(NEW YORK) — A 22-year-old woman is missing after she went hiking alone in Southern California during this week’s massive, multiday storm, authorities said.
Lifei Huang left for a hike in the Mount Baldy area of the San Gabriel Mountains at about 2 p.m. Sunday, and she was last heard from about two hours later, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department said. She was reported missing Sunday night.
Crews started searching for Huang at about 2:30 a.m. Monday, the sheriff’s department said.
The search continued on Tuesday during very heavy snowfall, but the risk of avalanches impeded search efforts and the rescuers “were pulled off the mountain,” the sheriff’s department said.
Volunteers are at the trail heads on Thursday, but conditions on the mountain are still too unsafe for rescuers to hike in, a sheriff’s department spokesperson said.
“We will continue to assess the conditions to determine our course of action,” the spokesperson said Thursday.
Huang, who lives in El Monte, just outside of Los Angeles, went hiking amid an historic, multiday storm that pummeled California with heavy rain, flooding, snow and gusty winds on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
The sheriff’s department had said it “strongly urges everyone to stay away and refrain from mountain activities during this inclement weather.”
“The weather has effectively buried the mountain in snow and it is highly likely hikers will get into trouble,” the department said. “Resources are stretched to their limits and hikers who get lost may have to wait long periods of time before help is available.”
(WASHINGTON) — The White House says it will not seek to censor any information gathered by special counsel Robert Hur in his report on his investigation into classified documents found at residences associated with President Joe Biden.
Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House counsel’s office, said in a statement on Thursday that the president’s legal team had completed a review of the report and that “in keeping with his commitment to cooperation and transparency,” the president would not assert executive privilege over any portion of the report.
The completion of the White House review paves the way for the Justice Department to release the report to Congress and the public in the coming days.
Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier this week informed key lawmakers that Hur had concluded his investigation, which examined how approximately two dozen classified documents wound up at Biden’s personal home and office.
The records in question date back to Biden’s time as vice president, and at least some include “top secret” markings, the highest level of classification.
Garland appointed Hur as special counsel in January of 2023, after aides to the president discovered a batch of ten documents at the Penn-Biden Center in Washington, D.C., where Biden kept an office after his vice presidency.
Investigators spent more than a year interviewing as many as 100 witnesses, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Hunter Biden, the president’s son.
ABC News has previously reported that sources who were present for some of the interviews, including witnesses, said that authorities had apparently uncovered instances of carelessness from Biden’s vice presidency, but that — based on what was said in the interviews — the improper removal of classified documents from Biden’s office when he left the White House in 2017 seemed to be more likely a mistake than a criminal act.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up a historic case challenging Donald Trump’s ability to hold office again over his role in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump is asking the justices to overturn an unprecedented Colorado Supreme Court decision deeming him ineligible to appear on the state’s GOP primary ballot because, it said, he “engaged in insurrection.” Trump has long denied any wrongdoing.
The legal battle centers on a previously obscure provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment — Section 3 — ratified shortly after the Civil War.
The case is casting a political shadow over the nation’s highest court not has not been seen since the 2000 election with Bush v. Gore.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Feb 08, 10:02 AM
Scenes from outside the U.S. Supreme Court
Ahead of the historic arguments, some anti-Trump demonstrators gathered outside the front of the building with banners and signs disparaging the former president.
Police also took steps to ramp up security by placing fencing around the court.
Feb 08, 9:38 AM
What Americans think SCOTUS should do with Trump ballot challenges
An ABC News/Ipsos poll found a majority of Americans (56%) were willing to see Trump disqualified in all or some states: 30% said the U.S. Supreme Court should bar him completely and 26% said it should let each state decide.
Thirty-nine percent said the U.S. Supreme Court should keep Trump on the ballot in all states.
Americans were split on the decisions out of Maine and Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot: 49% supported them while 46% were opposed.
Feb 08, 9:52 AM
What to know about the arguments
There are 80 minutes total allotted for arguments but the court is expected to go over that timeframe.
A number of questions are likely to be debated: Is Trump an “officer” of the United States to whom Section 3 applies; who can enforce Section 3; and did Trump engage in an insurrection?
Trump is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. The Colorado voters are being represented by Jason Murray, a former clerk to Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Neil Gorsuch.
(WASHINGTON) — Hackers from the People’s Republic of China spent up to five years in U.S. networks as part of a cyber operation that targeted U.S. critical infrastructure, law enforcement and international agencies said earlier this week.
“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assess that People’s Republic of China (PRC) state sponsored cyber actors are seeking to preposition themselves on IT networks for disruptive or destructive cyberattacks against U.S. critical infrastructure in the event of a major crisis or conflict with the United States,” an alert released by the agencies earlier this week said.
The yearslong operation by the state-sponsored cyber actor — called Volt Typhoon by U.S. authorities — was a way for China to position themselves for an attack on U.S. critical infrastructure using malware, officials said on a call with reporters.
CISA Assistant Director Eric Goldstein said the hackers were in U.S. systems for “up to five years.”
“CISA and its U.S. Government partners have confirmed that this group of PRC state-sponsored cyber actors has compromised entities across multiple critical infrastructure sectors in cyberspace, including communications, energy, transportation, and water and wastewater, in the United States and its territories,” a release about the incident said.
The Chinese cyber actors aimed to “launch destructive cyber-attacks that would jeopardize the physical safety of Americans and impede military readiness in the event of a major crisis or conflict with the United States,” the release said.
Last week, the FBI used a court order to disrupt Volt Typhoon actors from their hacking operation.
The advisory builds upon CISA Director Jenn Easterly and FBI Director Christopher Wray’s testimony last week — in which they warned that Chinese hackers could disrupt Americans’ way of life.
“The Volt Typhoon malware enabled China to hide, among other things, pre-operational reconnaissance and network exploitation against critical infrastructure like our communications, energy, transportation, water sectors steps — China was taking in other words to find and prepare to destroy or degrade the civilian critical infrastructure that keeps us safe and prosperous,” Wray told a House panel last week. “And let’s be clear, cyber threats to our critical infrastructure represent real world threats to our physical safety.”
The agencies wrote in an alert that they are “concerned” about the implications of the cyber operation.
“The U.S. authoring agencies are concerned about the potential for these actors to use their network access for disruptive effects in the event of potential geopolitical tensions and/or military conflicts,” an alert released by the agencies said. “The U.S. authoring agencies assess with high confidence that Volt Typhoon actors are pre-positioning themselves on IT networks to enable lateral movement to OT assets to disrupt functions.”
Last week, Easterly warned that the Colonial Pipeline hack in 2021, which briefly shut off pipeline access for part of the country and caused panic, is something that could happen on a much wider scale, if China had their way.
“We know that what we have found is the tip of the iceberg,” Goldstein said.
Google Headquarters is seen in Mountain View, California, United States on May 15, 2023. (Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Google announced Thursday that it is joining a coalition of companies dedicated to helping increase transparency around artificial intelligence and digital content.
As examples of AI-generated content continue to make headlines — from fake sexually explicit AI images of Taylor Swift, to a deceptive AI-generated voice clone of President Joe Biden — the need for clarity around what we are seeing online seems more urgent.
“The danger of deepfakes isn’t the deception it’s the doubt because once you doubt everything, then you don’t believe anything,” said Dana Rao, Adobe’s general counsel and chief trust officer, in an interview with ABC News. “And so that’s why we always like provenance.”
“We want to make sure that, ideally, we have solutions that tell us the origin of content and that tell us whether it’s been altered or changed,” added Laurie Richardson, vice president of trust and safety at Google.
Since its creation in 2021, the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) has been working toward creating an open technical standard providing publishers, creators and consumers the ability to trace the origin of different types of media.
The C2PA says its developed those solutions and now, with Google backing the effort, there’s belief widespread adoption might be around the corner.
Content credentials — often described as a “nutrition label” for digital content — are tamper-resistant and allow the metadata to be attached to digital content, showing how and when the content was created and modified.
“It’s like an evidence bag,” C2PA Chair Andrew Jenks told ABC News. “When a police officer goes to a crime scene and picks up a piece of evidence and puts it in a bag, he signs and seals that bag. When it arrives to in the courtroom, you can look back at the record and see every place the evidence has been”
This “nutrition label,” if adopted by social media platforms and publishers, could be displayed on every piece of content hosted online allowing users to access the history of any piece of content.
Google will now be a member on the C2PA steering committee, joining Adobe, Microsoft, Intel, Truepic and other companies helping set the technical direction and focus of the group.
Richardson said there isn’t anything specific to share in terms of how Google will implement the technology across its products, but she’s hopeful that they will have more to share in the coming months. With upcoming elections around the world, there is an “urgency” in making sure that Google is helping shape an “ecosystem wide solution, said Richardson.
The standard, however, does seem to be gaining momentum quickly. Just this week, Open AI announced that images generated in ChatGPT, and its API now include metadata using C2PA specifications.
This means that anyone, including social platforms and content distributors, are able to see that an image was generated using an Open AI Product.
Meta also announced it is developing a set of tools that can identify invisible markers at scale — like the digital signature developed by the C2PA.
“This is a moment we’re talking about the dangers and the risks of deep fakes and AI, and we should, but this is also proof, there’s a lot of work going on towards solutions and more towards invention and towards getting together in this space,” Clement Wolf, head of information quality & AI strategy, trust & safety at Google, told ABC News.
(NEW YORK) — Many Americans have put off buying a new sport utility vehicle or truck because of steep prices and high interest rates.
Now, however, may be the right time to upgrade that older model, industry watchers say.
“2024 is probably the best year since the pandemic to buy a new car,” Mark Schirmer, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive, told ABC News. “2021 and 2022 were really difficult years. Dealers are talking about discounts again … this was not happening 18 months ago. The shelves are full and there are more selections now.”
The pandemic supply crunch has largely been resolved, Schirmer noted, and deals on new vehicles are getting better — leading to higher customer satisfaction with the car-buying process.
Interest rates are still historically high — the average APY was 9.2% in December — but they’ve fallen from last fall’s peak, Schirmer said. Prior to the pandemic, interest rates for new vehicles ranged from 4% to 5%.
“As interest rates come down and discounts increase, some people who have been pushed out of the market may come back,” Schirmer said. “What we’re seeing now is a more normal market.”
Of course, it may be tough to score a discount on the hottest and latest models. The brands that have excess inventory on lots and are more likely to lower prices are Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, according to Schirmer.
John Lawler, Ford’s chief financial officer, said in November that the automaker was closely monitoring prices and would likely offer deep incentives to woo shoppers.
Consumers are also asking: Will the days of 0% financing on new models return?
“Never say never,” according to Nishit Madlani, a managing director at S&P Global Ratings, who added that he expects the level of incentives to rise in 2025.
“With inventory going up, we’ve shifted to a buyer’s market,” he said.
Madlani blamed elevated vehicle prices on fleet sales and Americans’ preference for gargantuan trucks and SUVs.
“The market is 80% trucks now and 20% sedans … people are willing to pay up for larger vehicles,” he said. “Auto sales have been resilient.”
Jessica Caldwell, head of insights for Edmunds, said drivers expect — and demand — more amenities in their vehicles, which can quickly increase the MSRP. The average transaction price of a new vehicle was nearly $49,000 in December, according to Edmunds data.
Moreover, hybrids and vehicles with big, V8 engines are also seeing huge interest from consumers and are selling at or above their sticker price.
Many Americans who are strapped for cash still cannot afford to finance luxury priced vehicles, she said.
“Prices are getting softer … but we’re seeing demand at the lower end of the market, at the price points people can afford,” Caldwell explained.
Low interest rates are available to consumers, she pointed out, but getting one often requires paying off the loan in less than four years.
“People can’t afford to pay a car off in 48 months,” she said, adding that “very few Americans buy cars in cash.”
Madlani, though optimistic about new vehicle sales, said a reversal in the economy and stubbornly high rates could cause consumers to become delinquent on their auto loans.
“We’re already seeing a higher level of younger people defaulting on loans,” he said.
The best deals right now may be on electric vehicles, with an influx of models and slower pace of adoption among drivers. The number of incentives on EVs is higher than the industry average and consumers can save up to 9% on the vehicle’s price, according to Cox Automotive data.
“The EV market is extremely competitive and there will be very intense pricing pressure for all players,” Madlani said.
Added Caldwell: “A lot of Americans are still not interested in making the switch to an electric vehicle. There needs to be more price slashing on EVs to get Americans to buy them.”
(NEW YORK) — The U.S. economy shattered expectations in recent weeks, extending a run of overachievement that has quieted some of the most skeptical economists.
Americans, however, remain sour. Less than 3 in 10 adults rate current economic conditions as “excellent” or “good,” a Pew survey last month found.
The dynamic holds significant implications for a potential general election rematch between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. The economy is the top issue for voters, an ABC News/Ipsos poll in November found.
The disconnect between triumphant economic performance and glum sentiment traces in part to elevated prices at the grocery store or in the housing market, as well as a partisan reluctance among some to acknowledge success under Biden, experts told ABC News.
But, they added, the enthusiasm gap may also owe to the divergent economic performance between states, and even between localities within those states. This uneven reality betrays the rosy nationwide picture, especially when it comes to the challenge posed by high expenses, experts said.
“It really does depend on where you’re living,” Lee Bowes, CEO of job-placement firm America Works, which provides training and resources for low-income people nationwide, told ABC News. “A place like Fresno, by California standards, is a less expensive place to live. San Francisco is a complete disaster.”
At the national level, the economy performs well on just about every measure of economic health. Inflation is falling, job growth is surging and gross domestic product is proving much more resilient than expected in the aftermath of near-historic interest rate hikes.
Since the middle of last year, the pace of wage growth has even exceeded that of inflation, leaving earners with more money to spend, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows.
An ABC News analysis of state-level economic data, however, shows a sizable gap between the best-performing states and localities, and the worst-performing ones.
Seven states grapple with a convergence of three negative trends: lower-than-average growth, above-average unemployment and above-average gas prices. Some of those states are among the nation’s most populous, including California, New York and New Jersey.
Within those states, some cities face much more difficulty than others. In New York City, for example, the unemployment rate stands at 5.4%, far exceeding the nationwide rate of 3.7%.
Meanwhile, expenses in the borough of Manhattan are 122% higher than the average city, according to the Cost of Living Index from the Council for Community and Economic Research. Only 3 in 100 home listings in New York City are affordable for a typical household, a Redfin report found.
“Let’s not kid ourselves, prices are way up,” Mark Jaffe, CEO of the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, told ABC News, citing a steep rise in prices compared to where they stood pre-pandemic. “It’s a huge problem.”
By contrast, eight states boast better-than-average unemployment, GDP growth and gas prices. An additional state, North Dakota, stands tied for the nation’s lowest unemployment rate and holds one of its lowest average gas prices.
North Dakota’s largest city, Fargo, carries the second-lowest unemployment rate of any metropolitan area in the U.S., Bureau of Labor Statistics data show. Further, the city has lower-than-average cost of living and higher-than-average median income.
“Many would not think Fargo is having the growth that it is,” Shannon Full, president and CEO of the Fargo Moorhead West Fargo Chamber of Commerce, told ABC News.
The city plays host to a growing tech sector, focused especially on agricultural products such as autonomous farming equipment, Full added.
“That’s one of our best kept secrets,” she said.
Full characterized sentiment among businesses and consumers as “cautious optimism,” citing the opportunity afforded by a combination of strong job growth and affordable cost of living.
To be sure, attitudes about the economy have improved in recent months, data shows. Consumer sentiment soared in January but remains well below pre-pandemic levels, a University of Michigan survey found.
When asked whether they prefer Biden or Trump on the issue of handling the economy, voters chose Trump by a margin of more than 20 percentage points, according to an NBC News poll released on Sunday.
In a statement to ABC News, Biden campaign spokesperson Seth Schuster touted the current state of the economy, saying it puts the campaign in a position to win reelection.
“President Biden is proud to run on a record of falling inflation, historically low unemployment, and rising consumer confidence — a winning economic record Donald Trump could only dream of,” Schuster said.
The Biden campaign did not respond directly to ABC News’ question about the disconnect between economic performance and consumer sentiment.
Dennis Hoffman, an economics professor at the University of Arizona, said overall negative sentiment about the economy derives in part from conservative voters who refuse to offer a positive assessment because the current president belongs to the opposition party.
“This group will say the economy is terrible, then they hang up the phone, order off of Amazon and go out to dinner,” Hoffman told ABC News. “They go on with their lives and they’re fine.”
Still, Hoffman added, the variation in economic conditions across states and localities could also help explain the gap between economic sentiment and performance.
“It’s a possible explanation,” Hoffman said. “Some states are more dynamic than others.”
How is your state’s economy doing?
Each statewide statistic is followed by one of the following:
+ = better than where the metric stands nationwide
— = worse than where the metric stands nationwide
* = matches where the metric stands nationwide
Nationwide
Unemployment: 3.7%
GDP growth: 4.9%
Gas prices: $3.15
Home prices: $402,646
Median income: $74,580
Alabama
Unemployment: 2.6% +
GDP growth: 4.1% —
Gas prices: $2.89 +
Home prices: $271,300 +
Median income: $59,110 —
Alaska
Unemployment: 4.5% —
GDP growth: 4.1% —
Gas prices: $3.49 —
Home prices: $370,700 +
Median income: $89,740 +
Arizona
Unemployment: 4.3% —
GDP growth: 4.9% *
Gas prices: $3.24 —
Home prices: $430,000 —
Median income: $73,450 —
Arkansas
Unemployment: 3.4% +
GDP growth: 0.7% —
Gas prices: $3.24 +
Home prices: $241,300 +
Median income: $73,450 +
California
Unemployment: 5.1% —
GDP growth: 4.8% —
Gas prices: $4.58 —
Home prices: $756,800 —
Median income: $85,300 +
Colorado
Unemployment: 3.4% +
GDP growth: 5.8% +
Gas prices: $2.75 +
Home prices: $548,200 —
Median income: $89,930 +
Connecticut
Unemployment: 3.8% —
GDP growth: 4.7% —
Gas prices: $3.21 —
Home prices: $380,400 +
Median income: $90,730 +
Delaware
Unemployment: 4.2% —
GDP growth: 3.3% —
Gas prices: $3.15 —
Home prices: $337,600 +
Median income: $80,750 +
Florida
Unemployment: 3.0% +
GDP growth: 6.1% +
Gas prices: $3.21 —
Home prices: $403,800 —
Median income: $65,370 —
Georgia
Unemployment: 3.4% +
GDP growth: 4.5% —
Gas prices: $3.02 +
Home prices: $355,800 +
Median income: $67,730 —
Hawaii
Unemployment: 2.9% +
GDP growth: 3.7% —
Gas prices: $4.67 —
Home prices: $757,800 —
Median income: $91,010 +
Idaho
Unemployment: 3.3% +
GDP growth: 7.0% +
Gas prices: $2.90 +
Home prices: $460,900 —
Median income: $72,580 —
Illinois
Unemployment: 4.8% —
GDP growth: 4.1% —
Gas prices: $3.20 —
Home prices: $257,100 +
Median income: $78,020 +
Indiana
Unemployment: 3.6% +
GDP growth: 4.8% —
Gas prices: $2.96 +
Home prices: $240,000 +
Median income: $70,030 —
Iowa
Unemployment: 3.2% +
GDP growth: 4.1% —
Gas prices: $2.83 +
Home prices: $221,400 +
Median income: $76,200 +
Kansas
Unemployment: 2.8% +
GDP growth: 9.7% +
Gas prices: $2.76 +
Home prices: $253,800 +
Median income: $73,040 —
Kentucky
Unemployment: 4.3% —
GDP growth: 4.9% *
Gas prices: $2.84 +
Home prices: $243,100 +
Median income: $55,880 —
Louisiana
Unemployment: 3.7% *
GDP growth: 6.6% +
Gas prices: $2.85 +
Home prices: $241,100 +
Median income: $58,330 —
Maine
Unemployment: 3.2% +
GDP growth: 4.9% *
Gas prices: $3.20 —
Home prices: $363,600 +
Median income: $75,160 +
Maryland
Unemployment: 1.9% +
GDP growth: 2.7% —
Gas prices: $3.20 —
Home prices: $395,400 +
Median income: $108,200 +
Massachusetts
Unemployment: 3.2% +
GDP growth: 4.8% —
Gas prices: $3.15 *
Home prices: $577,400 —
Median income: $93,550 +
Michigan
Unemployment: 4.3% —
GDP growth: 2.9% —
Gas prices: $2.99 +
Home prices: $229,600 +
Median income: $68,990 —
Minnesota
Unemployment: 2.9% +
GDP growth: 4.1% —
Gas prices: $2.89 +
Home prices: $321,500 +
Median income: $90,390 +
Mississippi
Unemployment: 3.3% +
GDP growth: 0.8% —
Gas prices: $2.75 +
Home prices: $228,800 +
Median income: $48,610 —
Missouri
Unemployment: 3.3% +
GDP growth: 4.0% —
Gas prices: $2.80 +
Home prices: $240,000 +
Median income: $71,520 —
Montana
Unemployment: 3.2% +
GDP growth: 4.2% —
Gas prices: $2.90 +
Home prices: $515,100 —
Median income: $72,980 —
Nebraska
Unemployment: 2.3% +
GDP growth: 7.5% +
Gas prices: $2.83 +
Home prices: $271,600 +
Median income: $78,360 +
Nevada
Unemployment: 5.4% —
GDP growth: 6.3% +
Gas prices: $3.85 —
Home prices: $434,800 —
Median income: $72,300 —
New Hampshire
Unemployment: 2.5% +
GDP growth: 4.5% —
Gas prices: $3.09 +
Home prices: $440,300 —
Median income: $84,970 +
New Jersey
Unemployment: 4.8% —
GDP growth: 4.8% —
Gas prices: $3.14 +
Home prices: $484,500 —
Median income: $92,340 +
New Mexico
Unemployment: 4.0% —
GDP growth: 5.7% +
Gas prices: $2.84 +
Home prices: $329,200 +
Median income: $56,420 —
New York
Unemployment: 4.5% —
GDP growth: 3.5% —
Gas prices: $3.28 —
Home prices: $499,200 —
Median income: $75,910 +
North Carolina
Unemployment: 3.5% +
GDP growth: 4.6% —
Gas prices: $2.99 +
Home prices: $358,500 +
Median income: $65,070 —
North Dakota
Unemployment: 1.9% +
GDP growth: 2.9% —
Gas prices: $2.82 +
Home prices: $235,200 +
Median income: $78,720 +
Ohio
Unemployment: 3.7% *
GDP growth: 4.6% —
Gas prices: $3.00 +
Home prices: $221,800 +
Median income: $67,520 —
Oklahoma
Unemployment: 3.4% +
GDP growth: 6.0% +
Gas prices: $2.68 +
Home prices: $230,700 +
Median income: $63,440 —
Oregon
Unemployment: 3.7% *
GDP growth: 4.8% —
Gas prices: $3.60 —
Home prices: $491,100 —
Median income: $86,780 +
Pennsylvania
Unemployment: 3.5% +
GDP growth: 5.6% +
Gas prices: $3.38 —
Home prices: $270,700 +
Median income: $72,210 —
Rhode Island
Unemployment: 3.2% +
GDP growth: 3.9% —
Gas prices: $3.09 +
Home prices: $452,200 —
Median income: $80,650 +
South Carolina
Unemployment: 3.0% +
GDP growth: 5.7% +
Gas prices: $2.90 +
Home prices: $363,600 +
Median income: $61,770 —
South Dakota
Unemployment: 2.0% +
GDP growth: 5.2% +
Gas prices: $2.82 +
Home prices: $299,300 +
Median income: $67,180 —
Tennessee
Unemployment: 3.5% +
GDP growth: 5.2% +
Gas prices: $2.84 +
Home prices: $371,800 +
Median income: $65,380 —
Texas
Unemployment: 4.0% —
GDP growth: 7.7% +
Gas prices: $2.84 +
Home prices: $343,600 +
Median income: $74,640 +
Utah
Unemployment: 2.8% +
GDP growth: 6.1% +
Gas prices: $2.83 +
Home prices: $537,800 —
Median income: $95,800 +
Vermont
Unemployment: 2.2% +
GDP growth: 3.9% —
Gas prices: $3.22 —
Home prices: $376,600 +
Median income: $72,190 —
Virginia
Unemployment: 3.0% +
GDP growth: 4.2% —
Gas prices: $3.05 +
Home prices: $408,000 —
Median income: $85,170 +
Washington
Unemployment: 4.2% —
GDP growth: 5.1% +
Gas prices: $3.92 —
Home prices: $588,000 —
Median income: $89,430 +
West Virginia
Unemployment: 4.3% —
GDP growth: 3.7% —
Gas prices: $3.01 +
Home prices: $282,000 +
Median income: $52,460 —
Wisconsin
Unemployment: 3.3% +
GDP growth: 5.0% +
Gas prices: $2.81 +
Home prices: $275,400 +
Median income: $73,330 —
Wyoming
Unemployment: 3.0% +
GDP growth: 5.7% +
Gas prices: $2.68 +
Home prices: $392,100 +
Median income: $73,090 —
Sources:
Unemployment: Seasonally adjusted unemployment rate by state in December 2023, per U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
GDP growth: Real gross domestic product growth in the third quarter of 2023, at an annual rate, per U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Gas prices: Average price per gallon of gas on Feb. 7, 2024, per AAA.
Home prices: Median home prices in December 2023, per Redfin.
Median income: Inflation-adjusted median household income by state for 2022, per St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Former President Donald Trump arrives at the New York State Supreme Court in New York, on Oct. 2, 2023. (Stephanie Keith/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Federal authorities are currently investigating a series of threats made online to a potential witness related to special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, according to a new court filing from Smith’s team.
In the filing late Wednesday in federal court in Florida, Smith’s team asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the judge overseeing the case, to let them file an exhibit under seal because, they wrote, “The exhibit describes in some detail threats that have been made over social media to a prospective Government witness and the surrounding circumstances, and the fact that those threats are the subject of an ongoing federal investigation being handled by a United States Attorney’s Office.”
“Disclosure of the details and circumstances of the threats risks disrupting the investigation,” the filing said.
The targeted witness was not identified.
The three-page filing discussing the probe was submitted as part of a dispute between Smith’s team and Trump’s lawyers over how much information should be redacted — or totally withheld from public view — in certain court filings.
In their filing Wednesday, Smith’s team urged Judge Cannon to let them file the exhibit completely under seal because, they said, simply redacting names or other parts of the document could still “provide information to the suspect to which he/she may not otherwise be entitled.”
Last year, Smith indicted Trump in Florida for allegedly defying a federal grand jury subpoena and trying to hide classified documents from both the FBI and his own attorney. Smith then indicted Trump in Washington, D.C., for allegedly trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty in both cases and denied all wrongdoing.
In October, Smith’s team accused Trump of threatening his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, after an ABC News report detailed some of what Meadows allegedly told investigators about Trump and the 2020 presidential election, including that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks following the election that allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless.
After the ABC News report, Trump posted to his social media platform, Truth Social, that he wouldn’t expect Meadows to “lie about the Rigged and Stolen” election “merely for getting IMMUNITY,” but that “Some people would make that deal.”
“[T]hey are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future of our Failing Nation,” Trump wrote.
In a subsequent court filing, Smith’s team said Trump’s “harmful” post on Truth Social was trying to “send an unmistakable and threatening message to a foreseeable witness in this case.”
Smith’s team argued to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan that the alleged threat was just one more example of why a limited gag order in the case was needed. Such a gag order now remains in place.
A spokesperson for Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
(NEW YORK) — Five missing Marines have been confirmed dead more than 24 hours after their helicopter crashed during a training flight, the U.S. Marine Corps said Thursday.
The Marines had been reported missing when their CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter was “reported overdue” to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Tuesday night. The helicopter departed from Creech Air Force Base near Las Vegas and was en route to Miramar, in the San Diego area.
The Marines launched a search and asked for help from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and Civil Air Patrol.
The sheriff’s department said it received a call at 1:50 a.m. and sent its own helicopter to search, but the helicopter wasn’t able to reach the area due to the atmospheric river storm hitting the region. The sheriff’s department said it then sent off-road vehicles to navigate the rough terrain.
The Marines said the helicopter was discovered at 9:08 a.m. Wednesday.
Efforts are ongoing to recover the five victims’ remains, the Marines said Thursday, and an investigation is underway.
President Joe Biden said he is “heartbroken,” noting that the training mission was “routine.”
“As the Department of Defense continues to assess what occurred, we extend our deepest condolences to their families, their squadron, and the U.S. Marine Corps as we grieve the loss of five of our nation’s finest warriors,” Biden said in a statement. “I am deeply grateful to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary-Civil Air Patrol, and other federal, state, and local agencies for their professionalism and dedication in supporting search and recovery efforts.”
“We will forever be grateful for their call to duty and selfless service,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte said in a statement. “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.”
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will consider a historic challenge to former President Donald Trump’s ability to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
It will be the first time that Trump’s status, or that of any presidential candidate, will be considered under this constitutional clause at the nation’s highest court, and it is one of the largest presidential election cases heard by the high court since 2000, when they confirmed the election of President George W. Bush.
The landmark case began in September in Colorado, when a group of six Republican and unaffiliated voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a challenge against Trump and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat who oversees the primary election process in the state.
Their lawsuit centered on Section 3, a rarely-invoked, civil-war era clause that states that someone isn’t eligible for future office if, while they were in office, they took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
Proponents of this theory claim it applies to Trump because of his actions after he lost the 2020 election but sought to reverse the results, including on the morning of Jan. 6. Trump maintains he did nothing wrong.
Colorado’s Supreme Court decided in December that Trump would be barred from their GOP primary ballot, ruling that he had “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6. They said that Secretary Griswold would commit a “wrongful act” under state election law if she placed his name on the list. The order was quickly appealed by the Colorado Republican party and Trump’s legal team to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case could have lasting implications on the upcoming 2024 general election cycle. It puts Trump (the Republican front-runner) and the justices (including three Trump himself appointed) face to face ahead of what’s ramping up to be a consequential rematch between Trump and current President Joe Biden.
The Supreme Court Justices are expected to consider some unprecedented constitutional questions during this case, and will be confronted with debate over whether Trump engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6. There are sweeping ramifications for the court’s reputation, public trust and ongoing litigation against Trump.
What is the Supreme Court deciding?
Did the Colorado Supreme Court rule correctly in ordering Trump is off of the 2024 presidential primary ballot under the 14th Amendment? Is it therefore a “wrongful act” under state election law for him to be placed on the ballot by the Secretary of State?
How will the case be heard on Thursday?
The Supreme Court agreed in early February to hear this case, docketed as Trump v. Anderson, on Feb. 8.
The court convenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday and oral arguments will start around 10:20 a.m. The arguments are formally allotted 80 minutes total but are expected to exceed this timeframe.
Trump’s attorney will begin the hearing with an opening statement, followed by questioning by the Justices. Next, each justice is called on in order of seniority to have an uninterrupted opportunity to question counsel. This process will replicate for the legal counsel of the Colorado voters and Secretary of State Griswold’s representation. The arguments will end with rebuttal by one of Trump’s attorneys.
The case will be submitted at the conclusion of oral arguments. The court is not expecting to issue an opinion on the case immediately, though there is a non-binding deadline for a decision: March 5, when Colorado will hold their 2024 primary election.
Who is representing each side?
Trump will be represented by Jonathan F. Mitchell, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and former Texas Solicitor General who is credited with devising SB8, Texas’ novel anti-abortion law which deputized everyday citizens to bring suits against anyone involved with the procedure. He has previously argued cases before the Supreme Court and has been on the law school faculties of Stanford, University of Texas, University of Chicago and George Mason.
The Colorado voters who sued to have Trump removed from the ballot will be represented by Jason C. Murray, a Harvard Law graduate and former clerk to Justice Elena Kagan and to Justice Neil Gorsuch, while he was on the 10th circuit. Murray has extensive trial lawyer experience.
Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold will be represented by the state Solicitor General Shannon W. Stevenson, a Duke law graduate and former appeals court clerk who has a prestigious career in Colorado state law.
Central arguments
The hearing will likely address a number of previously undecided questions, including whether Section 3 is considered “self-executing,” — meaning, if elections officials wouldn’t need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot — the precise application and definition of the “officer” language in the provision, and most importantly: the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to a presidential candidate.
How did the case play out in Colorado?
The Supreme Court is the final stop in Trump v. Anderson’s monthslong journey from a Denver District Court.
After the Colorado voters filed their lawsuit in September, a blockbuster five-day evidentiary hearing starting on Oct. 30 was the first time that Section 3 was tried in court against a candidate for the U.S. presidency — and the first legal test of escalating efforts to keep Trump off GOP primary ballots during the 2024 election.
CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” Trump and his campaign have dismissed the 14th Amendment clause being used against him. Ahead of the Colorado evidentiary hearing, both sides said this case is likely to be punted up to the United States Supreme Court.
District Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled against the group of Colorado voters on Nov. 17, citing “competing interpretations” of the constitutional clause, and a “lack of definitive guidance in the text or historical sources” in order to rule its application to Trump.
But she also issued a first-of-its-kind ruling that Trump, or any presidential candidate, had engaged in insurrection.
Both the legal team for Trump and the group of Colorado voters then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court over a lower court’s ruling — the voters over Wallace’s final judgment and Trump over her ruling that he engaged in insurrection.
The state Supreme Court took up the case, and on Dec. 6 they heard a two-hour hearing. The seven-justice court posed sharp questions central to the case, including on the definition of insurrection; whether the Capitol riot that occurred on Jan. 6, was an insurrection; and whether the “insurrectionist ban” applies to a U.S. president.
A four-justice Supreme Court majority decided on Dec. 19 that the former president “engaged in insurrection,” and was thus disqualified from the primary ballot.
“President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary,” the justices wrote.
“Moreover,” they wrote, “the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.”
They predicted that the matter would wind up before the high court — staying the ruling until Jan. 4, 2024, saying it would maintain the status quo pending any review from the nation’s high court.
What happens to the outstanding 14th Amendment challenges following SCOTUS’s ruling?
Dozens of similar challenges to his candidacy — filed by individual voters, former politicians, a current Republican presidential candidate and government oversight and watchdog organizations — have been weighed by lower courts, election boards or secretaries of state over the past year across roughly 34 states.
Trump has been declared ineligible to participate in a state’s primary process only twice: by the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state, though he is still on the ballot in both places as each challenge is pending appeal.
Maine was the second state to order Trump off their ballot, with Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issuing her decision on Dec. 28, a little over a week after Colorado’s ruling. That order was appealed by Trump’s team to the state’s top trial court, which on Jan. 17 deferred ruling until after the Colorado case was settled at SCOTUS — a ruling that still stands.
At least nine legal challenges related to the 14th Amendment are pending — 11 total with the Maine and Colorado cases included.
A number of the outstanding challenges were brought by Republican write-in presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, who told ABC News on Tuesday that he has only five pending challenges, in Arizona, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina and West Virginia. There are also pending challenges in Wyoming, Illinois and Massachusetts courts. Another voter’s challenge with the North Carolina State Board of Elections is also pending.
Castro said that his efforts are intended to serve as an insurance policy in the event that SCOTUS dismisses the Colorado case on purely procedural grounds. In that case, he could still mount 14th Amendment challenges on merit-based issues.
If the Supreme Court rules on decisive questions, like that Trump engaged in insurrection, all of the pending challenges could be declared moot. But if the court rules on the because of election scheduling or state-based election law, 14th Amendment challenges could ostensibly continue across states outside of Colorado.
