Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is facing rebuke from Republicans in the House and Senate after he touted his effort to pass a bipartisan resolution pushing for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO amid its war with Russia.

Discussing the effort in a tweet, Graham said he believes there’s ‘overwhelming’ support for the proposal in the Senate and claimed that Ukrainian membership in NATO is ‘vital to the future security of Europe and the world.’

‘I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO,’ Graham said of the effort. ‘The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.’

‘Ukrainian NATO membership is vital to the future security of Europe and the world. I believe there is an overwhelming majority of Senators supporting this proposition,’ he added.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul shouted down Graham’s proposal in a Friday evening tweet, insisting that it is ‘exactly wrong’ and warning that it has the potential to lead the United States into a war with Russia.

‘Absolutely not. This is exactly wrong – as usual – and could very well lead us to war with Russia, something no one should want,’ Paul said in response to a tweet from Graham.

The senator also drew backlash from House Republicans, including Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., who wrote in a tweet: ‘I’m sure Lindsey Graham knows this, but this would mean American troops on the ground in Ukraine.’

‘The American people will not stand by and allow our troops to go die in someone else’s war,’ the congresswoman added.

Taking aim at the proposal and speaking out against it, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said that ‘expanding NATO’ does not fall in line with the interests of Americans.

‘Expansion of NATO, a Cold War relic, led to the rise of Putin, also a Cold War relic, culminating in the invasion of Ukraine. Expanding NATO further is not in the interests of US citizens,’ Massie wrote in a tweet.

Echoing Massie, Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke out against the proposal and insisted that ‘America doesn’t support’ the senator’s proposal.

‘This is madness. Everyone in Washington should be urging peace and stopping the war in Ukraine. Not bringing us to the brink of World War 3,’ Greene wrote in a tweet. ‘The Ukraine war is destabilizing Europe and changing the world’s economies. America doesn’t support this.’

Weighing in on the proposal, Ohio GOP Rep. Warren Davidson claimed that the effort being pushed by Graham is ‘essentially a declaration of war.’

‘HARD NO. Russia’s invasion is unjust, but including Ukraine as a member of NATO is essentially a declaration of war,’ Davidson wrote in response to Graham. ‘America cannot even agree on a mission statement in Ukraine, and NATO won’t fully fund their own defense. Epically bad idea. Low zero.’

Richard Grenell, the former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, also spoke out against the proposal offered by Graham and argued that there should be no new members added to ‘the U.S. taxpayer’s burden’ until all members of NATO are paying the ‘2% spending obligation’ they agreed to in 2014.

‘[Eight] of the current 31 NATO Members are paying their 2% spending obligation that they made in 2014. No new members should be added to the U.S. taxpayer’s burden until we reach 31/31,’ Grenell wrote in a tweet.

Other conservatives were also quick to highlight issues with the South Carolina Republican’s proposal, including Mollie Hemingway, a Fox News contributor who serves as editor-in-chief of The Federalist.

‘Dangerous rhetoric from warmonger Graham, whose foreign policy track record means you’d be well advised to do the opposite of what he proposes,’ Hemingway said in a tweet.

Graham’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war, which has been ongoing for well over a year, has not been popular among hardcore conservatives.

An ardent supporter of Ukraine’s defensive efforts, Graham traveled with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut to Kyiv last summer.

During the meeting on the 134th day of the war, Zelenskyy, according to his office, ‘called on senators to back the decision on providing Ukraine with modern air defense systems.’ 

‘First of all, we appeal to you so that the Congress supports Ukraine in the matter of supplying modern air defense systems,’ Zelenskyy said. ‘We must ensure such a level of sky security that our people are not afraid to live in Ukraine.’

President Biden commented this week that he believes now is not the time for Ukraine to join NATO.

‘I don’t think it’s ready for membership in NATO,’ Biden said in a CNN interview. ‘I spent, as you know, a great deal of time trying to hold NATO together, because I believe Putin has had an overwhelming objective since the time he launched 185,000 troops into Ukraine. And that was to break NATO. . . . So holding NATO together is really critical.’

‘I don’t think there is unanimity in NATO about whether or not to bring Urkaine into the NATO family now, at this moment in the middle of a war,’ he added.

NATO leaders will agree next week to help modernize Ukraine’s armed forces, create a new high-level forum for consultations and reaffirm that it will join their alliance one day, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, the organization’s top civilian official, said Friday. But the war-torn country will not start membership talks soon.

At a two-day summit next week in Lithuania’s capital, Vilnius, Stoltenberg insisted that leaders who are a part of NATO ‘will reaffirm that Ukraine will become a member of NATO and unite on how to bring Ukraine closer to its goal.’

Asked when, or how, Ukraine might join, Stoltenberg said that the ‘most important thing now is to ensure that Ukraine prevails.’ The U.S., Germany and some other allies consider that Ukraine should not be invited in while it’s at war, so as not to encourage Russia to widen the conflict.

NATO first pledged that Ukraine would become a member, one day in 2008, but things have evolved little since then.

Fox News’ Greg Norman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday announced that the Lone Star State is installing its ‘marine barrier installation’ as part of its efforts to stop illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border — a move that has brought criticism from left-wing groups.

‘New marine barrier installation on the Rio Grande begins today. Texas DPS is overseeing the project in Eagle Pass. More to come,’ the governor tweeted.

Abbott had announced the barrier, consisting of orange buoys and intended to discourage migrants from crossing the Rio Grande, last month. It is part of Operation Lone Star, a multifaceted operation to tackle the border crisis amid what Republicans say is a vacuum of leadership from the federal government.

Abbott has caused controversy with a number of moves, including transporting migrants into the interior to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions like New York City and Washington, D.C., setting up razor wire and building the state’s own border wall after the Biden administration stopped federal construction.

Texas officials have said that the latest plan will discourage people from attempting to cross the treacherous river. It is expected to take about two weeks to set up the buoys.

‘Anytime they get in that water, it’s a risk to the migrants. This is the deterrent from even coming in the water,’ Texas Department of Public Safety director Steve McCraw said last month.

The move has seen pushback from left-wing groups. Environmental activists held a demonstration this week near the border, including holding a prayer for the river, according to The Associated Press.

An attorney for the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union in Texas told CNN that the move is ‘the latest in a chain of gifts from the state to private contractors to fuel the governor’s manufactured crisis at the border.’

‘The floating balls will not address the real and important reasons people are coming to the United States. The buoys are a blight on Texas’s moral conscience,’ David Donatti said.

The Washington Post reported that the barrier will include a layer of webbing beneath it to stop people swimming underneath it, and is expected to span 1,000 feet in the stretch of river near Eagle Pass.

The deployment comes amid a relative lull in border crossings, compared to some of the record highs seen during the crisis, which is now into its third year. The Biden administration has touted a sharp drop in encounters since the end of Title 42 on May 11, when its new strategy went into place.

However, there were still more than 200,000 migrant encounters in May overall. The administration has called on Congress to provide more funding and to pass an immigration reform bill.

But Republicans have balked at the inclusion of an amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S., and have instead said that the Biden administration has incentivized the crisis with its ‘catch-and-release’ policies.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. has called on President Biden to ‘stop the ceaseless escalation’ between the United States and Russia after he gave his administration the green light to send controversial weapons known as cluster munitions to Ukraine.

‘Last year, WH Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the use of cluster bombs a ‘war crime.’ Now President Biden plans to send them to Ukraine. Stop the ceaseless escalation! It is time for peace,’ Kennedy wrote in a tweet.

‘Biden was opposed to cluster bombs in 1982 as well, when he opposed their sale to Israel,’ Kennedy, who entered the White House race in April, added in a separate tweet. ‘What happened to his conscience?’

Kennedy’s remarks come after the Biden administration announced this week that its latest aid package to Ukraine would include cluster munitions, which are bombs that release smaller explosives across a wide area when detonated. Cluster-type bombs have been banned by more than 100 countries, because they are known to kill or maim civilians. In many cases, dud submunitions fall to the ground without exploding but unexpectedly detonate later, even years after they were dropped.

Both Russia and Ukraine have used cluster munitions since Moscow first launched its attack in February 2022. White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan acknowledged on Friday that cluster munitions do pose a risk to civilians but said the danger to their lives would be higher if Kyiv did not have enough weapons to fight off Russia’s troops. The ‘dud rate’ for munitions the Pentagon is sending to Ukraine is below 3%.

In February 2022, while fielding questions from the press, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki asserted that Russian use of cluster bombs could amount to a ‘war crime.’

‘There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians. If that’s true, what is the next step of this administration? And is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that’s illegal and potentially a war crime,’ one reporter asked.

‘It is – it would be. I don’t have any confirmation of that. We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime,’ Psaki responded at the time.

In a Washington Post report published Friday, the outlet recalled Biden’s ‘complicated history’ on the issue of cluster munitions and highlighted how Biden has flip-flopped on the issue over time as it relates to Israel’s use of the weapons.

Biden’s decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine also garnered concern from some Democrats in the House, including Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.

‘The decision by the Biden administration to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine is unnecessary and a terrible mistake,’ McCollum, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a statement. ‘The legacy of cluster bombs is misery, death, and expensive cleanup generations after their use. The U.S. pays tens of millions of dollars annually to remove cluster munitions in Laos from the Vietnam era as these remnants of war continue to kill and maim civilians.’

‘As a strong supporter of the Biden administration’s policy in Ukraine, I must state in the strongest possible terms my absolute opposition to the U.S. transferring cluster munitions,’ she added. ‘These weapons should be eliminated from our stockpiles, not dumped in Ukraine.’

Lee, another Democrat who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, said she was ‘alarmed’ that Biden was ‘considering sending cluster bombs to Ukraine.’

‘Cluster bombs work by scattering tiny ‘bomblets’ over a wide area. Many of these bomblets don’t explode – but remain a threat to civilians for decades,’ Lee said on Twitter.

‘The Ukrainian people are engaged in a just struggle for their rights, freedom and humanity. The US and Ukraine don’t need to stoop to Putin’s level,’ she added in another tweet.

Kennedy is considered a longshot in his race against incumbent Biden, who has overwhelming support from the Democratic Party. In many polls, however, Kennedy garners double-digit support among likely Democratic voters.

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As Portland struggles to manage crime and an increase in homelessness, city staff members are being told to adopt a more ‘culturally conscious’ vocabulary that includes not using words such as ‘women,’ ‘Caucasian’ or ‘citizen.’

The Office of Equity and Human Rights pushed an Inclusive Writing Guide in June as part of a ‘city-wide collaboration’ to alter commonly used terms that they feel have evolved.

The guide suggested removing femininity from terms commonly used for women, including replacing ‘pregnant women’ with ‘pregnant people’ to be inclusive of those ‘who have this experience [pregnancy] but do not identify as women.’

Portland officials also advised staffers to ‘instead of women’s health rights, say reproductive rights, instead of feminine hygiene products, say menstrual products or period products, and instead of breastfeeding, say chest feeding.’

Rather than use ‘he’ or ‘she’ pronouns to describe people, staffers are encouraged to use ‘they/them.’

The staffers are also told to capitalize the word ‘Black as an adjective in a racial, ethnic, or cultural sense,’ while under the definition of ‘white,’ they are told to ‘not capitalize when referring to one’s race.’

The guide defined ‘white and whiteness’ as ‘a social construct that serves to reinforce power structures’ and suggested avoiding use of the synonym ‘Caucasian’ entirely.

The guide suggested that the word ‘manhole’ is not gender-neutral, and therefore ‘maintenance hole’ should be used in its place.

According to the guide, the term ‘citizen’ is also ‘not inclusive’ and should not be used by staffers.

‘Language is fluid,’ the guide read. ‘As our understanding of race, gender, socioeconomic status, and disability evolves, we must make informed choices about language and adopt a continuous improvement approach.’

As the city seeks to adopt ‘inclusive and equitable language,’ Portland residents are concerned about ‘organized crime and drugs’ in the area.

A recent Portland census data showed the city has lost 4% of its population, with Mayor Ted Wheeler’s office reporting a 50% increase in homelessness from 2019 to 2022.

‘Walking around, it’s hard to not notice used needles, nudity, human feces and the stench of urine coming from our large homeless population,’ said Cobalt Kaiser, a second-year Portland resident said of the ongoing homelessness crisis.

Fox News’ Kyra Colah contributed to this report.

Calls to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants are gaining steam among the 2024 Republican presidential primary field, with now at least three hopefuls backing the controversial move.

Vivek Ramaswamy said this week that he supports ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

‘I think for a period of time it’s going to be necessary in this country, because you have an influx of migrants across that southern border, fourteen thousand-plus a day by some estimates crossing that southern border. That is not a rule of law, that is the abandonment of the rule of law,’ he said on CNN.

‘So if migrants are coming illegally, intentionally to be able to establish an illegal toehold in the United States, then I think that’s something we should not abide in this country,’ he said.

While birthright citizenship grants citizenship to the children of legal immigrants in the U.S., the debate has focused primarily on whether that should also apply to those who are in the country illegally. 

The 14th Amendment states that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’

Critics of the move have said it would require a constitutional change.

‘Our Founding Fathers decided that people born here were immediately citizens. Cracking open the Constitution to eliminate that right seems really idiotic,’ Miami Mayor and GOP presidential candidate Francis Suarez, whose parents were both immigrants from Cuba, told the Daily Caller last month. 

Those in support have argued that the amendment has been misinterpreted — pointing to the requirement that the persons must be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S.

But as the U.S. continues to face a border crisis, which conservatives believe has been fueled by liberal immigration policies and other incentives — including birthright citizenship — the idea of limiting citizenship to children of citizens or legal residents has received a new impetus.

Former President Donald Trump, currently the front-runner in the primary race, said in May that he would sign an executive order ‘on day one’ that will instruct federal agents that the ‘correct interpretation of the law’ does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, regardless of their birthplace.

‘Joe Biden has launched an illegal foreign invasion of our country, allowing a record number of illegal aliens to storm across our borders,’ Trump said in a video posted on Twitter. ‘Even though these millions of illegal border crossers have entered the country unlawfully, all of their future children will become automatic U.S. citizens. Can you imagine?

‘They’ll be eligible for welfare, taxpayer-funded health care, the right to vote, chain migration and countless other government benefits, many of which will also profit the illegal alien parents. This policy is a reward for breaking the laws of the United States and is obviously a magnet, helping draw a flood of illegals across our borders.’

Trump first made the promise during his 2016 campaign and pledged to end it multiple times during his presidency, but it never happened. 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who polls suggest is currently in second place in the GOP primary race, also backed the idea as he unveiled his border security plan last month in Eagle Pass, Texas.

‘This idea that you can come across the border, two days later have a child, and somehow that’s an American citizen — that was not the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, and so we’ll take action to force a clarification of that,’ he said last month. 

‘I think its wrong that people would use our country for things like birth tourism, so we’re going to be removing the incentives to come here illegally,’ he said.

It is the latest sign of a drift to the right by the Republican field on immigration. Candidates have already rallied around the Trump-era ‘Remain-in-Mexico’ policy, which kept migrants in Mexico for their hearings and was put on ice by the Biden administration.

Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley has put out a muscular immigration policy that would see mandatory E-Verify and funding cut to states that hand out benefits to illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, DeSantis has promised to shut down the southern border on day one and to ‘stop the invasion.’

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen made an unusual gesture Saturday when she bowed to a Chinese official during her visit in Beijing.

Footage shows Yellen approaching Vice Premier He Lifeng — her Chinese counterpart — and bowing multiple times while enthusiastically shaking his hand.

Former White House staffer Bradley Blakeman, who served during President George W. Bush’s administration, told the New York Post that the gesture was unseemly.

‘Never, ever, ever…an American official does not bow. It looks like she’s been summoned to the principal’s office, and that’s exactly the optics the Chinese love,’ Blakeman said.

Some Twitter users shared the same sentiment, calling the bow embarrassing for the United States.

‘She did not realize bowing as an American official was a breach of protocol,’ author Max Murray wrote on Twitter. ‘They don’t reciprocate. He even backs away to give her more space to kowtow.’

‘Yellen’s flubs in China are not going to help the US stock market come Monday morning. Come home Janet!’ ‘Taxifornia’ author James V. Lacy wrote on Twitter.

During their meeting, He implied that the U.S. was an irrational actor towards China.

‘We wish the US side would take a rational and practical attitude, meet with the Chinese side half-way, make joint efforts with China in maintaining the consensus reached between the two state leaders in their meeting in Bali, and put the positive remarks into actions, so as to stabilize and improve the China-US relations,’ He said.

Yellen gently pushed back, defending the United States’ actions to defend national security.

‘The United States will take targeted actions to protect our national security,’ Yellen said. ‘While we may disagree on these actions, we should not allow that disagreement to lead to misunderstandings, particularly those stemming from the lack of communication, which can unnecessarily worsen our bilateral economic and financial relationship.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the Treasury Department for a statement, but has not heard back. 

–>

‘The Life We Chose, William ‘Big Billy’ D’Elia and The Last Secrets of America’s Most Powerful Mafia Family’ tells the story of a little-known Pennsylvania based Mob powerhouse and his behind the scenes life in organized crime.

The former president has gotten the brush off from a former reputed power in the Mafia: Billy D’Elia.

In the new biography about him, D’Elia says he did business with former President Trump when he owned Atlantic City casinos in the 1980’s, and that Trump shaved off $1 million from one real estate deal… by flipping a coin.

ITALIAN AUTHORITIES ARREST MAFIA BOSS AFTER 30 YEARS ON THE RUN

The Feds say D’Elia, known as ‘Big Billy,’ ran the Buffalino Crime Family, based in Pennsylvania, for decades. He honed his profession at the side of the family’s namesake, the legendary Russel Buffalino, who Robert F. Kennedy called ‘one of the most ruthless and powerful leaders of the Mafia in the United States.’

D’Elia assumed the leadership of the family when Buffalino died in 1994. He is said to have been so trusted and respected throughout the nation’s mob families, that in the 1990’s he was asked to take over the Philadelphia crime family to quell the murderous infighting that left bloodstains on the streets of the city of ‘Brotherly Love.’ He declined.

D’Elia says he dealt with Trump when he owned flashy New Jersey shore casinos like the ‘Trump Taj Mahal,’ ‘The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino,’ and ‘The Trump Marina Hotel and Casino.’ 

‘(He’s) just like he’s on TV now, arrogant. He don’t keep his word.’

The revelations about Trump are in the new book about D’Elia, ‘The Life We Chose, William ‘Big Billy’ D’Elia and the Last Secrets of America’s Most Powerful Mafia Family,’ by veteran journalist Matt Birkbeck. Birkbeck covered D’Elia and the Buffalino Crime Family for decades in northeast Pennsylvania, and is the author the biography ‘The Quiet Don,’ about the crime family’s namesake, Russell Buffalino.

‘Trump, when he did deals, he didn’t want his lawyers doing it. He didn’t want anyone else doing it, he did it himself, and he did it with gangsters,’ says Birkbeck.

‘Billy did business with a lot of people, including Donald Trump,’ he says. ‘Trump knew exactly who he was, Trump knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what they were negotiating about.’

Birkbeck says in one negotiation that involved the selling of time-shares in Trump owned properties, the future president leaned on Billy to mass buy copies of his book, ‘The Art of The Deal’ as part of a deal.

‘They used to give out these rewards and gifts to timeshare people, and one of the gifts would be a copy of the book, only Billy had to buy the book. He had to buy 5,000 or 10,000 copies of the book which would raise the book up the best-seller charts. Basically, Billy would have had to put up $100,000.’

In another deal, D’Elia says Trump agreed to buy a piece of property involving his ‘Trump Plaza’ casino, but backed out of the agreement only for it be settled with the flip of a coin…for $1 million.

SYLVESTER STALLONE ON FINALLY PLAYING A MOB BOSS IN NEW SERIES: ‘BETTER LATE THAN NEVER’

D’Elia says he attended a meeting with Trump and the Philadelphia based real estate brothers Barry and Ken Shapiro, who owned the property, and had agreed to buy the land for $8 million, that is until Trump showed up and refused to pay the amount promised.

‘Trump said he couldn’t give him the eight million, that he only had seven,’ says D’Elia. ‘So now what do you do, wait?’

‘We’re at this meeting with Trump (says D’Elia) and Barry said, ‘Let’s flip a coin for the other million.’ Trump said fine, so they flipped a coin and Trump won.’

Barry Shapiro corroborated the story to Fox News about Trump flipping a coin to shave off the sales price.

Shapiro, who is now 85 years old, says that his group, including his later brother Ken, did indeed sell the Atlantic City property to Trump for $1 million less than the price Trump had agreed to, and that the coin toss decided it.

‘The sale price was actually $8 million, and Trump only paid 7 because he flipped a coin with my brother, Ken to save a million,’ Shapiro said.

‘We gave him a 15-year mortgage and he paid it off.’

The phone card and time share proposals never came to fruition.

Trump has never been charged with any criminal wrongdoing involving his casino dealings and he passed the legal requirements to own and operate Atlantic City casinos, which are regulated by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission and its Division of Gaming Enforcement.

A Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung disputes D’Elia’s claims.

In a statement to Fox News, Cheung said that he is ‘not going to dignify a response to a book that belongs in the bargain bin of the fiction section.’

But this was not the first time Trump has been said to have relied on a coin toss in a business negotiation.

In 2017 a Wall Street investment banker, Ken Moelis, told Business Insider that in the middle of a heated negotiation, Trump ‘looks at me and he goes ‘-we’re a million dollars apart -and he said ‘I tell you what, I’ll flip you for it.’ And he reached into his pocket and pulls out a coin’

Moelis says he examined the coin to make sure that it was legitimate, and when he flipped, ‘it flew across the table toward Trump, which he instantly knew was a mistake…but before he could catch a glimpse, Trump picked it up and said, ‘Heads. you lose.’’

Moelis is now a billionaire investment banker, who has been described as the businessman who ‘launched Trump’s casinos on the stock exchange’ and has had a long association with the former president.

JUDGE DISMISSES SUIT AGAINST CASINO MOGUL STEVE WYNN THAT CLAIMED HE LOBBIED TRUMP ON BEHALF OF CHINA

Besides relating his dealings with Trump, D’Elia’s book also delves into his representation of superstar singer Michael Jackson, along with manager Frank DiLeo, who was known as ‘Tookie.’’  D’Elia says Trump offered $1 million for the singer to perform at one of the Trump casinos in Atlantic City but Jackson refused to perform at a casino.

As for ‘Tookie,’ although he was a longtime music industry executive who worked with stars from Prince to Ozzy Osborne, he is best known by the public for playing the heavy-set mobster ‘Tuddy,’ in the classic film ‘Goodfellas.’ He died in 2011.

Today D’Elia has left his mob life behind and is enjoying a quiet retirement. He served five years in prison after pleading guilty to money laundering, conspiracy and witness tampering in 2009. He was never a mob informant and never testified against any suspected member of organized crime.

D’Elia sat for an exclusive interview for Fox Nation’s series about Jimmy Hoffa, ‘Riddle: The Search for James R. Hoffa.’  He is featured in the latest episode, number 6, ‘The Last Suspect,’ about the remaining FBI suspect in Hoffa’s disappearance, Gabe Briguglio.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has faced scrutiny for making a flawed claim about Black infant mortality under White doctors in her dissenting opinion to last week’s landmark affirmative action decision.

Jackson sought to show that race-based admissions are a matter of life and death for racial minorities, and her dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard cited an example. The law firm apparently responsible for the misleading statement sought to ‘clarify’ the claim on Friday.

Seeking to show that considering race in admissions was fair and realizes equality, Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity ‘saves lives’ and is essential for ‘marginalized communities.’ She asserted that diversity is for the ‘betterment’ of students and society at large beyond college campuses.

‘For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die,’ Jackson wrote as one example.

That claim came from an amicus brief filed by lawyers representing an association of medical colleges. The brief stated that for ‘high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug; it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live,’ citing as support a 2020 study that examined mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015. 

In a letter Friday filed to the Supreme Court docket, Norton Rose Fulbright wrote that the argument cited by Jackson in her opinion ‘warrants clarification’ and sought to clear up any ‘confusion.’

‘The principal cited finding of the [study] was that the mortality rate for Black newborns, as compared to White newborns, decreased by more than half when under the supervision of Black physician,’ the law firm’s letter said. ‘In absolute terms, this study found that patient-physician racial concordance led to a reduction in health inequity.’

However, the letter continued, while survival and mortality may be opposites and decreased mortality generally indicates increased survival, ‘statistically they are not interchangeable. Thus, the statement in the [amicus brief] warrants clarification.’

Still, the lawyer added that the study nonetheless supports Jackson’s argument in her dissent, expressing ‘regret’ for ‘any confusion’ that may have been caused by the statement in its brief.

The letter to the Supreme Court added that a ‘more precise’ summary of the 2020 study’s findings would have been to say that ‘having a Black physician reduces by more than half the likelihood of death for Black newborns as compared to White newborns.’

In other words, Jackson’s claim in her opinion that having a Black physician ‘more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will survive’ could be misleading, because the study on which that statement is based examined lower mortality rates, which is not the same thing statistically as survival.

Norton Rose Fulbright’s letter came after Jackson’s statement in her dissenting opinion caught the attention of several legal experts.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Ted Frank, a senior attorney at Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, responded directly to Jackson’s claim, lambasting the justice for making a mathematical error.

‘A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible,’ wrote Frank, who filed an amicus brief in support of Students for Fair Admissions. ‘Imagine if 40% of black newborns died — thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%. How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake?’

Frank went on to argue that the 2020 study was ‘flawed’ and didn’t match Jackson’s claim about Black newborns having a significantly higher chance of surviving with a Black physician.

‘The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for Black newborns with Black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians),’ Frank wrote. 

‘So, we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of a flawed study. Her opinion then urges ‘all of us’ to ‘do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.’ Instead, we should watch where we’re going.’

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and Fox News contributor, used Frank’s op-ed and Jackson’s opinion to argue in a blog post Friday that it can be problematic when various advocacy groups file waves of amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases supporting one side or the other by pushing studies and other data that the justices use in their arguments.

‘My opposition to the brief is that the justices are in a poor position to judge the veracity or accuracy of such studies,’ Turley wrote. ‘They simply pick and choose between rivaling studies to claim a definitive factual foundation for an opinion.

‘When you are before the Supreme Court, everyone is free to just dump statistics and studies into the record, and the court regularly uses such material to determine the outcome. 

‘It produces more of a legislative environment for the court as different parties insert data to support their own view of what is a better policy or more serious social problem. There is only a limited ability of parties to challenge such data given limits on time and space in briefing. The result is that major decisions or dissents can be built on highly contested factual assertions. In this case, critics believe that the Jackson argument literally does not add up.’

The Supreme Court ended affirmative action in a landmark 6-3 decision June 29. The case combined lawsuits brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina by the student activist group Students for Fair Admissions, which argued that the schools’ admissions programs discriminated against Asian applicants in violation of, respectively, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

‘A benefit to a student whose herit­age or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university,’ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

Tennessee’s ban on transgender procedures for minors — including puberty blockers and surgery — can be enforced, an appeals court ruled Saturday, overturning a lower court’s ruling. 

The decision from the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati came following an emergency appeal from the state of Tennessee, and after a district court judge ruled late last month that it was unconstitutional because it discriminated on the basis of sex. 

In a split decision, the panel of judges voted 2-1 to temporarily allow the ban to go into effect, saying the issue is better left to the legislature than the judiciary. 

‘Given the high stakes of these nascent policy deliberations — the long-term health of children facing gender dysphoria — sound government usually benefits from more rather than less debate,’ wrote Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a former President George W. Bush appointee.

FLORIDA MEDICAID MOVES AGAINST TRANSGENDER THERAPIES COVERAGE, CALLS IT ‘EXPERIMENTAL’ 

He added that ‘life-tenured federal judges should be wary of removing a vexing and novel topic of medical debate from the ebbs and flows of democracy by construing a largely unamendable federal constitution to occupy the field.’

The panel added that the LGBTQ advocate groups that had challenged the law hadn’t shown they would be able to prove the law was unconstitutional. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti called the ruling a ‘big win.’

‘The case is far from over,’ Skrmetti said in a statement, ‘but this is a big win. The court of appeals lifted the injunction, meaning the law can be fully enforced, and recognized that Tennessee is likely to win the constitutional argument and the case.’

Dissenting Judge Helene White, another Bush appointee, said the law is ‘likely unconstitutional’ as sex discrimination.

‘I fail to see how the state can justify denying access to hormone therapies for treatment of minor Plaintiffs’ gender dysphoria while permitting access to others, especially in light of the district court’s robust factual findings on the benefits of these treatments for transgender youth,’ White wrote.

GEORGIA PARENTS OF TRANSGENDER CHILDREN CHALLENGE STATE’S BAN ON SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY FOR MINORS 

Judge Amul Thapar, a former President Trump appointee, joined Sutton is the majority ruling. 

The panel will now conduct a full review of the law, which they said they hope to complete by Sept. 30. 

‘These initial views, we must acknowledge, are just that: initial,’ Sutton wrote. ‘We may be wrong.’

The ACLU, its Tennessee chapter and two law firms called Saturday’s ruling ‘beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development.’

‘As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Tennessee to know this fight is far from over and we will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated,’ the joint statement said.

Tennessee’s law, which is also being challenged by the federal government, prohibits gender-affirming care ‘inconsistent with the immutable characteristics of the reproductive system that define the minor as male or female.’

Other Republican states like Arkansas and Florida have also enacted similar laws banning transgender care for minors and have faced similar legal challenges.  

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. 

–>

The U.S. Justice Department is pressuring some British journalists to cooperate with the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is accused of publishing classified U.S. military documents leaked to him by a whistleblower.

The DOJ and the FBI are using ‘vague threats and pressure tactics’ in their efforts to receive journalists’ help in building their case against Assange, according to Rolling Stones’ James Ball, who said he is among the journalists being pressured to cooperate. Ball is sought by the DOJ as someone who had briefly worked and lived with Assange, and was a whistleblower revealing what he described as ‘WikiLeaks’ own ethical lapses.’

The first attempt at receiving Ball’s cooperation in Assange’s prosecution came through London’s Metropolitan Police in December 2021, he wrote. He remained silent at the time, on the advice of counsel, but has since learned that more journalists have had police show up at their doorsteps in the last month. Former Guardian investigations editor David Leigh, transparency campaigner Heather Brooke and writer Andrew O’Hagan have all been approached by police.

Assange is facing an uphill legal battle over his potential extradition from London, where he has been held at the high-security Belmarsh Prison, to the U.S. over Wikileaks’ 2010 publication of top secret cables detailing war crimes committed by the U.S. government in the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp, Iraq and Afghanistan. The materials, which were leaked to him by then-U.S. soldier Chelsea Manning, expose instances of the CIA engaging in torture and rendition. Wikileaks also published a video showing the U.S. military gunning down civilians in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists.

The Australian journalist would face 17 charges for receiving, possessing and communicating classified information to the public under the espionage act and one charge alleging a conspiracy to commit computer intrusion if he is extradited to the U.S., and could be sentenced to as many as 175 years in an American maximum security prison. Manning was convicted by the Obama administration’s DOJ in 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses over the Cablegate leak.

Assange has been held at Belmarsh Prison since he was removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy four years ago for breaching jail conditions. He had sought asylum at the embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations he raped two women because Sweden would not promise him protection from extradition to the U.S. The investigations into the sexual assault allegations were eventually dropped.

Ball was first contacted about helping in the Assange case by a Metropolitan Police officer on the special investigations team, who had called him on a blocked number Ball failed to answer. He then received a ‘deliberately innocuous’ email from the police.

‘James, I would like to meet with you to ask if you would be willing to participate in a voluntary witness interview,’ the officer wrote. ‘You are not under investigation for anything. It is a delicate matter that I am only able to discuss with you face to face.’

A lawyer spoke to police on Ball’s behalf and learned that U.S. and U.K. authorities were asking him to testify about a story he wrote on Assange’s relationship with Israel Shamir, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ball wrote, adding that, without his testimony, the ‘U.S. government cannot make much use of what I revealed in the article in a court of law.’

Ball said he was ‘more than willing’ to write about his relationship with Assange in the media, but he does not believe ‘it should be used to help a vindictive prosecution of Assange.’

An officer told Ball’s lawyer that U.S. intelligence agencies claimed to have discovered that ”James Ball’ doesn’t exist,’ which Ball said was a false accusation as the name is his actual birth name that has never changed. After seeking further legal advice, Ball was told by multiple attorneys not to travel to the U.S. or speak out publicly over concerns about potential prosecution for his refusal to cooperate.

‘That uneasy truce has come to an end,’ Ball wrote. ‘As a journalist, I need to be able to travel to the U.S. to work, and I am doing so this week. Also, other journalists are now being contacted in relation to the case. Both together make continued silence impossible.’

Ball said the two years he avoided traveling to the U.S. on legal advice has ‘stifled stories I would otherwise have written for U.S. outlets. I had a real and credible fear of prosecution.’

Last year, the editors and publishers of U.S. and European news outlets that worked with Assange on the publication of excerpts from more than 250,000 documents he obtained in the Cablegate leak — The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País  — wrote an open letter calling for the U.S. to end its prosecution of Assange.

The Obama administration elected against indicting Assange after Wikileaks published the cables in 2010 because it would have had to give the same treatment to journalists from other major news outlets that worked with Assange on the documents. But former President Trump’s DOJ later moved to indict Assange under the Espionage Act, and the Biden administration has continued to pursue his prosecution.

‘If President Biden wants his Department of Justice to reverse the decision of the Obama DOJ on prosecuting Assange for his 2010 actions, he should at least explain it, and say why it is worth the silencing effect it is having on mainstream journalism,’ Ball wrote.

‘As it stands, Biden’s DOJ is threatening the U.S. media’s First Amendment rights, even as it claims to be standing up to a Supreme Court that is threatening many other rights. The hypocrisy should not stand,’ he continued.

Assange’s case has received the attention of some lawmakers on Capitol Hill, with Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., leading a letter to the DOJ demanding the charges against him be dropped. Lawmakers in Australia and other countries have also pushed the U.S. to end its prosecution of Assange. Pope Francis recently met with Assange’s wife, Stella, who said the Pope expressed support for her family’s situation and concern about Assange’s suffering.

The Trump administration CIA reportedly had plans to kill Assange over the publication of sensitive agency hacking tools known as ‘Vault 7,’ which the agency said represented ‘the largest data loss in CIA history,’ according to a 2021 Yahoo report. The agency had discussions ‘at the highest levels’ of the administration about plans to assassinate Assange in London. Acting on orders from then-CIA director Mike Pompeo, the agency had also drawn up kill ‘sketches’ and ‘options.’

The CIA had advanced plans to kidnap and rendition Assange and had made a political decision to charge him, according to the report.

–>