Americans divided on how SCOTUS should handle Trump ballot access: POLL

January 12, 2024 by WDNY Radio

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the press before closing arguments at his civil fraud trial at State Supreme Court. (Photo by Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

(NEW YORK) — Americans are divided on how the U.S. Supreme Court should handle former President Donald Trump’s ballot access, but a majority in a new ABC News/Ipsos poll say they would support the court either barring Trump from presidential ballots nationally or letting states take that step individually.

The national poll finds a close division on state-level rulings barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado and Maine, 49-46%, support-oppose. On next steps, 56% are willing to see him disqualified in all or some states, including 30% who say the high court should bar him in all states and 26% who say it should let each state decide.

Thirty-nine percent back a third option, saying the court should keep Trump on the ballot in all states.

The survey, produced by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos Public Affairs, also finds substantial support for the leveling of criminal charges against Trump, 56-39%. That contrasts with views on the impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden initiated last month by House Republicans, a step supported by 44% and opposed by 51%.

See PDF for full results, charts and tables.

A conviction, were it to happen, looks unlikely to shake Trump’s base: Among people with a favorable opinion of him, just 10% say a conviction would lower their opinion of Trump, while 12% say it would raise it.

At the same time, among all adults, 21% say a conviction would lower their opinion of the former president, including 15% of Republicans and 23% of independents (as well as 28% of Democrats). Independents often, albeit not always, are swing voters in presidential elections.

Strength of sentiment in the Trump and Biden cases is notable. Forty-one percent of Americans strongly support criminal charges against Trump, while many fewer, 24%, strongly oppose them. In Biden’s case, intensity is more closely distributed: 26% strongly support the impeachment inquiry, while 32% strongly oppose it.

Strength of sentiment doesn’t differentiate views of the Colorado and Maine rulings on Trump’s ballot access. In this case, 35% are strongly in support, while essentially as many, 34%, are strongly opposed.

SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear ballot access arguments on Feb. 8. The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state have ruled that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol makes him ineligible for the presidency under the 14th Amendment.

The case marks a potential turn for the court after its unpopular June 2022 ruling eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion. Last spring, just 39% of Americans thought the court’s justices, in general, base their rulings on the law; 51% instead said they rule based on their personal political views. Today, more think the justices will rule on the basis of the law in the Trump ballot access case, 53%, while fewer, albeit still 43%, think they’ll rule based on their political views.

Groups

Partisanship weighs heavily in these results. The Biden impeachment inquiry is supported by 81% of Republicans vs. 14% of Democrats; the criminal charges against Trump, by 89% of Democrats vs. 21% of Republicans. The main difference is independents: While 43% support the Biden inquiry, many more, 61%, support the Trump charges.

Ideological preferences differentiate as well, with three-quarters of conservatives supporting the Biden inquiry while 92% of liberals back the Trump charges. Here the main difference in overall outcomes is moderates — 39% support the Biden inquiry, compared with 65% who support the Trump charges.

There’s a difference by race/ethnicity as well. Roughly equal numbers of white Americans, about half in each case, support both the Biden inquiry and the Trump charges. The Biden inquiry is supported by 44% of Hispanic people, dropping to 24% of Black people. The Trump charges, by contrast, are supported by more than six in 10 Black and Hispanic people alike.

These also differentiate views on Supreme Court action. For example, 58% of Democrats say the court should order Trump removed in all states; 77% of Republicans say it should order him to be maintained on all ballots. Here, independents are more apt to say he should remain (36%) than be removed (27%). But an additional 32% of independents favor letting each state decide.

At the same time, the shift in views on the court’s adherence to the law crosses party lines. Compared with general views last May, the view that the justices in this particular case will base their ruling on the law is 10 percentage points higher among Democrats, 15 points higher among independents and 18 points higher among Republicans.

Methodology

This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Jan. 4-8, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,228 adults. Partisan divisions are 25-25-41%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

The survey was produced by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos Public Affairs. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

Three takeaways from a dramatic day of closing statements in Trump’s fraud trial

January 12, 2024 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — Donald Trump walked into the courtroom of his $370 million civil fraud trial Thursday and did exactly what he hoped to do: break all the rules established by the judge in order to deliver a brief closing statement.

Then he walked out scot-free.

The former president’s surprise statement provided a dramatic end to the months-long trial, which threatens to take away the namesake buildings, businesses, and reputation that launched Trump into professional and political stardom. Over an 11-week trial, the New York attorney general alleged that Trump made hundreds of millions of dollars by overstating his assets on his statements of financial condition to get more favorable loan terms.

Judge Arthur Engoron initially issued a non-negotiable directive should Trump elect to speak during closing statements: He could not make political statements, and he could not impugn those involved in the trial, according to emails posted to the court docket Wednesday.

When Trump’s attorneys pushed back against those requirements Wednesday afternoon and refused to agree with the rules, Engoron forbade Trump from speaking.

And yet, when Trump attorney Christopher Kise asked the judge midway through closings Thursday if he would reconsider his decision — and the judge asked Trump if he would stay within the bounds of his requirements — Trump launched right into this statement.

“Well I think, your honor, this case goes outside the facts,” Trump said, ignoring the judge’s edict as he barreled ahead. “This is a political witch hunt that should be set aside.”

“I’m an innocent man. I’ve been persecuted by someone running for office,” Trump said calmly while sitting with his arms clasped at his counsel table. “This statute is vicious. It doesn’t give me a jury. It takes away my rights.”

Trump’s five-minute statement put an exclamation point on a seesaw day of pronouncements and retorts. Here are three main takeaways from the two sides’ closing arguments.

Trump admitted a mistake

In a rare move, amid a torrent of accusations and personal attacks, Trump admitted that his company did make a mistake in his personal statement of financial condition.

“They made a mistake. It was an honest mistake,” Trump said about the decision to value his Trump Tower penthouse as being three times larger than it actually is. The mistake eventually resulted in the property being overvalued by $114 million to $207 million.

Trump’s acknowledgement is likely to play into the judge’s decision later this month, when Engoron will have to determine whether or not the overvaluation was intentional. In a ruling last month, the judge characterized the sizing error and other similar issues as “misstatements at best and fraud at worst.”

Trump’s sons might win

While Trump has stepped away from the real estate business to pursue politics, his eldest sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. both continue to hold important stakes in the family business. When he issues his ruling, Engoron has the power to limit the ability of Trump and his two sons to conduct business in New York moving forward.

However, during an exchange with a state attorney on Thursday, Engoron signaled that he was not convinced that Trump’s sons had any knowledge of the company’s fraud.

“What evidence do you have — I just haven’t seen it — that they knew that there was fraud?” Engoron asked state attorney Andrew Amer.

“They can’t say they didn’t bother paying attention to it. That is just not a defense,” Amer responded.

Engoron expressed skepticism at Amer’s response and appeared to feel that Donald Trump Jr. particular was unaware of the issues alleged by the attorney general.

The state has a new theory

Faced with the need to prove that the alleged fraud was intentional, state attorney Kevin Wallace’s closing statement unveiled a theory to explain the motive behind it.

Wallace alleged that roughly $775 million in expenses to renovate properties, coupled with the expense of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, created a “cash crunch” for the Trump Organization during the period in question. Displaying a chart that he said tracked Trump’s cash flow, Wallace alleged that — had the company not resorted to fraud to get favorable terms on its loans — it would have had a negative cash flow by 2017.

By opting to commit fraud, “They didn’t have to choose between their priorities,” Wallace alleged regarding the company’s business expenses and Trump’s presidential campaign.

Engoron, however, appeared to feel the argument was only conjecture. The alleged fraud also predated the timetable in Wallace’s argument.

The judge said he hoped to issue a final ruling in the case by Jan. 31.

US approved bitcoin ETFs. Are they a good investment?

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — Trading is set to begin for a new type of bitcoin fund that gives investors access to the crypto market without some of the hassle and fees of owning bitcoin outright.

Freshly approved by federal regulators, bitcoin ETFs — Exchange-Traded Funds — allow investors to buy an asset that tracks the price movement of bitcoin.

Fidelity, BlackRock and a host of other top investment firms have already begun to offer the product.

Bitcoin ETFs promise major potential gains but also notable downsides, presenting investors with a wide range of outcomes that will test their tolerance for risk, analysts told ABC News.

Investors could capitalize on a possible rise in the price of bitcoin if a flood of money into Bitcoin ETFs vaults the cryptocurrency into mainstream markets, they said.

However, investors should be prepared to weather the asset’s considerable volatility as well as uncertainty stemming from its association with issues of fraud and mismanagement in the wider crypto industry, they added.

“It’s going to be a volatile ride,” Bryan Armour, the director of passive strategies research at financial firm Morningstar, told ABC News. “You have to know that going in and make sure you’re okay with that.”

Some analysts said the new products could unleash a flow of investment and trigger a major spike in the price of Bitcoin, supercharging the most well-known and successful digital asset.

A Bitcoin ETF would elicit more than $14 billion of investment inflows within its first year on the market and as much as a 74% price increase over that period, Galaxy Digital, a crypto management and research firm, said in a report in October.

Some traditional institutions outside of the crypto arena have echoed that optimism, at least to a degree. Deutsche Bank forecasted price increases for bitcoin this year due in part to “greater institutional investment” in Bitcoin ETFs, according to a report reviewed by ABC News.

A run-up in price would follow some previous bull runs for bitcoin, including a rise of nearly 70% over the past six months. But the cryptocurrency has also undergone periods of major decline.

The price of bitcoin experienced a decline of at least 45 percentage points four times in the past five years, Armour said on Wednesday in a report for Morningstar.

The acceptance of Bitcoin ETFs among a wide swathe of investors could smooth out some of the volatility but that outcome may not come to pass, Armour told ABC News.

“If adoption becomes wider and the market becomes more mature, the price will become more stable,” Armour said. “For now, I don’t see it stabilizing.”

Setting aside their volatility, Bitcoin ETFs carry risks posed by the uncertain effects of fraud and mismanagement within the crypto sector, some analysts said.

The crypto industry entered this year bruised after a series of high-profile collapses and company scandals.

Sam Bankman-Fried, formerly one of the industry’s most prominent figures, could serve decades in prison after he was convicted on fraud charges in a federal trial. Changpeng Zhao, the founder and former CEO of major cryptocurrency exchange Binance, faces a jail sentence of up to 18 months after he pleaded guilty to federal charges of money laundering.

In a statement on Wednesday, Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler affirmed the agency’s decision to approve Bitcoin ETFs but offered a note of caution about cryptocurrency.

“We did not approve or endorse bitcoin,” Gensler said. “Investors should remain cautious about the myriad risks associated with bitcoin and products whose value is tied to crypto.”

James Butterfill, head of research at digital asset management firm CoinShares, rebuked concerns about bitcoin tied to potential manipulation or fraud.

The green light to trade Bitcoin ETFs gives them the “regulatory stamp approval,” Butterfill said.

Ultimately, investors considering Bitcoin ETFs should consider the role a potentially risky asset should play in their wider portfolio, analysts said.

“You shouldn’t allocate more to Bitcoin ETFs than you’re willing to lose,” Armour told ABC News.

Callie Cox, an analyst at the investment company eToro who tracks cryptocurrencies, said each individual should weigh Bitcoin ETFs within his or her own financial goals.

“You have your own hopes and dreams for your portfolio, so you should see how it fits,” Cox said.

Book ban lawsuit moves forward as Florida district removes over 1,000 titles

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit challenging book bans in Escambia County, Florida, can move forward on the same day the county released an updated list of more than 2,800 individual books that have been pulled from shelves for review.

U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II ruled on Wednesday that book publisher Penguin Random House, free expression PEN America, authors, and families of Escambia County had standing to pursue their claims under the First Amendment because those protections are implicated when officials remove books based on ideology or viewpoint. However, they were denied to pursue the claims under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

“We are gratified that the Judge recognized that books cannot be removed from school library shelves simply because of the views they espouse, and are looking forward to moving forward with this case to protect the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs,” Lynn Oberlander of Ballard Spahr, who is representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Escambia County has released a list of 2,812 books — totaling more than 1,500 titles — that have been pulled from shelves for “further review” of their compliance under House Bill 1069 which limits discussion of gender and sexual orientation in grade school as of Jan. 10. These books include “The World Book encyclopedia,” “100 Women Who Made History: Remarkable Women Who Shaped Our World,” “Africa (Cultural Atlas for Young People)” and more.

The previously released round-up of books to be reviewed included Merriam-Webster’s dictionary and Webster’s dictionary and thesaurus.

The lawsuit was brought forward in May 2023 by Penguin Random House, PEN America, authors and families of Escambia County who argue that the school board’s removal and restriction of books violates the First Amendment.

The lawsuit claims the county violated the First Amendment rights of the students, authors, and publishers by “removing books ‘based on ideological objections to their contents or disagreement with their messages or themes.'”

Several authors whose books have been impacted by book bans across the country, including David Levithan, George M. Johnson and Ashley Hope Pérez, are backing the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also alleges, that in every decision to remove a book, “the removals have disproportionately targeted books by or about people of color and/or LGBTQ people, and have prescribed an orthodoxy of opinion that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

The Board argued in its motion to dismiss the case that it has not banned any books, rather it “‘removed from its own school libraries [books] that the Board had purchased for those libraries with Board funds. It [has] not prohibit[ed] anyone else from owning, possessing, or reading the book[s].'”

The school board claims it “has the ultimate authority to decide what books will be purchased and kept on the shelves of the schools in the district,” according to the motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

House Bill 1069 expanded the Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law by critics from prekindergarten through grade 8. It was passed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2023.

From grades 9 through 12, such content must be “age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Recent legislation in Florida, including the Parental Rights in Education Bill and the Stop WOKE Act, have led to restrictions and removals of books across the state.

The Stop WOKE Act restricts lessons and training on race and diversity in schools and in the workplace, particularly anything that discusses privilege or oppression based on race. WOKE in the bill stands for “Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees.”

Between January 1 and August 31, 2023, the American Library Association recorded 695 attempts to ban library materials and services, affecting 1,915 different book titles. The organization said this marked a 20% increase from the same reporting period in 2022, which saw the highest number of book challenges since ALA began compiling the data more than 20 years ago.

Most of the book challenges in 2023 were against books written by or about a person of color or a member of the LGBTQ community, according to the ALA.

To comply with HB 1069, Escambia County has subject books in school and classroom libraries to be reviewed by district book review committees and the school board.

In several cases, the books approved for use by the district book review committees have been rejected and removed or restricted by the school board. This includes the titles of “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” by George M. Johnson, “Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, “Lucky” by Alice Sebold, “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, “Push” by Sapphire, and others.

Dozens of books that were challenged by community members were requested by one person, an English teacher at a high school in Escambia County. She cites “indoctrination,” “sexual content,” “violent language,” and “LGBTQ content” among her objections in the more than 100 complaints.

“Ensuring that students have access to books on a wide range of topics and that express a diversity of viewpoints is a core function of public education — preparing students to be thoughtful and engaged citizens,” said PEN America in a statement on the lawsuit.

Escambia County officials did not immediately respond to ABC News requests for comment.

eBay to pay $3 million for harassment targeting Massachusetts couple over newsletter

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

Mateusz Slodkowski/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — eBay will pay a $3 million criminal penalty for a campaign of harassment and intimidation undertaken by company executives that included anonymous home deliveries of a bloody pig mask, live insects and a funeral wreath, the Department of Justice said on Thursday.

The harassment targeted a Massachusetts couple for its online coverage of eBay, the DOJ said.

The San Jose, California, based online shopping firm was slapped with felony charges, including stalking, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, the DOJ added. The harassment took place roughly four years ago.

“eBay engaged in absolutely horrific, criminal conduct. The company’s employees and contractors involved in this campaign put the victims through pure hell, in a petrifying campaign aimed at silencing their reporting and protecting the eBay brand,” Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua S. Levy said in a statement.

eBay did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

From 2019 to 2020, Jim Baugh, eBay’s former Senior Director of Safety and Security, and six other employees on eBay’s security team targeted the couple for its role in publishing a newsletter about issues of interest to eBay sellers, the DOJ said.

Senior executives at eBay grew frustrated over the tone and content of the newsletter, as well as comments posted beneath the newsletter’s articles, the DOJ added.

In response, the DOJ said, Baugh and the other eBay employees carried out a campaign of harassment to intimidate the couple and change the tone of the newsletter.

The campaign included sending anonymous and disturbing deliveries to the victims’ home, and sending private Twitter messages and public tweets criticizing the newsletter’s content, the DOJ said.

eBay employees traveled to Natick, Massachusetts, to surveil the victims and install a GPS tracking device on their car, the DOJ added.

When Baugh learned of a police investigation into the harassment, he made false statements to the police and his team deleted digital evidence, the DOJ said.

eBay terminated all of the employees involved after an investigation.

“The company cooperated fully and extensively with law enforcement authorities throughout the process. EBay does not tolerate this kind of behavior. eBay apologizes to the affected individuals and is sorry that they were subjected to this. EBay holds its employees to high standards of conduct and ethics and will continue to take appropriate action to ensure these standards are followed,” the independent special committee formed by eBay’s board of directors to oversee the company’s investigation said in a statement at the time.

Ultimately, seven eBay employees were convicted for their role in the harassment campaign, many of whom served prison sentences. Bough was sentenced to 57 months in prison in September 2022, the DOJ said.

In addition to the fine, eBay agreed to retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for three years and improve its compliance process, the DOJ said.

“Today’s settlement holds eBay criminally and financially responsible for emotionally, psychologically, and physically terrorizing the publishers of an online newsletter out of fear that bad publicity would adversely impact their Fortune 500 company,” Jodi Cohen, special agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Boston Division, said in a statement.

“It also puts in place some much needed checks and balances to ensure an overhaul of eBay’s corporate culture,” Cohen added.

Hunter Biden pleads not guilty at arraignment on tax charges

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

Hunter Biden attends the House Oversight and Accountability Committee markup titled “Resolution Recommending That The House Of Representatives Find Robert Hunter Biden In Contempt Of Congress,” in Rayburn Building on Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

(LOS ANGELES) — President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden entered a not guilty plea to 9 felony and misdemeanor tax charges at his initial appearance in a California courtroom on Thursday.

The plea was entered by Hunter Biden himself during an arraignment in federal court in downtown Los Angeles.

His plea came a day after he made a surprise appearance at a Capitol Hill hearing on whether to hold him in contempt of Congress.

The younger Biden is appearing before Judge Mark Scarsi at the Edward R. Roybal courthouse to be arraigned on 9 tax-related charges accusing him of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019.

The indictment from December alleges that the president’s son earned millions of dollars from foreign entities in Ukraine, Romania and China, and “spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle at the same time he chose not to pay his taxes.”

The back taxes were eventually paid in 2020 by a third party, identified by ABC News as Hunter Biden’s attorney and confidant Kevin Morris.

The charges came after an initial plea deal fell apart in dramatic fashion in a Delaware federal courtroom last July, after the judge expressed concerns over the terms of the agreement.

Hunter Biden subsequently pleaded not guilty in October to three felony gun charges as part of a separate indictment in Delaware that came after a diversion agreement on one of the gun charges fell apart alongside the initial plea deal. He has since moved to have those charges dismissed.

The indictment was brought by special counsel David Weiss, a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware who had been investigating Hunter Biden and was named special counsel over the summer.

In response to the tax charges, Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, claimed the December indictment included “no new evidence” and said, “Based on the facts and the law, if Hunter’s last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware, and now California, would not have been brought.”

Hunter Biden’s court appearance in California on Thursday comes a day after he surprised lawmakers in Washington by showing up in person to a House Oversight committee hearing on whether to hold him in contempt after he refused a subpoena to testify in a closed-door session as part of a GOP-led probe into his family’s business affairs.

The younger Biden, whose appearance caught Republicans on the committee completely by surprise, said that he would be willing to testify in a public forum.

Lowell, speaking to reporters after leaving the hearing room Wednesday, accused Republicans of caring “little about the truth” and trying to “hold someone in contempt, who has offered to publicly answer all their proper questions.”

“Hunter Biden was and is a private citizen,” Lowell said. “Despite this, Republicans have sought to use him as a surrogate to attack his father.”

A White House spokesperson has said that President Biden “was never in business with his son.” In 2019, as a presidential candidate, Biden said, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”

Trump says he’s already picked his VP and ‘can’t tell you,’ but his campaign backtracks

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he’s decided who his vice presidential pick will be if he wins the 2024 Republican nomination — but his campaign quickly downplayed that claim, saying the issue hasn’t been discussed in “any great detail.”

“I know who it’s going to be,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum during the network’s town hall on Wednesday, which he attended instead of the latest GOP primary debate.

Pressed on who that running mate is, Trump retorted, “I can’t tell you that really.”

Those comments seemingly caught his top aides off guard.

“All I know is what I heard tonight, and I’m not gonna categorize it any other way than that,” senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita told reporters following the town hall.

Pressed on what types of conversations have happened around a potential vice presidential candidate pick, LaCivita said the talks have been minimal.

“I’m sure that when the time to discuss a VP … comes, everybody will know,” he added.

Multiple names are being floated for who could potentially be Trump’s running mate, including South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a former primary contender who has said he’s not interested in being vice president.

Those politicians have all spent time on the campaign trail touting Trump’s policies and repeatedly affirming their support for the former president. (Former Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s previous running mate, broke with him in the wake of Jan. 6.)

Trump on Wednesday also spoke approvingly — if, perhaps, jokingly — about someone who until recently was running against him in the primary.

“I’ve already started to like [Chris] Christie better,” Trump said to laughs about mending relationships with his Republican challengers ahead of the general election.

However, Trump quickly threw cold water on the possibility of tapping the former New Jersey governor to be his vice president.

“I don’t see it. That would be an upset,” he said.

Others have suggested a ticket with Trump and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley would be a strong duo to defeat President Joe Biden; however, Trump allies have firmly opposed that idea in light of Haley’s challenge to Trump in the primary.

Noem recently said during an appearance on Newsmax that it would be a “mistake” for the former president to pick Haley as his running mate.

Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s eldest son, has said he would go to “great lengths” to assure Haley doesn’t join the Trump ticket.

Even Haley herself has publicly remained focused on defeating Trump, playing down the possibility of a No. 2 role without, as opponent Ron DeSantis has often noted, definitively ruling it out.

“First of all, I don’t play for second — I never have,” Haley told a voter last week, “and I’m not going to start now.”

Grand jury declines to indict Ohio woman facing charges after she miscarried

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

Matei Brancoveanu / 500px / Getty Images

(WARREN, Ohio) — A grand jury decided Thursday not to indict an Ohio woman on allegations that she mishandled the remains of a fetus after miscarrying her pregnancy at home.

The case had alarmed reproductive rights groups and legal experts who said there is no clear guidance on how to handle an at-home miscarriage and that police and local prosecutors overreached by charging the woman, who is Black, with “abuse of a corpse.”

Brittany Watts, 34, of Warren, was arrested last October and pleaded not guilty to the charge. If convicted, she would have faced up to a year in prison. Because the grand jury decided not to indict, the case has been dropped.

Supporters has been planning a rally at the courthouse Thursday at 4:00 p.m. ET, according to local reports.

According to the Trumbull County Coroner’s Office, Watts’ water broke last September when she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant. A fetal heartbeat was present, but her doctors at Mercy Health – St. Joseph Warren Hospital recommended that Watts be induced to prevent a life-threatening infection from developing.

At the time, Ohio allowed abortions up to 22 weeks gestation unless a woman’s life was at stake.

The coroner’s report said Watts then signed herself out of the hospital against medical advice “to process the information she was told.” She returned to the hospital the next day, but again left a second time against the advice of doctors.

The hospital declined to comment, citing privacy concerns.

Two days later, Watts delivered the fetus at home over a toilet. She then returned to the hospital, where she told authorities she thought she had taken the fetal remains out of the toilet and placed them in a black bucket.

The fetal remains were found wedged inside the toilet bowl, according to the coroner’s report.

“Not wanting to destroy any evidence, the bottom portion of the toilet was removed” and taken to the local morgue “for further investigation,” the coroner’s office wrote.

A subsequent autopsy showed that the baby had died before being born due to a spontaneous miscarriage and that no illicit drugs were present. Watts was arrested two weeks later on accusations of “abusing a corpse.”

During a hearing in November, Watts’s attorneys argued that she had gone to a hospital before the miscarriage and waited for hours before leaving and miscarrying at home.

Assistant prosecutor Lewis Guarnieri argued to have the case move forward, which was agreed to by Warren Municipal Court Judge Terry Ivanchak.

Ivanchak referred the case to a grand jury, arguing there was “probable cause” of a crime. He has since retired. The case would have been tried by Judge Andrew Logan.

The local police and the city attorney of Warren, responsible for initiating charges against Watts, have not responded to requests for comment.

Watts’ attorney has also not responded to requests for comment.

Dennis Watkins, the Trumbull County prosecutor, said after receiving charges from the city attorney of Warren, it was “duty bound” to put the case before a judge, who found there was “probable cause” a crime had been committed.

In a statement released following the grand jury’s decision, Watkins said his office believed Watts “did not violate the Ohio Criminal Statue of Abuse of a Corpse as alleged in the complaint.”

“We respectively disagree with the lower court’s application of the law,” he said in the statement.

The charge against Watts occurred before Ohio voters passed an amendment in the November 2023 election to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution.

The ballot measure ended an earlier effort in Ohio by Republican lawmakers to enforce a near-total abortion ban after six weeks.

Millions of furniture tip-over restraints sold after 2019 recalled

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — New Age Industries is recalling millions of furniture tip kits or tip restraints that were sold alongside clothing storage units in furniture stores across the U.S. and online.

New Age and Alliance4Safety, a coalition of furniture manufacturers, retailers and delivery servicers, said the plastic zip tie in the kits “can become brittle or break,” potentially causing clothing storage units anchored to a wall to detach and tip over.

Furniture tip-overs are hazardous and can lead to entrapment, serious injuries or in some cases, death, particularly in children.

The recalled tip kits, which consist of a plastic zip tie, two brackets and two screws, were labeled with a stamp or sticker with a manufacture date of November 2019 or later and were included in furniture that was made in Vietnam. The kit packaging also featured black lettering, furniture anchoring directions, and was labeled “Manufactured by New Age Industries” near the bottom.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 31 furniture companies are participating in the recall, including name brands like Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, and Drew and Jonathan by Hooker Furnishings, one of the brands from HGTV stars Drew and Jonathan Scott of “Property Brothers.”

Ashley Furniture and Hooker Furnishings did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.

According to the CPSC, there have been two reports of broken New Age tip kits received by furniture companies, but no injuries have been reported so far.

Consumers are encouraged to check if they have a recalled tip kit on the Alliance4Safety New Age recall website.

Anyone with a recalled kit can request a free replacement tip kit through the website, by toll-free phone at 855-416-7370 or email at info@alliance4safety.org.

Each year, about 8,900 pediatric emergency room injuries and 6,900 adult ER injuries are associated with a tip-over incident, according to a 2023 CPSC report. To prevent tip-overs, furniture like dressers and TV stands should be anchored to a wall. The CPSC offers instructions and more information on its AchorIt.gov website.

FAA launches probe of Boeing following door plug incident

January 11, 2024 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — The Federal Aviation Administration said it is conducting an investigation of Boeing after a defective door plug fell out of an Alaska Airlines plane last week, forcing an emergency landing.

“This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again,” the FAA said in a statement, noting it has formally notified Boeing of the probe.

The door plug for the fuselage of a Boeing 737 Max 9 fell off a few minutes after Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 took off from Portland International Airport on Friday, depressurizing the cabin and exposing passengers to open air thousands of feet above ground. Passengers captured footage showing a hole where the door plug came loose.

Boeing said in a statement, “We will cooperate fully and transparently with the FAA and the NTSB on their investigations.”

The FAA said its investigation will “determine if Boeing failed to ensure completed products conformed to its approved design and were in a condition for safe operation in compliance with FAA regulations.”

The Boeing probe is a result of the door plug incident and “additional discrepancies,” the FAA said.

“Boeing’s manufacturing practices need to comply with the high safety standards they’re legally accountable to meet,” the agency said.

Every Boeing 737 Max 9 with a plug door will remain grounded until the administration determines that each can safely return to operation, the FAA said Tuesday. The pause affects about 171 planes worldwide.

“The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 Max to service,” the FAA said Thursday.

The Alaska Airlines emergency incident is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun told employees on Tuesday that the company is “going to approach” the midair emergency by starting with an acknowledgment of “our mistake.”

“We’re going to approach it with 100% and complete transparency every step of the way,” Calhoun said during a meeting with employees at the 737 production facility in Renton, Washington. “We are going to work with the NTSB who is investigating the accident itself to find out what the cause is.”

The focus of the NTSB investigation is on the single aircraft, but could be broadened as more is learned, board Chief Jennifer Homendy said.

“However, at some point, we may need to go broader. But right now we have to figure out how this occurred with this aircraft,” Homendy said Tuesday on ABC News’ “Good Morning America.”

The fittings at the top of the door plug fractured, Homendy said. The NTSB examination has shown that those fittings were fractured, allowing the plug door to move upward and outward, she said.

“We don’t know if the bolts were loose. We don’t know if bolts were in there fractured or possibly the bolts weren’t there at all,” she said. “We have to determine that back in our laboratory.”

On Monday, United Airlines said it had found loose bolts on its 737 Max 9 fleet during inspections ordered after Friday’s incident involving an Alaska Airlines flight.

ABC News’ Kevin Shalvey contributed to this report.

+ More