daotran (@daotran) • Hey

Publications

They are happening in Washington and Delaware and countless places across the country, and increasingly not just in private. A Tuesday MSNBC interview with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in which she said Biden needs to demonstrate whether the debate performance was indicative of a broader “condition,” felt like [a turning point](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/nancy-pelosi-says-biden-trump-take-mental-fitness-tests-rcna159993) ― a signal, intentional or otherwise, that it’s OK for other Democrats to share publicly their anxieties about Biden’s ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November. (My HuffPost colleagues can bring you up to date on the Democratic panic [here](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-panic-joe-biden-debate_n_6685ab38e4b0971108c1f0eb).)
They are happening in Washington and Delaware and countless places across the country, and increasingly not just in private. A Tuesday MSNBC interview with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in which she said Biden needs to demonstrate whether the debate performance was indicative of a broader “condition,” felt like a turning point ― a signal, intentional or otherwise, that it’s OK for other Democrats to share publicly their anxieties about Biden’s ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November. (My HuffPost colleagues can bring you up to date on the Democratic panic here.)
They are happening in Washington and Delaware and countless places across the country, and increasingly not just in private. A Tuesday MSNBC interview with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in which she said Biden needs to demonstrate whether the debate performance was indicative of a broader “condition,” felt like a turning point ― a signal, intentional or otherwise, that it’s OK for other Democrats to share publicly their anxieties about Biden’s ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November. (My HuffPost colleagues can bring you up to date on the Democratic panic here.)
They are happening in Washington and Delaware and countless places across the country, and increasingly not just in private. A Tuesday MSNBC interview with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in which she said Biden needs to demonstrate whether the debate performance was indicative of a broader “condition,” felt like a turning point ― a signal, intentional or otherwise, that it’s OK for other Democrats to share publicly their anxieties about Biden’s ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November. (My HuffPost colleagues can bring you up to date on the Democratic panic here.)
They are happening in Washington and Delaware and countless places across the country, and increasingly not just in private. A Tuesday MSNBC interview with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in which she said Biden needs to demonstrate whether the debate performance was indicative of a broader “condition,” felt like a turning point ― a signal, intentional or otherwise, that it’s OK for other Democrats to share publicly their anxieties about Biden’s ability to beat former President Donald Trump in November. (My HuffPost colleagues can bring you up to date on the Democratic panic here.)
On Monday, the [Supreme Court handed Trump a victory](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scotus-rules-trump-immune_n_662be328e4b0ab66ede48949) when it released its opinion on Trump v. U.S., which declares that Trump has complete legal immunity for actions during his presidency that were “official” in nature, although not for those that were “unofficial.” The ruling makes it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial on charges related to inciting the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, will take place before the November election. It also complicates his other ongoing legal proceedings, including his recent [hush money conviction](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-hush-money-sentencing-scotus-decision_n_66841628e4b05d5a5eb37c8a).
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Trump a victory when it released its opinion on Trump v. U.S., which declares that Trump has complete legal immunity for actions during his presidency that were “official” in nature, although not for those that were “unofficial.” The ruling makes it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial on charges related to inciting the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, will take place before the November election. It also complicates his other ongoing legal proceedings, including his recent hush money conviction.
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Trump a victory when it released its opinion on Trump v. U.S., which declares that Trump has complete legal immunity for actions during his presidency that were “official” in nature, although not for those that were “unofficial.” The ruling makes it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial on charges related to inciting the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, will take place before the November election. It also complicates his other ongoing legal proceedings, including his recent hush money conviction.
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Trump a victory when it released its opinion on Trump v. U.S., which declares that Trump has complete legal immunity for actions during his presidency that were “official” in nature, although not for those that were “unofficial.” The ruling makes it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial on charges related to inciting the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, will take place before the November election. It also complicates his other ongoing legal proceedings, including his recent [hush money conviction](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-hush-money-sentencing-scotus-decision_n_66841628e4b05d5a5eb37c8a).
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed Trump a victory when it released its opinion on Trump v. U.S., which declares that Trump has complete legal immunity for actions during his presidency that were “official” in nature, although not for those that were “unofficial.” The ruling makes it highly unlikely that Trump’s trial on charges related to inciting the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, will take place before the November election. It also complicates his other ongoing legal proceedings, including his recent hush money conviction.
Tens of thousands of men rallied in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood to protest the order. But after nightfall, the crowd made its way toward central Jerusalem and turned violent. Israeli police said protesters threw rocks and attacked the car of an ultra-Orthodox Cabinet minister, pelting it with stones. Water cannons filled with skunk-scented water and police mounted on horses were used to disperse the crowd. But the demonstration was still not under control late Sunday.
t Tens of thousands of men rallied in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood to protest the order. But after nightfall, the crowd made its way toward central Jerusalem and turned violent. Israeli police... https://app.t2.world/article/cly293ecx12460720mclsewqfyx
Tens of thousands of men rallied in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood to protest the order. But after nightfall, the crowd made its way toward central Jerusalem and turned violent. Israeli police said protesters threw rocks and attacked the car of an ultra-Orthodox Cabinet minister, pelting it with stones. Water cannons filled with skunk-scented water and police mounted on horses were used to disperse the crowd. But the demonstration was still not under control late Sunday.
The Chevron case had established that courts should generally, although not always, defer to the expertise of federal agencies tasked by Congress to regulate aspects of commerce in American life; for example, food safety and water quality. In Chevron, the justices acknowledged the expertise of the agencies, which are staffed largely with career officials. But on Friday, in a case brought by two fishing companies — Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless — the court abolished the Chevron precedent and [handed a major win to corporations](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-regulations-chevron_n_662f8927e4b09dcb78306c56).
The Chevron case had established that courts should generally, although not always, defer to the expertise of federal agencies tasked by Congress to regulate aspects of commerce in American life; for example, food safety and water quality. In Chevron, the justices acknowledged the expertise of the agencies, which are staffed largely with career officials. But on Friday, in a case brought by two fishing companies — Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless — the court abolished the Chevron precedent and handed a major win to corporations.
The Chevron case had established that courts should generally, although not always, defer to the expertise of federal agencies tasked by Congress to regulate aspects of commerce in American life; for example, food safety and water quality. In Chevron, the justices acknowledged the expertise of the agencies, which are staffed largely with career officials. But on Friday, in a case brought by two fishing companies — Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless — the court abolished the Chevron precedent and handed a major win to corporations.
t The Chevron case had established that courts should generally, although not always, defer to the expertise of federal agencies tasked by Congress to regulate aspects of commerce in American life;... https://app.t2.world/article/cly107vzh8666481zmczeapt48r
The Chevron case had established that courts should generally, although not always, defer to the expertise of federal agencies tasked by Congress to regulate aspects of commerce in American life; for example, food safety and water quality. In Chevron, the justices acknowledged the expertise of the agencies, which are staffed largely with career officials. But on Friday, in a case brought by two fishing companies — Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless — the court abolished the Chevron precedent and [handed a major win to corporations](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-regulations-chevron_n_662f8927e4b09dcb78306c56).
The Chevron case had established that courts should generally, although not always, defer to the expertise of federal agencies tasked by Congress to regulate aspects of commerce in American life; for example, food safety and water quality. In Chevron, the justices acknowledged the expertise of the agencies, which are staffed largely with career officials. But on Friday, in a case brought by two fishing companies — Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless — the court abolished the Chevron precedent and handed a major win to corporations.
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. The decision is also a major power grab by the judicial branch, which will now play a bigger role as the final arbiter over which new regulations are allowed to stand and which will be struck down. The ruling concerns two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Jackson joined her liberal colleagues, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in dissenting in Relentless, which was a 6-3 decision, but recused herself from Loper Bright Enterprises.
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. The decision is also a major power grab by the judicial branch, which will now play a bigger role as the final arbiter over which new regulations are allowed to stand and which will be struck down. The ruling concerns two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Jackson joined her liberal colleagues, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in dissenting in Relentless, which was a 6-3 decision, but recused herself from Loper Bright Enterprises.
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. The decision is also a major power grab by the judicial branch, which will now play a bigger role as the final arbiter over which new regulations are allowed to stand and which will be struck down. The ruling concerns two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Jackson joined her liberal colleagues, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in dissenting in Relentless, which was a 6-3 decision, but recused herself from Loper Bright Enterprises.
c “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. The decision is also a major power grab by the judicial... https://app.t2.world/article/clxzo697e13423061zmcbm06fs3b
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. The decision is also a major power grab by the judicial branch, which will now play a bigger role as the final arbiter over which new regulations are allowed to stand and which will be struck down. The ruling concerns two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Jackson joined her liberal colleagues, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in dissenting in Relentless, which was a 6-3 decision, but recused herself from Loper Bright Enterprises.
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. The decision is also a major power grab by the judicial branch, which will now play a bigger role as the final arbiter over which new regulations are allowed to stand and which will be struck down. The ruling concerns two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Jackson joined her liberal colleagues, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in dissenting in Relentless, which was a 6-3 decision, but recused herself from Loper Bright Enterprises.
“My first boob job, I had a friend at the time — it was the bad boyfriend I talk about, it was his friend’s girlfriend and she was a stripper — and she had her boobs done. So she’s like, ‘Oh, you just have to go to this place,’” Spelling said. The actor revealed that the surgery was performed at an outpatient facility at the plaza. “I went to this doctor and it was in a strip mall! I’m not kidding. I can’t make this up. I think he was a fine doctor,” she recalled. “It was just an outpatient surgery center in a strip mall. But you know, I was 19, so I was like: ‘Uh, this isn’t Beverly Hills. What’s happening?’ I was confused.
“My first boob job, I had a friend at the time — it was the bad boyfriend I talk about, it was his friend’s girlfriend and she was a stripper — and she had her boobs done. So she’s like, ‘Oh, you just have to go to this place,’” Spelling said. The actor revealed that the surgery was performed at an outpatient facility at the plaza. “I went to this doctor and it was in a strip mall! I’m not kidding. I can’t make this up. I think he was a fine doctor,” she recalled. “It was just an outpatient surgery center in a strip mall. But you know, I was 19, so I was like: ‘Uh, this isn’t Beverly Hills. What’s happening?’ I was confused.
“My first boob job, I had a friend at the time — it was the bad boyfriend I talk about, it was his friend’s girlfriend and she was a stripper — and she had her boobs done. So she’s like, ‘Oh, you just have to go to this place,’” Spelling said. The actor revealed that the surgery was performed at an outpatient facility at the plaza. “I went to this doctor and it was in a strip mall! I’m not kidding. I can’t make this up. I think he was a fine doctor,” she recalled. “It was just an outpatient surgery center in a strip mall. But you know, I was 19, so I was like: ‘Uh, this isn’t Beverly Hills. What’s happening?’ I was confused.
m “My first boob job, I had a friend at the time — it was the bad boyfriend I talk about, it was his friend’s girlfriend and she was a stripper... https://app.t2.world/article/clxy8vcgk7180651zmcauyrjgfu
“My first boob job, I had a friend at the time — it was the bad boyfriend I talk about, it was his friend’s girlfriend and she was a stripper — and she had her boobs done. So she’s like, ‘Oh, you just have to go to this place,’” Spelling said. The actor revealed that the surgery was performed at an outpatient facility at the plaza. “I went to this doctor and it was in a strip mall! I’m not kidding. I can’t make this up. I think he was a fine doctor,” she recalled. “It was just an outpatient surgery center in a strip mall. But you know, I was 19, so I was like: ‘Uh, this isn’t Beverly Hills. What’s happening?’ I was confused.
“My first boob job, I had a friend at the time — it was the bad boyfriend I talk about, it was his friend’s girlfriend and she was a stripper — and she had her boobs done. So she’s like, ‘Oh, you just have to go to this place,’” Spelling said. The actor revealed that the surgery was performed at an outpatient facility at the plaza. “I went to this doctor and it was in a strip mall! I’m not kidding. I can’t make this up. I think he was a fine doctor,” she recalled. “It was just an outpatient surgery center in a strip mall. But you know, I was 19, so I was like: ‘Uh, this isn’t Beverly Hills. What’s happening?’ I was confused.
In his final words, Gonzales apologized to the Townsend family. “I’m sorry I can’t articulate, I can’t put into words the pain I have caused y’all, the hurt, what I took away that I cannot give back. I lived the rest of this life for you guys to the best of my ability for restitution, restoration, taking responsibility ... I’m sorry.” “The Ramiro who the state of Texas killed tonight was not the Ramiro who committed these crimes twenty years ago,” Gonzales’ lawyers, Thea Posel and Raoul Schonemann said in a statement. “The Ramiro who left this world was, by all accounts, a deeply spiritual, generous, patient, and intentional person, full of remorse, someone whose driving force was love. He sought to spread and embody love in all aspects of his life, even in the deprivation and physical isolation of death row where he lived for the past 18 years.”
In his final words, Gonzales apologized to the Townsend family. “I’m sorry I can’t articulate, I can’t put into words the pain I have caused y’all, the hurt, what I took away that I cannot give back. I lived the rest of this life for you guys to the best of my ability for restitution, restoration, taking responsibility ... I’m sorry.” “The Ramiro who the state of Texas killed tonight was not the Ramiro who committed these crimes twenty years ago,” Gonzales’ lawyers, Thea Posel and Raoul Schonemann said in a statement. “The Ramiro who left this world was, by all accounts, a deeply spiritual, generous, patient, and intentional person, full of remorse, someone whose driving force was love. He sought to spread and embody love in all aspects of his life, even in the deprivation and physical isolation of death row where he lived for the past 18 years.”
i In his final words , Gonzales apologized to the Townsend family. “I’m sorry I can’t articulate, I can’t put into words the pain I have caused y’all, the hurt, what... https://app.t2.world/article/clxwqb8i71311571zmcq43wlmz9
In his final words, Gonzales apologized to the Townsend family. “I’m sorry I can’t articulate, I can’t put into words the pain I have caused y’all, the hurt, what I took away that I cannot give back. I lived the rest of this life for you guys to the best of my ability for restitution, restoration, taking responsibility ... I’m sorry.” “The Ramiro who the state of Texas killed tonight was not the Ramiro who committed these crimes twenty years ago,” Gonzales’ lawyers, Thea Posel and Raoul Schonemann said in a statement. “The Ramiro who left this world was, by all accounts, a deeply spiritual, generous, patient, and intentional person, full of remorse, someone whose driving force was love. He sought to spread and embody love in all aspects of his life, even in the deprivation and physical isolation of death row where he lived for the past 18 years.”
In his final words, Gonzales apologized to the Townsend family. “I’m sorry I can’t articulate, I can’t put into words the pain I have caused y’all, the hurt, what I took away that I cannot give back. I lived the rest of this life for you guys to the best of my ability for restitution, restoration, taking responsibility ... I’m sorry.” “The Ramiro who the state of Texas killed tonight was not the Ramiro who committed these crimes twenty years ago,” Gonzales’ lawyers, Thea Posel and Raoul Schonemann said in a [statement](https://x.com/jessicaschulb/status/1806122362464772306). “The Ramiro who left this world was, by all accounts, a deeply spiritual, generous, patient, and intentional person, full of remorse, someone whose driving force was love. He sought to spread and embody love in all aspects of his life, even in the deprivation and physical isolation of death row where he lived for the past 18 years.”
As incident commander, East Palestine fire chief Keith Drabick ultimately gave Norfolk Southern, the train’s operator, the green light to torch the cars. He told federal investigators last year that Norfolk Southern and its contractors presented intentional burning as the only viable and safe option, and gave him 13 minutes to make the decision — a request that he said left him “blindsided.”
As incident commander, East Palestine fire chief Keith Drabick ultimately gave Norfolk Southern, the train’s operator, the green light to torch the cars. He told federal investigators last year that Norfolk Southern and its contractors presented intentional burning as the only viable and safe option, and gave him 13 minutes to make the decision — a request that he said left him “blindsided.”
a As incident commander, East Palestine fire chief Keith Drabick ultimately gave Norfolk Southern, the train’s operator, the green light to torch the cars. He told federal investigators last year that... https://app.t2.world/article/clxvdna5l713631zmcviy58rr3
As incident commander, East Palestine fire chief Keith Drabick ultimately gave Norfolk Southern, the train’s operator, the green light to torch the cars. He told federal investigators last year that Norfolk Southern and its contractors presented intentional burning as the only viable and safe option, and gave him 13 minutes to make the decision — a request that he said left him “blindsided.”
As incident commander, East Palestine fire chief Keith Drabick ultimately gave Norfolk Southern, the train’s operator, the green light to torch the cars. He told federal investigators last year that Norfolk Southern and its contractors presented intentional burning as the only viable and safe option, and gave him 13 minutes to make the decision — a request that he said left him “blindsided.”
Do No Harm also received more than null.4 million from a nonprofit, the Project on Fair Representation, run by conservative activist Edward Blum, new records show. Blum, a conservative activist [who helped engineer](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-edward-blum-unc-harvard-myth.html) two Supreme Court cases that struck down affirmative action and major sections of the Voting Rights Act, is now a Do No Harm board member. HuffPost [previously revealed](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joseph-edelman-political-donor-transgender_n_653a8605e4b0783c4ba04deb) that Do No Harm received null million in seed funding from Joseph Edelman, a billionaire hedge fund CEO, and his wife, Suzy Edelman, who [has said she considers](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-activism/is-it-possible-to-be-both-moderate-and-anti-woke) “transgenderism” “a fiction designed to destroy.”
Do No Harm also received more than null.4 million from a nonprofit, the Project on Fair Representation, run by conservative activist Edward Blum, new records show. Blum, a conservative activist who helped engineer two Supreme Court cases that struck down affirmative action and major sections of the Voting Rights Act, is now a Do No Harm board member. HuffPost previously revealed that Do No Harm received null million in seed funding from Joseph Edelman, a billionaire hedge fund CEO, and his wife, Suzy Edelman, who has said she considers “transgenderism” “a fiction designed to destroy.”
1 Do No Harm also received more than null.4 million from a nonprofit, the Project on Fair Representation, run by conservative activist Edward Blum, new records show. Blum, a conservative activist... https://app.t2.world/article/clxtvqepn668161gmceve6mux8
Do No Harm also received more than null.4 million from a nonprofit, the Project on Fair Representation, run by conservative activist Edward Blum, new records show. Blum, a conservative activist who helped engineer two Supreme Court cases that struck down affirmative action and major sections of the Voting Rights Act, is now a Do No Harm board member. HuffPost previously revealed that Do No Harm received null million in seed funding from Joseph Edelman, a billionaire hedge fund CEO, and his wife, Suzy Edelman, who has said she considers “transgenderism” “a fiction designed to destroy.”
Do No Harm also received more than null.4 million from a nonprofit, the Project on Fair Representation, run by conservative activist Edward Blum, new records show. Blum, a conservative activist who helped engineer two Supreme Court cases that struck down affirmative action and major sections of the Voting Rights Act, is now a Do No Harm board member. HuffPost [previously revealed](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joseph-edelman-political-donor-transgender_n_653a8605e4b0783c4ba04deb) that Do No Harm received null million in seed funding from Joseph Edelman, a billionaire hedge fund CEO, and his wife, Suzy Edelman, who [has said she considers](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-activism/is-it-possible-to-be-both-moderate-and-anti-woke) “transgenderism” “a fiction designed to destroy.”
“That’s because we actually play live, what?!” he said, shrugging his shoulders as the crowd applauded. “Just saying. We’re a live band. You guys like raw, live rock ‘n’ roll music, right? You came to the right fucking place.” Grohl’s mention of Swift comes as a surprise, considering he’s been complimentary of her in the past. [During an appearance on “The Late Late Show with James Cordon” in 2018](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEhiIr-dveE), Grohl told a story about him and Swift performing together at a party hosted by Paul McCartney.
dytjdtydj
Despite the pushback on the right, there has been no indication the order favors voters of one party over another. White House spokesperson Robyn Patterson said the administration will continue to [protect the voting rights](https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-immigration-us-supreme-court-voting-elections-11e5e3451464cceef4fdbad817e02915) of eligible citizens regardless of political affiliation. Biden issued the order in 2021 as Republican legislatures across the country were debating a wave of state voting restrictions amid the [false claims](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-michael-pence-electoral-college-elections-health-2d9bd47a8bd3561682ac46c6b3873a10) that widespread fraud had [cost](https://apnews.com/article/election-claims-biden-won-explained-bd53b14ce871412b462cb3fe2c563f18) former President [Donald Trump](https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-trump-election-lies-explainer-816a43ed964e6d35f03b0930e6e56c82?utm_source=homepage\&utm_medium=RelatedStories\&utm_campaign=position_03) reelection.
She explained that she had waited all day for the hearing, which had originally been scheduled for the morning, because several Republican lawmakers had gone to New York to support Donald Trump at his hush money trial. She said Greene began griping about the trial, even though the hearing was intended to discuss a totally separate matter.