city business — Created a personal police protection detail using city resources — Falsely asserted city jurisdiction over FEMA contractors working outside city limits — Failed to meet city residency requirements — Used a personal media outlet to target a city employee — Refused to hold regular council meetings without the consent of a majority of council members — Altered and rejected city contracts without notifying the legislative body — Improperly released a recorded call between a crime victim and a city police officer. Council Member Stacy Benge moved to table the resolution, but it failed to receive a second. Council Member Kelly Greene then moved to vote, seconded by Justin Young. The motion passed with all voting in favor except Benge. However, the legality of the vote immediately came into question. Mayor Weddle argued that approval of the full council was required, not just a majority. City Council Attorney Conrad Cessna disagreed, stating that the higher threshold applied only at the hearing stage. City Attorney Larry Bryson maintained that a majority of the full council was required to adopt the resolution. As tensions escalated, TJ Roberts introduced himself as outside legal counsel retained by the council, but was met with loud boos from the crowd. The mayor, pointing out that no public motion had been made to hire Roberts, told him to sit down. Roberts obliged. Mayor Weddle then accused the council of skipping due process. 'Let's get this on the record — every accusation that you guys have made, you have a due diligence, according to KRS, to start an investigation exploratory subcommittee. How come that has not been done on any of this?' he asked. 'You have not done it — and you know why you've not done it.' Council Member Judd Weaver then moved to hire attorney Chris Wiest. That motion passed. 'Another attorney for the city folk to have to pay, but you [couldn't] care less about the roads,' Weddle commented. Later, Weaver made a motion for a point of clarification on whether the resolution had passed. Bryson recommended waiting for legal review before proceeding, and Roberts' second attempt to speak was again drowned out by booing from the crowd. Carmine G. Iaccarino, attorney for Mayor Weddle, then addressed the council, stating, 'I think that Mr. Bryson's recommendation is very well advised. In order to ensure due process, and that the Kentucky Revised Statutes are in fact followed, in such an important situation as the removal and nullification of the vote of the people of London.' Weaver asked Iaccarino whether the resolution required six votes. Iaccarino deferred, replying, 'My recommendation is to follow Mr. Bryson's recommendation.' Weaver then asked for the determination of the chair, Mayor Weddle, to which the mayor replied, 'I think we're taking the recommendation of the city attorney.' Weaver moved to appeal the decision, which was seconded by Greene, but no vote or discussion followed. Weddle would go on to adjourn the meeting himself, stating, 'The chair has the ability to adjourn a meeting. We're getting nowhere. The chair is adjourning the meeting. The meeting is adjourned.' With that, the mayor and council members dispersed, and the status of the resolution remained unresolved as of press time Tuesday. Should the public hearing move forward, discussion indicated that it would be a special meeting set for August 20 at 9 a.m. That meeting was confirmed Tuesday by Roberts and Cessna, though Cessna acknowledged there had been no further discussion of a legal review. Attempts to contact Bryson for confirmation were unsuccessful as of press time. In preliminary research, The Sentinel-Echo found no specific reference to scheduling a hearing but did find the following clause as part of KRS 83A.040 in regard to removal of city officials: 'Except in cities of the first class, any elected officer, in case of misconduct, incapacity, or willful neglect in the performance of the duties of his or her office, may be removed from office by a unanimous vote of the members of the legislative body exclusive of any member to be removed, who shall not vote in the deliberation of his or her removal. No elected officer shall be removed without having been given the right to a full public hearing. The officer, if removed, shall have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of the county and the appeal shall be on the record. No officer so removed shall be eligible to fill the office vacated before the expiration of the term to which originally elected.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Woman Who Said 'Females' Should Not Hold Elected Office Now Wants To Be Elected To Office
Mylie Biggs, daughter of Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), is running for a seat in the Arizona state legislature despite once having opined that a woman's rightful place is in the home, the Phoenix New Times reported Wednesday. It was not some throwaway, long-ago remark — Mylie Biggs allowed the words 'I don't know if females should be in office' to escape her mouth in a podcast episode released exactly one year ago, on Aug. 6, 2024. The New Times appeared to have gone back to investigate Biggs' public commentary after she announced her candidacy on X in late June. Like her father, she is running as a Republican. Biggs made her remarks about female politicians during an appearance on 'The Matty McCurdy Program,' which bills itself as a place for 'real conversations about life.' 'Honestly, I don't know if I would vote for any female. I don't know if females should be in office,' she said with a laugh. Biggs got on the topic after referring to then-Vice President Kamala Harris as a 'DEI hire' and saying that the only woman she would vote for would be right-wing commentator Candace Owens. Then Biggs doubled down. 'I don't think women should hold office, in general. Like, it's a man's position. That's my stance. I think women should, you know, run the home,' she said. Her male companions offered no objection. 'There's so many videos on even TikTok where so many girls are waking up and are like, whoever fought for my right to work, like, I hate them,' Biggs said. 'I hate a 9-to-5 schedule,' she went on. 'Like, I get home and I don't want to do anything else. Women aren't built for this. I just want to be a wife. I just want to be a mom.' 'I'm not trying to be sexist in any way,' she added, after earlier stating that a woman in high public office would likely not garner respect from leaders of countries in the Middle East. The problem, Biggs asserted, is that 'modern feminism' has 'transformed incredibly in the past few years.' It started with the right to vote — in 1920 — 'and went rampant from there,' she claimed. Biggs has not yet publicly addressed the New Times story. She did not immediately reply to a request for comment from HuffPost. When she announced her intent to run on X, Biggs included a quote from former President Ronald Reagan about liberty and personal freedom: 'It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.' 'My parents taught me to love my country, the Constitution, and to value my freedoms,' Biggs wrote. 'I've watched so many good people in my life serve this country in the military and in public office. I too seek to serve.' The New Times reported that Biggs has filed paperwork signaling her intent to run but missed a campaign finance deadline. Rep. Andy Biggs once occupied the very same state Senate seat that his daughter now seeks, representing a swath of Maricopa County — which was central to President Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The elder Biggs has been a staunch supporter of Trump, going so far as to defend the president's supporters' riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and to use his vote to shield Trump from the release of investigative material related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Read more . Related... A Race In Arizona Poses A Stiffer Test For Democrats' Youth Movement Trump Names His MAGA 'Heir,' Reveals Which Republican Will 'Most Likely' Succeed Him Kelly, Gallego Urged To Get Tougher On Trump In Arizona Town Hall
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he could impose more tariffs on China, similar to India duties, over Russian oil
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% duties announced earlier on India over its purchases of Russian oil, depending on what happens. "Could happen," Trump told reporters, after saying he expected to announce more secondary sanctions aimed at pressuring Russia to end its war in Ukraine. He gave no further details. "It may happen ... I can't tell you yet," Trump said. "We did it with India. We're doing it probably with a couple of others. One of them could be China." Trump on Wednesday imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, on top of a 25% tariff announced previously, citing its continued purchases of Russian oil. The White House order did not mention China, which is another big purchaser of Russian oil. Last week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned China that it could also face new tariffs if it continued buying Russian oil.
