Trump's clemency spree extends to ex-gangster, artist, former congressmen
A gang leader who built a powerful criminal enterprise, an ex-congressman from New York who underreported earnings from his Manhattan restaurant and a Connecticut governor toppled in a corruption scandal all received clemency Wednesday in a sweeping series of orders signed by President Donald Trump.
Trump extended relief to at least 11 people whose crimes spanned decades and included tax evasion and extortion, according to a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss decisions not yet made public.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Michigan GOP Lawmaker When Asked If He Supports Women's Bodily Autonomy: 'I Don't'
Michigan Rep. Karl Bohnak (R-Deerton) has finally said what so many members of the GOP are too scared to say outright: they don't support women's bodily autonomy. Bohnak recently held an office hours event at a public library to take questions from his constituents. In audio obtained by the Heartland Signal, one Marquette resident mentioned how their community is now 'a healthcare desert' after the only Planned Parenthood clinic in the Upper Peninsula closed in April, and asked Bohnak whether he supported 'reproductive freedom.' While the Republican lawmaker said he supports 'reproductive clinics' that provide contraceptives or pre-cancer screenings, he wouldn't support a clinic that offers abortion care. Most Popular George Clooney Sounds Like a Lovely House Husband Ohio Woman Faces 'Abuse of a Corpse' Charge for Miscarriage in Another Post-Roe Nightmare Abortion Access Will, Once Again, Be Decided by the Supreme Court 'If you're talking about abortion, I'm not going to support an abortion clinic,' Bohnak said. The resident responded: 'So you don't support a woman's autonomy over her own body?' 'I don't,' Bohnak answered, making sure there was no room left for confusion. If there's anything that 2025 has taught me about the GOP, it's that they never know when to shut up. This confession is practically my Signalgate. Bohnak, who The Independent previously described as QAnon adjacent, was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in November, turning the U.P. entirely red by upsetting incumbent Democrat Jenn Hill. Before becoming a politician, Bohnak, who's skeptical of climate change, worked as a meteorologist. But he got fired in 2021 over his refusal to take the covid vaccine, claiming it violated the Nuremberg Code of 1947. During his campaign, Bohnak was repeatedly asked if he would vote to restrict abortion access, but—like every single GOP candidate in 2024—he refused to comment. If only he'd taken the same advice this time around. The U.P. is largely rural and isn't physically connected to the state's Lower Peninsula; instead, it branches off of northeast Wisconsin, which is currently fighting its own battle with abortion legislation. As the Marquette resident mentioned, Bohnak's district is now considered a reproductive healthcare desert, with the closest Planned Parenthood five hours south in the L.P.—though many clinics in the L.P. now offer travel accommodations for U.P. patients. In 2022, Michiganians did vote to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution—though needless hurdles to access remain. And, this week, on the anniversary of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs reminded hospitals of their duty 'to continue providing adequate and appropriate reproductive care to patients.' The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs should probably send a reminder to all of Michigan's lawmakers, too. They can start with Bohnak. Like what you just read? You've got great taste. Subscribe to Jezebel, and for $5 a month or $50 a year, you'll get access to a bunch of subscriber benefits, including getting to read the next article (and all the ones after that) ad-free. Plus, you'll be supporting independent journalism—which, can you even imagine not supporting independent journalism in times like these? Yikes.
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Rules on Birthright Citizenship: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court is meeting on Friday to decide the final cases of its term, including one concerning President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. Why It Matters The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that all children born in the United States are automatically American citizens. But the issue before the justices in Trump v. CASA is not the lawfulness of Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for some people. Rather, they are weighing whether judges have the authority to issue the nationwide, or universal, injunctions, that have blocked Trump's order from being implemented. The Trump administration has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of only the parties involved. Such orders have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past decade, but they have emerged as an important check on Trump's agenda, increasingly frustrating the president and his allies. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Trump signed an executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily shortly on his first day back in office on January 20. Federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts have issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's order, with one calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." The Trump administration then made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented his executive order from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. At oral arguments in May, the high court appeared highly skeptical on how Trump would implement the changes to birthright citizenship. But justices also showed signs they wanted to limit nationwide court orders. What People Are Saying Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, previously told Newsweek: "It's very possible, maybe even likely, that the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA. Some of the conservative justices, like Justice Gorsuch, have expressed concern that such injunctions give district judges the power to block federal laws nationwide. The Supreme Court may establish a rule to limit injunctions to the parties in the case or the district or circuit where the case is filed. Or it may require a higher standard to grant nationwide relief. Though the criticism of nationwide injunctions may be warranted, having inconsistent immigration holdings in different states may be its own problem. Immigration law needs to be uniform and applied consistently across the country." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social ahead of oral arguments in the case in May: "Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are! "The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America." Ama Frimpong, Legal Director for immigrant rights nonprofit CASA, said in a statement after oral arguments in the case: "This is not a law or policy that needs to be changed. Let's be clear about what this is. This is an attempt at white supremacy. This is an assault on Black and brown families. On our very existence. "What Trump and the administration are trying to do is erase our communities and our families from this country entirely. They want to deny citizenship to children born here—our children, our babies—just because their parents are immigrants." What's Next The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on October 6. This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers blow to transgender rights in Tennessee ruling
The Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to expel thousands of transgender troops from the U.S. military last month while it considers his request to ban them from service. So it came as no surprise Wednesday when the court upheld a Tennessee law, similar to laws in 26 other states that have restricted gender-affirming care for transgender minors. While the ruling is a major setback for transgender rights, it will not affect states like California that do not have bans on care for minors. The court also said this case raised different issues from those in its landmark ruling in 2020 that declared a federal law banning sex discrimination in employment also barred discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In its 6-3 ruling Wednesday, the court said the Tennessee law does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status because males and females have access to the same types of treatment for other purposes. The court weighed in on the debate over the medical value of gender-affirming care for minors. Some recent studies have not found evidence that the treatments are beneficial. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his ruling that 'the voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.' But shortly after the ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics blasted it, saying, 'The Supreme Court's decision today does not change the science. Gender-affirming care remains evidence-based, medically necessary care that improves the health and well-being of transgender youth.' The unsuccessful legal argument against the ban on medical care — that it would violate a transgender youth's constitutional right to equal protection of the laws — is the same argument advocates have used in challenging other parts of Trump's agenda, such as banning transgender military service, cutting off federal funding for research on gender identity, moving transgender women to men's prisons, and refusing to allow people to change gender identification on their passports. The rollbacks are in line with an executive order Trump issued on his first day in office in January, declaring that the U.S. government recognizes 'two sexes, male and female,' as determined at birth. Lower courts have blocked some of those restrictions, but by rejecting the sex-discrimination argument Wednesday, the Supreme Court indicated that it is likely to uphold the president's orders. The ruling could make states like California a haven for transgender youths from other states, a role it has played for women seeking abortions since the court's 2022 ruling overturning the constitutional right to abortion. In response to the ruling, state Attorney General Rob Bonta said, 'In California, we will continue to promote and protect access to health care, not restrict it.' In Wednesday's majority opinion, Roberts said the Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, is not discriminatory because it treats male and female patients equally. 'SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' Roberts said. Because youths of either gender can still receive those treatments for other reasons, he said, the law does not discriminate based on sex. He cited an example raised in the dissent, of a minor girl with unwanted facial hair inconsistent with her sex seeking hormonal therapy to remove it, treatment that is not prohibited by the Tennessee law. And he said the state 'does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses — gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence — from the range of treatable conditions.' In other words, a law that denies transition care to minors who identify as transgender does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, or bans on sex discrimination. 'Tennessee determined that minors lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate the life-altering consequences of such procedures,' the chief justice said, and 'there is a rational basis' for those conclusions. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of the 2020 ruling on employment discrimination, joined Roberts' opinion, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. In a separate opinion, Alito said there was 'no evidence that transgender individuals, like racial minorities and women, have been excluded from participation in the political process.' And Thomas said states 'may legitimately question whether such treatments are ethical' for minors. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's other Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the law was clearly discriminatory. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Bonta, whose office filed arguments urging the court to overturn the Tennessee law, condemned the ruling. 'Across the nation, we've seen a rise in hate-fueled violence and intimidation against our LGBTQ+ community, and laws such as Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 only serve to exacerbate these conditions by blatantly discriminating against transgender youth,' California's attorney general said. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, chair of the Legislature's LGBTQ Caucus, said the court 'is giving bigots like Trump a permission slip to make it impossible to be trans.' Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, recalled the court's 2022 ruling overturning its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that declared a constitutional right to abortion, and said the court 'has once again taken a wrecking ball to Americans' rights to make decisions about their own bodies.' But Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, whose office defended the law in court, described the ruling as 'a landmark victory … in defense of America's children.' And Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said the court had properly 'refused to engage in judicial second-guessing of democratic decision-making. Thank goodness the old days of judicial self-aggrandizement that defined the Roe v. Wade era are behind us.' The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti, 23-477.
