Republican state Sen. Bill Cowsert enters race to become Georgia's next attorney general
Long-time Athens GOP state Sen. Bill Cowsert has jumped into the race for Georgia's next attorney general.
The seat is being vacated by sitting Republican Attorney General Chris Carr, who launched his campaign for governor late last year. Carr has been the state's top law enforcement official for nearly a decade.
Cowsert, who was first elected to the Senate in 2006, touted his work on a special investigative committee focused on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, whose office indicted President Donald Trump and 18 others in the 2020 election interference case. Willis was disqualified last year by the Georgia's Court of Appeals for misconduct because of a relationship she had with the special prosecutor in the case, and that case has largely stalled. Willis has appealed the ruling.
A controversial bill sponsored by Cowsert this year expands that committee's scope to also examine groups affiliated with Stacey Abrams after the New Georgia Project, a left-leaning voter engagement organization she founded, settled long-running ethics allegations in January.
If elected, Cowsert said he would work to make sure 'illegal immigrants, sex traffickers, violent gangs and fentanyl pushers are too afraid to cross the state line.'
He also took a swipe at his hometown.
'Let me be clear. I will use every power allowed by law to slam the door shut on sanctuary cities like my hometown of Athens,' he said. 'Our Georgia will no longer tolerate the musings of extremist liberals more concerned with hurting the feelings of Venezuelan gang members in our country illegally than they are with keeping young women from being brutally murdered and raped. Her name was Laken Riley. We will say her name, and we will not allow this to happen again in Georgia.'
Riley was a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed in February 2024 while jogging at the University of Georgia. A Venezuelan immigrant authorities say crossed into the U.S. illegally, Jose Ibarra, was sentenced to life in prison last year. Riley's murder became a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration.
Cowsert, who grew up in Macon, is the founding partner of Cowsert Heath LLP in Athens, a 'small town' law firm that handles cases from northeast Georgia down to Macon, according to its website. He also chairs the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee.
Cowsert will face fellow Sen. Brian Strickland in the GOP primary for the seat. Strickland, a McDonough Republican and attorney who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, became the first candidate for attorney general when he filed his paperwork early this month just before lawmakers wrapped up the 2025 legislative session.
No Democrats have announced a bid for the office yet.
Qualifying for the 2026 election is still a year away, but the prospect of open seats in a competitive state has prompted many candidates to get a jumpstart on the campaign trail.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
32 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Africa's response to Trump's migrant relocation plan reveals deep divisions
Africa's reaction to President Donald Trump's migrant relocation plan has been far from uniform, with some governments signaling willingness to cooperate while others voice sharp resistance. Africa's response to President Trump's migrant relocation plan is divided, reflecting competing diplomatic and domestic priorities. Reports suggested an agreement with Uganda to accept certain deportees, but Ugandan officials denied its existence. Several African nations expressed sovereignty concerns and criticized the policy as exploitative or unconstitutional. Sentiments among African leaders vary, showcasing frustration with U.S. transactional diplomacy. The divided response highlights the continent's competing priorities, balancing diplomatic ties with Washington against domestic concerns over sovereignty, security, and human rights. Reports from CBS, shared by the BBC, suggested that Washington had secured a new deportation agreement with Uganda, under which Kampala would receive migrants who had sought asylum at the US–Mexico border, including some from African and Asian countries. According to the report, Uganda was said to have agreed to accept deportees without criminal histories, though the number it would eventually host was left undefined. But Ugandan authorities have since denied the existence of any such agreement. Henry Oryem Okello, the country's state minister for foreign affairs, told Reuters that Kampala had not signed a deal with the US and lacked the infrastructure to accommodate deported migrants. ' To the best of my knowledge we have not reached such an agreement. We do not have the facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such illegal immigrants in Uganda. So, we cannot take in such illegal immigrants, ' Oryem stated. His rejection comes as Washington faces growing criticism for attempting to relocate convicted felons and rejected asylum seekers t o countries that are not their places of origin. With the latest development, Uganda has joined the growing list of African countries that have pushed back against the U.S. deportation plan, signaling mounting resistance to Washington's efforts to secure third-party hosts for deported migrants. African nations adopt divided approaches As the Trump administration intensifies efforts to deport convicted migrants to third-party countries, several African nations have pushed back, asserting sovereignty and rejecting what many view as an exploitative framework. However, some others have acepted the policy. Earlier this year, the U.S. deported foreign convicts to South Sudan and Eswatini, sparking condemnation from rights groups. Uganda's firm denial now places it alongside other African states resisting Washington's controversial program. Nigeria: A Resounding No In July 2025, Nigeria's Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar rejected U.S. overtures outright, insisting that his country would not accept 'Venezuelan prisoners into Nigeria.' His stance, backed by Nigeria's regional influence, underscores growing frustration with what analysts call Washington's transactional diplomacy. Libya: Both Governments Refuse Libya's rival authorities—both the UN-backed western administration and eastern militias—denied any deal with the U.S., stressing that deportees would not be accepted. U.S. court rulings have also warned that such deportations would be unconstitutional. Rwanda: From Talks to Agreement Rwanda initially confirmed holding early discussions with U.S. officials, stressing that no deal had been finalized. However, by August 2025 Kigali announced a formal agreement to accept up to 250 deported migrants, with provisions for vetting and support services including housing, healthcare, and workforce training. South Sudan Last month, the United States confirmed it had completed the deportation of eight men to South Sudan, a day after a U.S. judge cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to send them to the violence-hit African country. Eswatini In July 2025, the United States deported five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos to Eswatini under its third-country deportation policy. The men, convicted of crimes in the U.S., were placed in solitary confinement upon arrival, with Eswatini stating they would later be repatriated through the United Nations. The move drew strong criticism from rights advocates and civic leaders, who called it opaque and unlawful, warning that it compromised both the men's rights and Eswatini's sovereignty. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on Saturday that the men were deported the previous day—U.S. Independence Day—after losing a last-minute legal bid to halt their transfer.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump admin better-placed than courts to release Epstein files, judge says
By Luc Cohen NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. judge said on Wednesday that the Trump administration is in a better position than federal courts to release materials that would satisfy public curiosity about the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case. In rejecting the Justice Department's bid to unseal records from the grand jury that indicted Epstein in 2019, Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Richard Berman wrote that the 70-odd pages of materials the grand jury saw paled in comparison to the 100,000 pages the government has from its Epstein investigation but is not releasing. The judge said the bid to persuade him to unseal the records was an apparent distraction from the Justice Department's decision in July not to release its files and directly cited another judge's decision earlier this month not to release similar materials from the grand jury that indicted Epstein's longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. "The instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession," Berman wrote. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Berman's decision came as President Donald Trump has faced criticism from his conservative base of supporters and congressional Democrats over the Justice Department's decision not to release the files from its Epstein investigation. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty. His death in jail and his friendships with the wealthy and powerful sparked conspiracy theories that other prominent people were involved in his alleged crimes and that he was murdered. Trump, a Republican, had campaigned for a second term in 2024 with promises to make public Epstein-related files, and accused Democrats of covering up the truth. But in July, the Justice Department declined to release any more material from its investigation of the case and said a previously touted Epstein client list did not exist, angering Trump's supporters. 'DIVERSION' To try to quell the discontent, Trump in July instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek court approval for the release of grand jury material from Epstein's case. Evidence seen and heard by grand juries, which operate behind closed doors to prevent interference in criminal investigations, cannot be released without a judge's approval. Justice Department investigations typically collect more material than prosecutors ultimately present to grand juries. Some of that evidence is sometimes eventually disclosed to the public during criminal trials. The Justice Department does not routinely disclose its evidence in cases where a defendant pleads guilty or, like Epstein, never faces trial, but it would not require judicial approval to release such materials. The grand jury that indicted Epstein heard from just one witness, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and saw a PowerPoint presentation and call logs, Berman wrote. On Aug. 11, a different Manhattan-based judge, Paul Engelmayer, denied the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and exhibits from Maxwell's case, writing that the material was duplicative of public testimony at her 2021 trial. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence following her conviction for recruiting underage girls for Epstein. "A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion - aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such," Engelmayer wrote. Maxwell had pleaded not guilty. After losing an appeal, she asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Chinese Officials Say They Won't Sell TikTok's Algorithm to US
This story was originally published on Social Media Today. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Social Media Today newsletter. Checking in on the TikTok-U.S. saga, with over 200 days passed since the official, Senate-approved TikTok sell-off bill went into effect. And things are not looking great, with the Chinese government reiterating that it has no intention of selling TikTok's algorithmic black box as part of any U.S. partnership deal. Via the state-media publication China Daily, the CCP says that the launch of an official White House TikTok account this week contradicts the focus of the sell-off bill, and the risks that the U.S. government is ostensibly seeking to protect against. The White House launched its own TikTok channel on Monday, and has already posted several updates to the app. Which has raised the ire of Chinese officials. As per China Daily: 'That the White House now has its own TikTok account undoubtedly contradicts the 'national security threat' rhetoric that claims ByteDance is beholden to the Chinese government and that the app could be used to influence US citizens.' That's not entirely correct, as an official White House account in the app doesn't reduce the potential impact that Chinese-backed operations could be having in seeking to influence the opinions of Western users via the app. But nevertheless, the Chinese government has criticized the perceived hypocrisy of the White House presence, while also noting various other 'unwarranted security threat' allegations against Chinese companies. 'The electronics companies Huawei and ZTE, as well as those related to shipbuilding and port equipment, have also been unjustifiably targeted. DJI, a Chinese drone maker, was put on the US government's blacklist and then removed simply because its US clients could not find substitutes for its products.' Again, this is somewhat subjective, as the broader threat that TikTok poses may be in both data collection, while also using TikTok to amplify pro-CCP content, in order to sway opinions in its favor. Trump and Co. posting a few videos won't change this, with the Trump team merely seeing this as an opportunity to broadcast their message to younger audiences, and use the reach of TikTok to its benefit. So really, it's just more political propaganda in the app. But either way, the CCP has taken the opportunity to reiterate that it will not be selling TikTok with its algorithm any time soon. 'As Chinese foreign and commerce ministries' spokespersons have said on different occasions, the operation and acquisition of enterprises should be based on market principles and decided independently by the enterprises concerned. If Chinese enterprises are involved, they must comply with Chinese laws and regulations. Notably, the Chinese authorities have issued a catalogue of technologies prohibited and restricted for export. This explicitly prohibits the export of core technologies such as short video algorithms, drawing a red line for the TikTok transaction.' This has long been the CCP's stance, that even if it is able to negotiate a deal to keep TikTok in operation in the U.S., it's not selling the app's core algorithm, which is the key driver of TikTok engagement. Potential U.S. partners have been cautious in committing to a deal without the algorithm as a part of the package, while various alternatives have also been floated, including the possible development of a U.S. only version of the app, with a scaled-down algorithm based on the original (note: TikTok says that this is not happening). Would that be as effective? The key lure of TikTok is that it's so good at learning what you're interested in, every time that you log in, with your feed transforming before your eyes to better align with whatever catches your attention on a given day. The secret sauce here is in-depth entity identification within video clips, with each of those elements then cross-matched against a wide variety of signals from the app's billions of other users, both on TikTok and on Douyin, its Chinese sister app. That incorporates a range of in-video details, and TikTok's algorithm is seemingly much better at this process than Meta or other social media competitors. As such, it makes sense that TikTok would want to keep those details in-house, and away from others in the market. And at the same time, I suspect that TikTok's entity matching may include some identifiers that would be considered less acceptable under review, including notes on creators' physical traits. So there are several reasons why TikTok would want to keep this information secret, and away from U.S. ownership. And if the Chinese government sticks to this stance, it could mean that TikTok is indeed on a path to being banned in the U.S. Indeed, last month, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed that the U.S. government will take a stand, and will be looking to implement a full ban TikTok on the app if a deal for its sale to a U.S. entity cannot be finalized by the current September 17th deadline. So we could be on a collision course, if both sides stick to their guns this time. Recommended Reading TikTok Highlights Female Creators and Brands for International Women's Day
