WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden “willfully” retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen, including documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other sensitive national security matters, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Justice Department report</a>&nbsp;that nonetheless says no criminal charges are warranted for him or anyone else.

<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Click here to read </a>the special council report

The report from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-hur">special counsel Robert Hur</a>, released Thursday, represents a harshly critical assessment of Biden’s handling of sensitive government materials, but also details the reasons why he should not be charged with the crime.

The findings will likely blunt his ability to forcefully condemn Donald Trump, Biden's likely opponent in November's presidential election, over a criminal indictment charging the former president with illegally hoarding classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," Hur wrote.

Hur’s report says evidence suggests that many of the classified documents recovered by investigators at the Penn Biden Center, in parts of Biden’s Delaware home, and in his Senate papers at the University of Delaware were retained by “mistake.”

Biden said in a statement that he was “pleased” the special counsel had “reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach — that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.”

He made a point of saying that he sat for five hours of in-person interviews over two days on Oct. 8 and 9, “even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis."

“I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed,” Biden said.

The report comes after a yearlong investigation into the improper retention of classified documents by Biden, from his time as a senator and as vice president, that were found at his Delaware home, as well as at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.

The investigation into Biden is separate from special counsel Jack Smith’s inquiry into the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-37a360519244eb3c211a56cd9355adc8">handling of classified documents by Trump</a>&nbsp;after Trump left the White House. Smith’s team has charged Trump with illegally retaining top secret records at Mar-a-Lago home and then obstructing government efforts to get them back. Trump has said he did nothing wrong.

After Biden's lawyers uncovered classified documents at his former office, Biden's representatives promptly contacted the National Archives to arrange their return to the government. The National Archives notified the FBI, which opened an investigation. Biden made his homes available to agents to conduct thorough searches, and that is how the most sensitive documents came to the attention of the Justice Department.

Hur assessed that the evidence did not support that Biden willfully retained some of the classified documents that were recovered — including the ones at the Penn Biden Center that sparked the probe.

Biden could not have been prosecuted as a sitting president, but Hur’s report states that he would not recommend charges against Biden regardless.

“We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president,” the report said.

Part of the report centers on Biden’s handling of classified documents about Afghanistan — specifically, the Obama administration’s decision to send additional troops there — that he retained after he left office as vice president in his Delaware home. Biden preserved materials documenting his opposition to the troop surge, including a 2009 classified handwritten memo to then-President Barack Obama.

“These materials were proof of the stand Mr. Biden took in what he regarded as among the most important decisions of his vice presidency,” the report said.

The documents have classification markings up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information Level and were found in a box in Biden’s Delaware garage “that contained other materials of great significance to him and that he appears to have personally used and accessed.”

Photographs included in the report showed some of the classified Afghanistan documents stored in a worn cardboard box stored in his garage, apparently in a loose collection with other household items, including a ladder and a wicker basket.

Classified documents from the Obama administration were also found in Biden’s basement den, according to the report. Classified documents from his time in the Senate in the 1970s and 1980s were also found in his garage.

Despite signs that Biden knowingly retained and disclosed classified materials, Hur’s report said criminal charges were not merited for multiple reasons. Those include the fact that as vice president, and during his subsequent presidency when the Afghanistan records were found, “he had the authority to keep classified documents at his home.”

As part of the probe, investigators reviewed a recording of a February 2017 conversation between Biden and his ghostwriter in which, referring to the 2009 memo to Obama, Biden said that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Biden was renting a home in Virginia at the time and consolidated his belongings in Delaware when he moved out in 2019. Prosecutors believe that Biden’s comment was a reference to the same classified records that FBI agents later found in his Delaware home.

Though the best case for charges could involve his possession of the Afghanistan documents as a private citizen, prosecutors said, it was possible that Biden could have found those records at his Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after.

“This could convince some reasonable jurors that he did not retain them willfully,” the report.

The report said there was some evidence to suggest that Biden knew he could not keep classified handwritten notes at home after leaving office, citing his deep familiarity “with the measures taken to safeguard classified information and the need for those measures to prevent harm to national security.” Yet his kept notebooks containing classified information in unlocked drawers at home.

“He had strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules for properly handing the classified information in his notebooks,” the report said. “He consulted the notebooks liberally during hours of discussions with his ghostwriter and viewed them as highly private and valued possessions with which he was unwilling to part.”

While the report removes legal jeopardy for the president, it is nonetheless is an embarrassment for Biden, who placed competency and experience at the core of his rationale to voters to send him to the Oval Office.

“Mr. Biden was known to remove and keep classified material from his briefing books for future use, and his staff struggled — and sometimes failed — to retrieve those materials,” the report states. “And there was no procedure at all for tracking some of the classified material Mr. Biden received outside of his briefing books”

In declining to prosecute Biden, Hur’s office also cited what it said was Biden’s “limited memory” both during his 2017 recorded conversations with the ghostwriter and in an interview with investigators last year.

“Given Mr. Biden’s limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghostwriter and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence.”

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” investigators wrote.

There is recent Justice Department precedence for criminal charges against individuals accused of sharing classified information with biographers or ghostwriters. Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to doing exactly that in 2015 and was sentenced to probation.

Yet in this instance, prosecutors say, Biden could have plausibly believed that the notebooks were his personal property and belonged to him, even if they contained classified information.

In an interview with prosecutors, the report said, Biden was emphatic with investigators that the notebooks were “my property” and that “every president before me has done the exact same thing.”

White House lawyer Richard Sauber said Biden takes classified information seriously and “strives to protect it,” but making mistakes when packing documents at the end of an administration can be a common occurrence, as the report noted.

“We disagree with a number of inaccurate and inappropriate comments in the special counsel’s report. Nonetheless, the most important decision the special counsel made — that no charges are warranted — is firmly based on the facts and evidence,” Sauber said.

Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer accused the special counsel of violating “well-established’ norms and “trashing” the president.

“The special counsel could not refrain from investigative excess, perhaps unsurprising given the intense pressures of the current political environment. Whatever the impact of those pressures on the final report, it flouts department regulations and norms,” he said in a statement.

Trump responded to the report in a statement as he traveled to Nevada for Thursday evening’s Republican caucuses. “THIS IS A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE!” he said in a statement, claiming the Biden case was “100 times different and more severe than mine.”

“I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal - He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them,” Trump added, once again claiming “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”

White House lawyers and Biden’s personal attorney were given the opportunity to review and comment on the report. Biden chose not to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report, White House counsel’s office spokesman Ian Sams said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707437029020.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden “willfully” retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen, including documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other sensitive national security matters, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Justice Department report</a>&nbsp;that nonetheless says no criminal charges are warranted for him or anyone else.<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf">Click here to read </a>the special council reportThe report from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco-hur">special counsel Robert Hur</a>, released Thursday, represents a harshly critical assessment of Biden’s handling of sensitive government materials, but also details the reasons why he should not be charged with the crime.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1673546739694.png" alt="Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>The findings will likely blunt his ability to forcefully condemn Donald Trump, Biden's likely opponent in November's presidential election, over a criminal indictment charging the former president with illegally hoarding classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," Hur wrote.Hur’s report says evidence suggests that many of the classified documents recovered by investigators at the Penn Biden Center, in parts of Biden’s Delaware home, and in his Senate papers at the University of Delaware were retained by “mistake.”Biden said in a statement that he was “pleased” the special counsel had “reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach — that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.”He made a point of saying that he sat for five hours of in-person interviews over two days on Oct. 8 and 9, “even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis."“I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed,” Biden said.The report comes after a yearlong investigation into the improper retention of classified documents by Biden, from his time as a senator and as vice president, that were found at his Delaware home, as well as at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.The investigation into Biden is separate from special counsel Jack Smith’s inquiry into the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-37a360519244eb3c211a56cd9355adc8">handling of classified documents by Trump</a>&nbsp;after Trump left the White House. Smith’s team has charged Trump with illegally retaining top secret records at Mar-a-Lago home and then obstructing government efforts to get them back. Trump has said he did nothing wrong.After Biden's lawyers uncovered classified documents at his former office, Biden's representatives promptly contacted the National Archives to arrange their return to the government. The National Archives notified the FBI, which opened an investigation. Biden made his homes available to agents to conduct thorough searches, and that is how the most sensitive documents came to the attention of the Justice Department.Hur assessed that the evidence did not support that Biden willfully retained some of the classified documents that were recovered — including the ones at the Penn Biden Center that sparked the probe.Biden could not have been prosecuted as a sitting president, but Hur’s report states that he would not recommend charges against Biden regardless.“We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president,” the report said.Part of the report centers on Biden’s handling of classified documents about Afghanistan — specifically, the Obama administration’s decision to send additional troops there — that he retained after he left office as vice president in his Delaware home. Biden preserved materials documenting his opposition to the troop surge, including a 2009 classified handwritten memo to then-President Barack Obama.“These materials were proof of the stand Mr. Biden took in what he regarded as among the most important decisions of his vice presidency,” the report said.The documents have classification markings up to the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information Level and were found in a box in Biden’s Delaware garage “that contained other materials of great significance to him and that he appears to have personally used and accessed.”Photographs included in the report showed some of the classified Afghanistan documents stored in a worn cardboard box stored in his garage, apparently in a loose collection with other household items, including a ladder and a wicker basket.Classified documents from the Obama administration were also found in Biden’s basement den, according to the report. Classified documents from his time in the Senate in the 1970s and 1980s were also found in his garage.Despite signs that Biden knowingly retained and disclosed classified materials, Hur’s report said criminal charges were not merited for multiple reasons. Those include the fact that as vice president, and during his subsequent presidency when the Afghanistan records were found, “he had the authority to keep classified documents at his home.”As part of the probe, investigators reviewed a recording of a February 2017 conversation between Biden and his ghostwriter in which, referring to the 2009 memo to Obama, Biden said that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Biden was renting a home in Virginia at the time and consolidated his belongings in Delaware when he moved out in 2019. Prosecutors believe that Biden’s comment was a reference to the same classified records that FBI agents later found in his Delaware home.Though the best case for charges could involve his possession of the Afghanistan documents as a private citizen, prosecutors said, it was possible that Biden could have found those records at his Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after.“This could convince some reasonable jurors that he did not retain them willfully,” the report.The report said there was some evidence to suggest that Biden knew he could not keep classified handwritten notes at home after leaving office, citing his deep familiarity “with the measures taken to safeguard classified information and the need for those measures to prevent harm to national security.” Yet his kept notebooks containing classified information in unlocked drawers at home.“He had strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules for properly handing the classified information in his notebooks,” the report said. “He consulted the notebooks liberally during hours of discussions with his ghostwriter and viewed them as highly private and valued possessions with which he was unwilling to part.”While the report removes legal jeopardy for the president, it is nonetheless is an embarrassment for Biden, who placed competency and experience at the core of his rationale to voters to send him to the Oval Office.“Mr. Biden was known to remove and keep classified material from his briefing books for future use, and his staff struggled — and sometimes failed — to retrieve those materials,” the report states. “And there was no procedure at all for tracking some of the classified material Mr. Biden received outside of his briefing books”In declining to prosecute Biden, Hur’s office also cited what it said was Biden’s “limited memory” both during his 2017 recorded conversations with the ghostwriter and in an interview with investigators last year.“Given Mr. Biden’s limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghostwriter and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence.”“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” investigators wrote.There is recent Justice Department precedence for criminal charges against individuals accused of sharing classified information with biographers or ghostwriters. Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to doing exactly that in 2015 and was sentenced to probation.Yet in this instance, prosecutors say, Biden could have plausibly believed that the notebooks were his personal property and belonged to him, even if they contained classified information.In an interview with prosecutors, the report said, Biden was emphatic with investigators that the notebooks were “my property” and that “every president before me has done the exact same thing.”White House lawyer Richard Sauber said Biden takes classified information seriously and “strives to protect it,” but making mistakes when packing documents at the end of an administration can be a common occurrence, as the report noted.“We disagree with a number of inaccurate and inappropriate comments in the special counsel’s report. Nonetheless, the most important decision the special counsel made — that no charges are warranted — is firmly based on the facts and evidence,” Sauber said.Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer accused the special counsel of violating “well-established’ norms and “trashing” the president.“The special counsel could not refrain from investigative excess, perhaps unsurprising given the intense pressures of the current political environment. Whatever the impact of those pressures on the final report, it flouts department regulations and norms,” he said in a statement.Trump responded to the report in a statement as he traveled to Nevada for Thursday evening’s Republican caucuses. “THIS IS A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE!” he said in a statement, claiming the Biden case was “100 times different and more severe than mine.”“I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal - He had 50 years of documents, 50 times more than I had, and “WILLFULLY RETAINED” them,” Trump added, once again claiming “ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”White House lawyers and Biden’s personal attorney were given the opportunity to review and comment on the report. Biden chose not to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report, White House counsel’s office spokesman Ian Sams said.

No charges: Read the special counsel report on Biden, classified  documents

KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement authorities a man's death and now believe it is a homicide.

Just after 10p.m. Thursday, police were dispatched to Brush Creek and Virginia initially on a shooting call, according to Police&nbsp;Captain Jake Becchina.

At the scene, police spoke with those who called who said they were passing by and saw the victim, a man down, and unresponsive. They assumed he had been shot and they called to report a shooting.

EMS responded and declared the victim deceased at the scene.

 It was not readily apparent to EMS what the cause of death might have been at that time. Because the circumstances were suspicious enough that it could have been a homicide, detectives responded and began investigating the suspicious death along side Crime Scene Investigators who processed the scene. 

As part of the preliminary investigation a medical examiners office representative responded to the scene as well. As the investigation continued, Detectives were able to determine that the victim had injuries not consistent with an accident or natural causes, and they are investigating this case as a homicide, according to Becchina.

The medical examiner is working to provide more information regarding cause of death.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707418239615.png" alt="Near the scene of the investigation- photo Sheriff Daryl Forte'" />
 <figcaption>Near the scene of the investigation- photo Sheriff Daryl Forte'</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement authorities a man's death and now believe it is a homicide.Just after 10p.m. Thursday, police were dispatched to Brush Creek and Virginia initially on a shooting call, according to Police&nbsp;Captain Jake Becchina.At the scene, police spoke with those who called who said they were passing by and saw the victim, a man down, and unresponsive. They assumed he had been shot and they called to report a shooting.EMS responded and declared the victim deceased at the scene. It was not readily apparent to EMS what the cause of death might have been at that time. Because the circumstances were suspicious enough that it could have been a homicide, detectives responded and began investigating the suspicious death along side Crime Scene Investigators who processed the scene. As part of the preliminary investigation a medical examiners office representative responded to the scene as well. As the investigation continued, Detectives were able to determine that the victim had injuries not consistent with an accident or natural causes, and they are investigating this case as a homicide, according to Becchina.The medical examiner is working to provide more information regarding cause of death.

KC Homicide: Man's cause of death under investigation

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument

It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

In tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.

The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.

Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.

Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.

Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.

The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.

Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.

The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.

The plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.

They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.

Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.

Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.

One thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.

The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.

Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.

Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.

What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.

Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.

If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.

If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.

What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?

Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.

It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Fmr Pres. Trump: &quot;In watching the Supreme Court today I thought it was a very beautiful process. I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas with the weaponization of politics...&quot; <a href="https://t.co/cFn0Lh7TKk">pic.twitter.com/cFn0Lh7TKk</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1755650525855420441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.Some takeaways from the arguments:TRUMP SEEMS LIKELY STAY ON THE BALLOTIn tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.A WAY OUT?Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.JAN. 6 GETS LITTLE MENTIONThe plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.A DIFFERENT HISTORYOne thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.WHAT'S NEXT?Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

🎥 Trump responds to historic Supreme Court ballot ban hearing 

WICHITA, KAN. – A Kansas photographer entered into a consent judgment with the Office of the Sedgwick County District Attorney earlier this month.

The District Attorney’s Consumer Protection Division investigated Caitlin Payne of Derby doing business as <a href="https://cpfamilyphotography.mypixieset.com/">CP Family Photography,</a> after receiving several consumer complaints.

The District Attorney’s Office alleged Payne violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (”KCPA”) by deceptively advertising photography services using photographs taken by other photographers and failing to disclose to the consumers that the photographs were not her own.

As part of the investigation, the Consumer Protection Division received <a href="https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0CwHqZE1aR8SxgX5uKt62zfm1P5RxQkXgHuYL98Sj934Up6cTSXAMj3UMHqDrwuu7l&amp;id=504383110&amp;mibextid=Nif5oz">an additional complaint</a> involving Payne sending a replacement photographer to a wedding while she was allegedly attending another event and failing to disclose the replacement lacked the skills to perform the contracted services.

While Payne denied intentionally violating the KCPA, she accepted a consent judgment to resolve the matter. The agreement calls for Payne to be liable for $30,000.00 in civil penalties, additional investigative expenses, and court costs while on a 48-month probationary period with the Consumer Protection Division. Payne will have to pay over $2,000.00 in restitution to two impacted consumers. 

The consent judgment also calls for an injunction from engaging in deceptive or unconscionable acts and cooperation with any future complaints. Payne promised in future offers for photography services not to use photographs of other photographers unless they are clearly and conspicuously disclosed as only a style of photography that she is capable of reproducing. 

The District Attorney reminded that "when hiring a professional for a service, you shouldmake sure to get the scope of work and all promises in writing. If you pay for the services in advance or make a deposit, make sure you understand if you are entitled to a refund in the event the professional fails to perform services or you need to cancel. When selecting a professional you should always research the provider, including on available websites such as the Better Business Bureau. If the professional provides references, be sure to verify they are&nbsp; legitimate and ask for samples of work the professional has previously performed. 

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/5/1652529633634.jpg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WICHITA, KAN. – A Kansas photographer entered into a consent judgment with the Office of the Sedgwick County District Attorney earlier this month.The District Attorney’s Consumer Protection Division investigated Caitlin Payne of Derby doing business as <a href="https://cpfamilyphotography.mypixieset.com/">CP Family Photography,</a> after receiving several consumer complaints.The District Attorney’s Office alleged Payne violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (”KCPA”) by deceptively advertising photography services using photographs taken by other photographers and failing to disclose to the consumers that the photographs were not her own.As part of the investigation, the Consumer Protection Division received <a href="https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0CwHqZE1aR8SxgX5uKt62zfm1P5RxQkXgHuYL98Sj934Up6cTSXAMj3UMHqDrwuu7l&amp;id=504383110&amp;mibextid=Nif5oz">an additional complaint</a> involving Payne sending a replacement photographer to a wedding while she was allegedly attending another event and failing to disclose the replacement lacked the skills to perform the contracted services. While Payne denied intentionally violating the KCPA, she accepted a consent judgment to resolve the matter. The agreement calls for Payne to be liable for $30,000.00 in civil penalties, additional investigative expenses, and court costs while on a 48-month probationary period with the Consumer Protection Division. Payne will have to pay over $2,000.00 in restitution to two impacted consumers. The consent judgment also calls for an injunction from engaging in deceptive or unconscionable acts and cooperation with any future complaints. Payne promised in future offers for photography services not to use photographs of other photographers unless they are clearly and conspicuously disclosed as only a style of photography that she is capable of reproducing. The District Attorney reminded that "when hiring a professional for a service, you shouldmake sure to get the scope of work and all promises in writing. If you pay for the services in advance or make a deposit, make sure you understand if you are entitled to a refund in the event the professional fails to perform services or you need to cancel. When selecting a professional you should always research the provider, including on available websites such as the Better Business Bureau. If the professional provides references, be sure to verify they are&nbsp; legitimate and ask for samples of work the professional has previously performed.

Kan. photographer accused of stealing photos liable for $32,000

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas is set to nearly double state legislators' pay at the start of next year, making their compensation better than it is for their counterparts in a majority of states, including more populous ones like Georgia and Texas.

The increase is nearly $28,000 a year for rank-and-file legislators, boosting their total compensation from $30,000 to nearly $58,000, an increase of 93%. Legislative leaders get additional payments because of their duties, and the House speaker and Senate president are set to make more than $85,000 a year, up from $44,000.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kansas-legislators-pay-raise-763c785abda405a00996e09ad9cde96d">The pay increase</a>&nbsp;appeared to have bipartisan support, though lawmakers never voted directly on it. Instead, they set up a bipartisan pay commission last year, with its proposal taking effect unless both legislative chambers passed a resolution rejecting it by Wednesday. An effort to force a debate in the Senate failed last week, and there was no such move in the House.

Some Kansas legislators have complained for years that their annual compensation of $30,000 isn't enough to live on year-round, while their duties as lawmakers cut into outside work or even prevent them from holding down other jobs. Supporters of the pay increase say it is likely to make the Legislature more diverse when it's in danger of becoming mostly retirees and wealthy people.

“You might get a few more females," said state Sen. Cindy Holscher, a Kansas City-area Democrat. "You might get a few more minorities. You might get a few more younger people.”

Alaska lawmakers’ salaries&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alaska-2024-legislature-education-dividend-dunleavy-87d1941e960031b122e629c0644d1698">rose by 67%</a>&nbsp;at the start of this year, from $50,400 to $84,000, also because legislators let a proposal from a pay commission stand. New Jersey legislators will see their pay increase in 2026,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-jersey-lawmaker-pay-raise-fba8ff790694623ff8bab2106fecf7e0">also by 67%,</a>&nbsp;from $49,000 to $82,000. New York lawmakers received a 29% raise at the start of 2023, making their pay the highest in the nation at $142,000 a year.

Most states pay a salary and give their lawmakers extra money each day to cover expenses in session, according to National Conference of State Legislatures data. New Hampshire's salary is $100 a year — the same as it was in 1889, while New Mexico pays $202 to cover lawmakers' expenses in session but no salary.

When Kansas became a state in 1861, its constitution said lawmakers were to receive $3 a day in session, up to $150. They didn’t get a raise for nearly 90 years, with voters rejecting five proposals before approving pay of $12 a day in 1948. In 1962, voters said lawmakers’ pay could be set by state law.

The new figure, nearly $58,000, includes both a salary and daily, in-session payments to cover expenses such as meals and housing.

“I think it’s fair,” said House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican. “I think that the commission did, really, a pretty good job.”

Commission members argued that their sizeable pay increase represented catching lawmakers' compensation up to several decades' worth of inflation. However, the proposal did draw at least a few objections.

Sen. Rob Olson, a conservative Kansas City-area Republican, tried and failed last week to pull an&nbsp;<a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/documents/scr1615_00_0000.pdf">anti-pay raise resolution</a>&nbsp;out of the Senate budget committee so senators could debate it on the floor. The effort fell short because a dozen of the 40 senators passed.

Senate President Ty Masterson, a Wichita-area Republican, saw opposition to the pay raise as political grandstanding.

“It's just kind of political theater,” he said after last week's vote.

The Senate budget committee did review the pay proposal Tuesday during a short hearing. Nicholas Reinecker, a central Kansas restaurant owner who makes seven to 10 trips to Topeka a year to advocate for legalizing cannabis, had to interrupt the committee's adjournment — after no action — to get his opposition on record.

He said he wants Kansas to keep its “citizen” Legislature, adding that when lawmakers take their oaths of office, they promise to “sacrifice for God, family and country.”

“I'm sorry, it's not supposed to be a job,” he told the committee, predicting that the big pay raise could lead to “entanglements” with professional lobbyists.

Olson said he doubts lawmakers' constituents support such a big pay raise and said they should have the courage to debate it and vote on it.

And Rep. Ken Corbet, a Topeka Republican who operates a hunting lodge, said that in most businesses, the boss sets the pay, not the employees. And his boss — the taxpayers — haven't told him a pay raise is OK with them, he said.

He had considered proposing his own anti-raise resolution, but, “Apparently, there was not an appetite for that.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707395861766.jpeg" alt="Most states pay a salary and give their lawmakers extra money each day to cover expenses in session, according to National Conference of State Legislatures data.-Kansas legislature YouTube page" />
 <figcaption>Most states pay a salary and give their lawmakers extra money each day to cover expenses in session, according to National Conference of State Legislatures data.-Kansas legislature YouTube page</figcaption>
 </figure>By JOHN HANNA&nbsp;TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas is set to nearly double state legislators' pay at the start of next year, making their compensation better than it is for their counterparts in a majority of states, including more populous ones like Georgia and Texas.The increase is nearly $28,000 a year for rank-and-file legislators, boosting their total compensation from $30,000 to nearly $58,000, an increase of 93%. Legislative leaders get additional payments because of their duties, and the House speaker and Senate president are set to make more than $85,000 a year, up from $44,000.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kansas-legislators-pay-raise-763c785abda405a00996e09ad9cde96d">The pay increase</a>&nbsp;appeared to have bipartisan support, though lawmakers never voted directly on it. Instead, they set up a bipartisan pay commission last year, with its proposal taking effect unless both legislative chambers passed a resolution rejecting it by Wednesday. An effort to force a debate in the Senate failed last week, and there was no such move in the House.Some Kansas legislators have complained for years that their annual compensation of $30,000 isn't enough to live on year-round, while their duties as lawmakers cut into outside work or even prevent them from holding down other jobs. Supporters of the pay increase say it is likely to make the Legislature more diverse when it's in danger of becoming mostly retirees and wealthy people.“You might get a few more females," said state Sen. Cindy Holscher, a Kansas City-area Democrat. "You might get a few more minorities. You might get a few more younger people.”Alaska lawmakers’ salaries&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alaska-2024-legislature-education-dividend-dunleavy-87d1941e960031b122e629c0644d1698">rose by 67%</a>&nbsp;at the start of this year, from $50,400 to $84,000, also because legislators let a proposal from a pay commission stand. New Jersey legislators will see their pay increase in 2026,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/new-jersey-lawmaker-pay-raise-fba8ff790694623ff8bab2106fecf7e0">also by 67%,</a>&nbsp;from $49,000 to $82,000. New York lawmakers received a 29% raise at the start of 2023, making their pay the highest in the nation at $142,000 a year.Most states pay a salary and give their lawmakers extra money each day to cover expenses in session, according to National Conference of State Legislatures data. New Hampshire's salary is $100 a year — the same as it was in 1889, while New Mexico pays $202 to cover lawmakers' expenses in session but no salary.When Kansas became a state in 1861, its constitution said lawmakers were to receive $3 a day in session, up to $150. They didn’t get a raise for nearly 90 years, with voters rejecting five proposals before approving pay of $12 a day in 1948. In 1962, voters said lawmakers’ pay could be set by state law.The new figure, nearly $58,000, includes both a salary and daily, in-session payments to cover expenses such as meals and housing.“I think it’s fair,” said House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican. “I think that the commission did, really, a pretty good job.”Commission members argued that their sizeable pay increase represented catching lawmakers' compensation up to several decades' worth of inflation. However, the proposal did draw at least a few objections.Sen. Rob Olson, a conservative Kansas City-area Republican, tried and failed last week to pull an&nbsp;<a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/documents/scr1615_00_0000.pdf">anti-pay raise resolution</a>&nbsp;out of the Senate budget committee so senators could debate it on the floor. The effort fell short because a dozen of the 40 senators passed.Senate President Ty Masterson, a Wichita-area Republican, saw opposition to the pay raise as political grandstanding.“It's just kind of political theater,” he said after last week's vote.The Senate budget committee did review the pay proposal Tuesday during a short hearing. Nicholas Reinecker, a central Kansas restaurant owner who makes seven to 10 trips to Topeka a year to advocate for legalizing cannabis, had to interrupt the committee's adjournment — after no action — to get his opposition on record.He said he wants Kansas to keep its “citizen” Legislature, adding that when lawmakers take their oaths of office, they promise to “sacrifice for God, family and country.”“I'm sorry, it's not supposed to be a job,” he told the committee, predicting that the big pay raise could lead to “entanglements” with professional lobbyists.Olson said he doubts lawmakers' constituents support such a big pay raise and said they should have the courage to debate it and vote on it.And Rep. Ken Corbet, a Topeka Republican who operates a hunting lodge, said that in most businesses, the boss sets the pay, not the employees. And his boss — the taxpayers — haven't told him a pay raise is OK with them, he said.He had considered proposing his own anti-raise resolution, but, “Apparently, there was not an appetite for that.”___

Kansas is set to nearly double state legislators’ pay 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to a replay of the oral arguments

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?533475-101/senators-tuberville-marshall-speak-reporters-supreme-court">Click here to watch</a> Senator Marshall's comments

In more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”

Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.

In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.

Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”

Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.

Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”

Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.

For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.

A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.

The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.

People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.

The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.

In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.

The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707486334455.png" alt="Senators Marshall and Tuberville spoke with reporters outside the Supreme Court-photo CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Senators Marshall and Tuberville spoke with reporters outside the Supreme Court-photo CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This morning, I stood in front of the Supreme Court in solidarity with Donald J. Trump. The Biden Administration has attacked our constitutional rights time and time again. Despite the radical Left&#39;s political witch-hunt and desperate attempts to keep him off the ballot, &#39;We…&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1755669737277665529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to a replay of the oral arguments<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?533475-101/senators-tuberville-marshall-speak-reporters-supreme-court">Click here to watch</a> Senator Marshall's commentsIn more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

🎥Marshall supports Trump as Justices hear arguments on ballot ban

SALINA —Dr. Eileen St. John, head of the teacher education department at Kansas Wesleyan, passed away in her office Thursday morning.

The following message was sent to campus by Kansas Wesleyan President Thompson:

Scriptures say to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. Today is a time of mourning, the likes of which our campus has not seen in some time.

Dr. Eileen St. John, head of the teacher education department, passed away in her office this morning. Dr. St. John was a leader on campus and a family-oriented individual, who gave her all to her students every day. She will truly be missed, and we will post additional information remembering her life and her effect on KWU in the very near future.

This is a time that many of us have never faced, but I want you to know that we will get through it together, as a family.

Chaplains are available right now in the SAC, Shriwise Dining Hall, UUMC and at 1808 Highland (the Campus Ministry house). In addition, the community is supporting us by offering counselors from USD 305 and other organizations. People grieve differently, in different ways and at different times, and we want you to know that we respect that. Services will be available for some time and at different locations through the KWU footprint. If, at any time, you have a question about the location of those services, you may visit with Student Development or Human Resources.

Classes are cancelled for Thursday and Friday, and all activities – to include Athletics – that are scheduled through Sunday will be postponed. In addition, Pioneer Hall is locked down today, Thursday, Feb. 8.

Additional information regarding coursework or activities will be sent, as needed, in the coming days.

I also want you, and everyone, to know that there was no danger to campus at any time, and there is no danger now. The campus is secure and for that, we are grateful.

In conclusion, we are all processing this terrible news together. We will view it in different ways, and at different times. Please give each other grace, patience and kindness as we mourn the loss of one of our own.

SALINE COUNTY — Police are investigating a death at&nbsp;Kansas Wesleyan University in Salina.

Just before 8a.m. Thursday, police were dispatched to the University, 100 E. Claflin, in regards to a person who was reportedly injured in one of the buildings, according to a media release.

When officers arrived and secured the scene the person was declared deceased. There is no indication that there is any further danger to any facility, staff, or students at KWU.

SPD detectives are working with campus security and an investigation is ongoing.&nbsp;

Kansas Wesleyan University released the following statement to students, faculty, and staff informing them classes had been canceled for Thursday, Feb. 8.&nbsp;

"Many of you may have noticed police and EMT presence on campus this morning. There is no danger to the community. However, there has been a significant tragedy on campus this morning. All classes are cancelled for the day. Leadership will brief different segments of campus at 9 a.m."

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707405887183.jpeg" alt="Police on the scene of the investigation- photo Olivia Bergmeier Salina Post" />
 <figcaption>Police on the scene of the investigation- photo Olivia Bergmeier Salina Post</figcaption>
 </figure>SALINA —Dr. Eileen St. John, head of the teacher education department at Kansas Wesleyan, passed away in her office Thursday morning.The following message was sent to campus by Kansas Wesleyan President Thompson:Scriptures say to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. Today is a time of mourning, the likes of which our campus has not seen in some time.Dr. Eileen St. John, head of the teacher education department, passed away in her office this morning. Dr. St. John was a leader on campus and a family-oriented individual, who gave her all to her students every day. She will truly be missed, and we will post additional information remembering her life and her effect on KWU in the very near future.This is a time that many of us have never faced, but I want you to know that we will get through it together, as a family.Chaplains are available right now in the SAC, Shriwise Dining Hall, UUMC and at 1808 Highland (the Campus Ministry house). In addition, the community is supporting us by offering counselors from USD 305 and other organizations. People grieve differently, in different ways and at different times, and we want you to know that we respect that. Services will be available for some time and at different locations through the KWU footprint. If, at any time, you have a question about the location of those services, you may visit with Student Development or Human Resources.Classes are cancelled for Thursday and Friday, and all activities – to include Athletics – that are scheduled through Sunday will be postponed. In addition, Pioneer Hall is locked down today, Thursday, Feb. 8.Additional information regarding coursework or activities will be sent, as needed, in the coming days.I also want you, and everyone, to know that there was no danger to campus at any time, and there is no danger now. The campus is secure and for that, we are grateful.In conclusion, we are all processing this terrible news together. We will view it in different ways, and at different times. Please give each other grace, patience and kindness as we mourn the loss of one of our own.-----------SALINE COUNTY — Police are investigating a death at&nbsp;Kansas Wesleyan University in Salina.Just before 8a.m. Thursday, police were dispatched to the University, 100 E. Claflin, in regards to a person who was reportedly injured in one of the buildings, according to a media release.When officers arrived and secured the scene the person was declared deceased. There is no indication that there is any further danger to any facility, staff, or students at KWU.SPD detectives are working with campus security and an investigation is ongoing.&nbsp;Kansas Wesleyan University released the following statement to students, faculty, and staff informing them classes had been canceled for Thursday, Feb. 8.&nbsp;"Many of you may have noticed police and EMT presence on campus this morning. There is no danger to the community. However, there has been a significant tragedy on campus this morning. All classes are cancelled for the day. Leadership will brief different segments of campus at 9 a.m."

Kansas Wesleyan University closed after professor's death on campus

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.

Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas.

"It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.

The names of the Marines were not immediately released.

“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”

Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.

The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Update: The five 3rd MAW Marines have been confirmed deceased. “To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time.” -Maj. Gen. Borgschulte, 3rd MAW Commanding General <a href="https://t.co/CBLs2jDKWG">pic.twitter.com/CBLs2jDKWG</a>&mdash; 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (@3rdmaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/3rdmaw/status/1755576079710818351?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas."It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.The names of the Marines were not immediately released.“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

5 Marines aboard helicopter that crashed confirmed dead

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral arguments

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707402813598.png" alt="Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral argumentsIn more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

🎧 Supreme Court sounds broadly skeptical of efforts to kick Trump off ballot 

JOHNSON COUNTY —Authorities are investigating the cause of a fire in a multi-family home.

Just after 4:30p.m. Wednesday crews responded to a fire in a triplex the 8300 Block of Travis Lane, according to a media release.

First units reported a room and contents on fire on the backside of the split-level triplex. The residents escaped but firefighters learned of a possible dog still inside.

While firefighters searched to confirm residents were out safely, crews brought the fire under control in about 15-minutes. The fire was contained to the unit where it started. The other two mild to moderate smoke damage. The missing dog was found deceased inside the unit. One adult from the unit where the fire started and one adult from an adjoining unit were displaced. Residents of the third unit were allowed to return.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707360568406.png" alt="photo Overland Park Fire" />
 <figcaption>photo Overland Park Fire</figcaption>
 </figure>JOHNSON COUNTY —Authorities are investigating the cause of a fire in a multi-family home.Just after 4:30p.m. Wednesday crews responded to a fire in a triplex the 8300 Block of Travis Lane, according to a media release.First units reported a room and contents on fire on the backside of the split-level triplex. The residents escaped but firefighters learned of a possible dog still inside.While firefighters searched to confirm residents were out safely, crews brought the fire under control in about 15-minutes. The fire was contained to the unit where it started. The other two mild to moderate smoke damage. The missing dog was found deceased inside the unit. One adult from the unit where the fire started and one adult from an adjoining unit were displaced. Residents of the third unit were allowed to return.

Family pet dies in Kansas house fire

KANSAS CITY—Law enforcement authorities are investigating a shooting that sent a teen to the hospital.

Just after 1:30p.m. Wednesday, police responded to shots fired call at East 17th and Blue&nbsp; Ridge Boulevard, according to KCPD. First responders found a boy with a gunshot wound. EMS transported him to a local hospital in critical condition.

Police have not reported an arrest or additional details.

KANSAS CITY—Law enforcement authorities are investigating a shooting that sent a teen to the hospital.Just after 1:30p.m. Wednesday, police responded to shots fired call at East 17th and Blue&nbsp; Ridge Boulevard, according to KCPD. First responders found a boy with a gunshot wound. EMS transported him to a local hospital in critical condition.Police have not reported an arrest or additional details.

Teen critically injured in Kansas City shooting

JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.

CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/12/1701652753204.png" alt="Photo U.S. Central Command" />
 <figcaption>Photo U.S. Central Command</figcaption>
 </figure>JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

U.S. responds to new Iran-backed rebel threats in Red Sea

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.

Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.

The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.

The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1673546739694.png" alt="Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.Trump and other Republicans are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation by noting that it was launched by the Biden Justice Department.But Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-home-wilmington-33479d12c7cf0a822adb2f44c32b88fd">sought to insulate the department from claims of bias and conflicts of interest by last year appointing Hur</a>, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland during the Trump administration, to handle the Biden investigation and by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutor-donald-trump-garland-e1fdb71cfc258bc2be48a8b890a9269b">naming a different special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee investigations into Trump</a>.While the Trump investigation resulted in dozens of felony charges against the ex-president last year, the outcome of the Biden probe is expected to be different. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and, unlike in the Trump investigation, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Biden engaged in comparable conduct or willfully held onto records he wasn’t supposed to have.Even so, the White House's response to the discovery of classified documents early last year was delayed and incomplete.The White House did not disclose the Justice Department’s investigation until January 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">when it acknowledged the discovery two months earlier</a>&nbsp;of a “small number” of classified documents by Biden lawyers as they closed an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank affiliated with the Ivy League school. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-us-department-justice-a45855907a73acb256bb7c4dd5a91610">has said he was surprised</a>&nbsp;by the initial trove discovered by his lawyers.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-delaware-0827b59ee141b33af95023377713e075">FBI subsequently conducted a 13-hour, top-to-bottom check of his Wilmington, Delaware, home</a>, where agents located documents with classified markings from his time as a vice president and senator and took possession of some of his handwritten notes. Biden’s personal lawyers have also revealed that they had found a document bearing classified markings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0">while searching the Wilmington property</a>&nbsp;but said they had not found others during a separate inspection of his Rehoboth Beach home.The looming conclusion of the investigation had been foreshadowed last fall when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-justice-4c657c8d19e3b1f232952a266eccc9b6">Biden sat for a voluntary interview</a>&nbsp;at the White House with Hur's team. Interviews of key subjects in an investigation are often done near the end.Justice Department regulations require Congress to be notified of any investigative steps or proposed actions by a special counsel that were rejected by department leadership. There were no such actions, Garland wrote.