Diddy jury deadlocked on racketeering charge as partial verdict is reached

The jury in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ sex trafficking and racketeering trial returned a verdict Tuesday.

The jurors reached a verdict on four of the five counts against Diddy around 4:18pm ET. The jury indicated they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision on the racketeering charge.

Jurors began deliberating on Monday, June 30, after hearing seven weeks of trial testimony. The prosecution chose to rest the case on June 24. Special Agent Joseph Cerciello was the final witness to take the stand for the prosecution, making him the 34th person to testify.

Diddy’s defense called no witnesses.

Diddy pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted, Diddy faces life in prison. The disgraced music mogul was arrested in September 2024, months after Homeland Security Investigations raided the Los Angeles and Miami homes of the rapper.

DIDDY DEFENSE CLAIMS HE WAS UNFAIRLY TARGETED, WHILE PROSECUTION SAYS RAPPER THOUGHT HE WAS ‘UNTOUCHABLE’

During closing arguments, Diddy’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo, insisted the rapper was innocent. He noted that it takes courage for a juror to acquit. “Return him to his family who have been waiting for him.”

He also accused the prosecution of bringing a “fake trial” against Diddy, claiming the government went after his “private sex life.”

According to his lawyer, none of the prosecution witnesses testified to engaging in racketeering. Agnifilo pointed out the disgraced music mogul’s former employees all described working for him as hard, but also said it was like “going to Harvard Business School.”

“That’s the fake trial I’m talking about,” Agnifilo told the jurors, claiming the prosecution failed to prove the government’s theory of racketeering.

DIDDY BLOWS KISS TO FAMILY AFTER PROSECUTION PROMISES TO PUT A STOP TO HIS ALLEGED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Agnifilo then brought up the raids on Diddy’s homes, pointing out the seizure of Astroglide and baby oil. There was nothing about the rapper’s businesses to make this a criminal case, the defense attorney stated.

“Where is the crime scene? The crime scene is your private sex life,” Agnifilo said.

The defense attorney also claimed the rapper never participated in sex trafficking. Agnifilo claimed what happened between Diddy and his ex-girlfriend Cassie was domestic violence, not sex trafficking. “Owning the domestic violence, we own it,” he said in court. “That’s not charged.”

WATCH: DEFENSE ATTORNEY BREAKS DOWN ‘TROUBLING’ TREND WITH DIDDY DEFENSE TEAM

LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

Before the defense’s closing arguments, the government explained how the trial testimony proved each charge against Diddy – two counts of sex trafficking, racketeering and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution – over the course of roughly four hours.

The government emphasized in their argument that Diddy ran an alleged criminal enterprise with full control. The prosecution pointed out that the jury heard testimony, saw texts, viewed bank records and heard audio allegedly showing the “Last Night” rapper committing crime after crime for decades. 

According to the prosecution, the government showed Diddy didn’t take no for an answer. “Up until today, Diddy was able to get away with crime because of money and power,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Slavik said. “That stops now.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

A 12-person jury comprised of eight men and four women made the decision on whether to convict Diddy of federal crimes, or let the fallen music mogul walk free following a seven-week trial.

Throughout the past two months, the jury heard from 34 prosecution witnesses. Diddy’s ex-girlfriends, Cassie and Jane, testified about the alleged physical abuse they experienced at the hands of the rapper. Diddy’s former personal assistants also told the jury about the long hours they worked and the drugs they allegedly bought for the musician.

A woman named Mia, testifying under a pseudonym, claimed she was raped by Diddy while working for him.

WATCH: PROSECUTORS ACCUSED DIDDY OF RUNNING A ‘CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE’

Prosecutors argued the disgraced music mogul used his inner circle, money and influence to cover up the alleged crimes he committed.

“Over the last several weeks, you’ve learned a lot about Sean Combs,” Slavik said at the start of closing statements. “He’s a leader of a criminal enterprise. He doesn’t take no for an answer.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Schumer strips Trump’s ‘beautiful bill’ title in last-minute Senate maneuver

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., forced a name change for President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” moments before the legislative package passed the upper chamber of Congress. 

While Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., was chairing the Senate, Schumer raised a point of order against lines three to five on the first page of the legislative proposal that said, “SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘’One Big Beautiful Bill Act.'” 

Schumer argued the title of the bill violated Section 313 B1A of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or what’s commonly referred to as the “Byrd Rule.” 

SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN OKS BAN ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERAL FUNDING IN TRUMP MEGABILL

Ricketts said the point of order was sustained, meaning that text will be stricken from the bill. 

“This is not a ‘big, beautiful bill’ at all. That’s why I moved down the floor to strike the title. It is now called ‘the act.’ That’s what it’s called. But it is really the ‘big ugly betrayal,’ and the American people know it,” Schumer told reporters. “This vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come. Because of this bill, tens of millions will lose health insurance. Millions of jobs will disappear. People will get sick and die, kids will go hungry and the debt will explode to levels we have never seen.

“This bill is so irredeemable that one Republican literally chose to retire rather than vote yes and decimate his own state,” Schumer added, referring to Sen. Thom Tills, R-N.C.

Asked whether he hoped to irritate Trump by changing the name of the bill, Schumer responded, “I didn’t even think of President Trump. I thought of the truth. This is not a beautiful bill. Anyone who loses their health insurance doesn’t think it’s beautiful. Any worker in the clean energy industry who loses their job does not think it’s beautiful. Any mom who can’t feed her kid on $5 a day doesn’t think it’s beautiful. We wanted the American people to know the truth.”

The Senate narrowly passed Trump’s $3.3 trillion spending package by a 51-50 vote on Tuesday after an all-night voting session. 

Vice President JD Vance was the tiebreaking vote. No Senate Democrats crossed the aisle to support the legislation. Tillis and Republican senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine opposed the megabill. 

Democrats condemned the bill’s passage, including Schumer’s fellow New Yorker, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. She has not confirmed a primary run. 

“JD Vance was the deciding vote to cut Medicaid across the country,” the progressive “Squad” member wrote on X. “An absolute and utter betrayal of working families.” 

CONGRESS MUST RECONCILE KEY DIFFERENCES IN BOTH VERSIONS OF TRUMP’S SIGNATURE BILL 

Vance championed the bill as securing “massive tax cuts, especially no tax on tips and overtime. And most importantly, big money for border security.” 

“This is a big win for the American people,” the vice president wrote. 

He also approved an assessment by longtime GOP operative Roger Stone.

“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Trump’s reconciliation bill would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade by extending the president’s tax cuts that he first implemented in 2017. In fact, federal revenues spiked after the 2017 Trump tax cuts just like they did after Reagan and JFK implemented across-the-board tax cuts,” Stone wrote.

“The deficit is caused by excess spending which the administration is addressing in a series of recision bills. PS the CBO is always wrong.” 

Despite initial reservations, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted in favor of the legislation after Republicans added Alaska-specific provisions to curry her favor. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

The bill now heads back to the House for final approval. Congress must reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill, namely on Medicaid. Republican leaders are aiming to get it to the president’s desk by Friday, July 4.

What Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ means for taxes, Medicaid, and immigration

Senate Republicans coalesced to pass President Donald Trump‘s colossal “big, beautiful bill” early Tuesday morning. 

Senate Republican leaders and the White House have pitched the legislative behemoth as a means to turbocharge the economy, root out waste, fraud and abuse in a slew of federal programs, and to make crucial investments in defense and Trump’s border and immigration priorities. 

SENATORS ENTER MARATHON VOTE-A-RAMA AS TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ DEADLINE BARRELS NEAR

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have bashed the bill as a deficit-ballooning monstrosity that would boot millions of Americans from their healthcare and rollback key Medicaid, food nutrition assistance and green energy provisions ushered in by the Obama and Biden administrations. 

So what’s in Trump’s bill? Below, Fox News Digital breaks down key proposals in Senate Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill.”

Tax cuts

The bill seeks to permanently extend Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which a House GOP memo from earlier this year said would avoid a 22% tax hike for American families at the end of this year.

It also includes tax cuts specifically tailored to the middle and working-class, like allowing people to deduct taxes on up to $25,000 of tipped wages. That deduction would begin to phase out for people making $150,000 per year or $300,000 as a married couple.

The Senate bill would also allow people to deduct up to $12,500 in overtime pay under the same income guidelines. Both the tipped and overtime wage deductions would be available through 2028.

Another temporary tax break through 2028 would allow people to deduct interest paid on their car loans.

For seniors aged 65 and older, the bill would give an additional $6,000 tax deduction through 2028.

SALT

The legislation increases the current cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, a benefit primarily geared toward people living in high-cost-of-living areas like New York City, Los Angeles and their surrounding suburbs.

The current SALT deduction cap would be raised to $40,000 for five years, before reverting down to $10,000 – where it stands now – for the subsequent five years.

Blue state Republicans fought for the increase, arguing it’s an existential issue for a bloc of lawmakers whose victories were decisive for the House GOP majority. However, Republicans from redder areas have criticized SALT deductions as giveaways to high-tax states as a reward for their progressive policies.

DEM DELAY TACTIC ENDS, DEBATE BEGINS ON TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’

Medicaid

Medicaid cuts have proven the biggest pain point among Republicans, though many of the changes that have been proposed are widely popular. Cuts to the widely used healthcare program account for roughly $1 trillion, according to recent analyses from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO found that under the Senate GOP’s plan, nearly 12 million Americans could lose their health insurance.

Stricter work requirements have been the crown jewel for the GOP. The bill would require ​​able-bodied, childless adults between the ages of 18 and 64 to work at least 80 hours a month to maintain their benefits, or by ​​participating in community service, going to school or engaging in a work program.

However, there are more divisive changes, like tweaks to the Medicaid provider tax rate. The rate change would, year-by-year, lower the provider tax in Medicaid expansion states from 6% to 3.5%. The plan was tweaked to comport with Senate rules and now starts in fiscal year 2028.

Just ahead of the bill’s passage in the Senate, Republicans doubled a rural hospital stabilization fund pushed for by lawmakers concerned that the changes to the provider rate would shutter rural hospitals around the country. 

That fund was boosted to $50 billion, half of which will be distributed through grants, in chunks of $10 billion each year. 

Republicans also removed a ban on Medicaid benefits funding transgender healthcare, largely because it would not have complied with Senate rules.

SNAP

Senate Republicans’ bill also includes cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.

Like tweaks to Medicaid, Republicans pushed for work requirements for SNAP for able-bodied, working-age adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years old, and for parents with children over the age of 7.  

The bill would also shift some of the cost burden of the program from the federal government to the states.

Currently, the federal government covers the costs of SNAP, but states with a higher payment error rate would cover a greater share of benefit costs.

If the error rate is 6% or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 5% and 15%.

However, in last-minute deal-making, Senate Republicans delayed SNAP work requirements for states that have a payment error rate of 13%, like Alaska, or higher for one whole year. 

SENATE REPUBLICANS RAM TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ THROUGH KEY TEST VOTE

Debt limit

The bill raises the borrowing limit on the U.S. government’s $36.2 trillion national debt by $5 trillion.

A failure to raise that limit – also called the debt ceiling – before the U.S. government runs out of cash to pay its obligations could result in a downgrade in the country’s credit rating and potential turmoil in financial markets.

Trump has made it a priority for congressional Republicans to deal with the debt ceiling and avoid a national credit default. A bipartisan agreement struck in 2023 suspended the debt ceiling until January 2025.

Multiple projections show the U.S. is poised to run out of cash to pay its debts by sometime this summer.

HOUSE LEADERS EYE WEDNESDAY VOTE ON TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ AS SLEEPLESS SENATE DRUDGES ON

Defense and border spending 

While the bill cuts spending on Medicaid and other domestic programs, it includes billions of dollars in new funding for defense programs and federal immigration enforcement.

The bill provides $25 billion to build a Golden Dome missile defense system, similar to Israel’s Iron Dome. It would also include $45.6 billion to complete Trump’s border wall, and $4.1 billion to hire new border agents.

The bill would also surge an additional $45 billion to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for the detention of illegal immigrants.

An additional $15 billion would be directed toward modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad and $29 billion for shipbuilding and the Maritime Industrial Base.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Immigration fees

Several new provisions were included in the bill that hike, or create, fees for migrants who are seeking asylum, a work permit or are apprehended, among others.

Among the list of new fees is a new, $100 fee for those seeking asylum. That becomes an annual fee for every year that the asylum application remains pending. There is also a new, $1,000 minimum fee for immigrants granted temporary entry into the U.S. on the grounds of “humanitarian or significant public interest.”

For migrants caught trying to illegally enter the country through a port of entry, a new minimum $5,000 fee would come into play. There is another new $5,000 fee for migrants that are arrested after being ordered to be removed.

There are also new fees of between $500 and $1,500 for migrants whose immigration status is changed by a judge, or who appeal for a status change.

Then there is a new, $30 Electronic Visa Update System fee for certain Chinese nationals. They also have to maintain biographic and travel information in the country online. 

Ex-DNC insider alleges who really controlled the White House during Biden presidency

While Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have started questioning former President Joe Biden’s Cabinet members about the alleged cover-up of his cognitive decline, a former Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider says she is sitting on a trove of answers. 

In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Lindy Li, a former DNC fundraiser and National Finance Committee member, detailed her front-row seat to Biden’s presidency and the people who pulled the strings behind the scenes. 

“[Biden is] definitely complicit, but there were a lot of people behind him, like puppet masters. [Former first lady Jill Biden] very much knew what she was doing. What she did was absolutely elder abuse. There is no question in my mind,” Li said. 

Last week, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., issued a subpoena to Anthony Bernal, former assistant to the president and senior advisor to the first lady, to appear for a July 16 deposition. 

TOP BIDEN OFFICIALS SUMMONED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ALLEGED COVER-UP OF FORMER PRESIDENT’S MENTAL FITNESS

“They deny the cover-up, but I had a front-row seat watching it happen. People like Anthony Bernal. I saw him running the White House like he was in charge, like he was a king. It’s just so amazing now to see him dodge a subpoena and completely dodge accountability. He can run, but he can’t hide. His name is going to go down in infamy forever,” Li told Fox News Digital. 

WHO IS ANTHONY BERNAL?: THE ‘INDISPENSABLE’ BIDEN AIDE DITCHING HOUSE OVERSIGHT PROBE ON HIS MENTAL DECLINE

Bernal had confirmed his appearance for a voluntary transcribed interview before the committee on June 26, but after the White House Counsel’s office informed him it was waiving executive privilege for the Oversight committee’s investigation, he refused to appear. 

Li said Bernal, who also served as the first lady’s chief of staff, “followed Jill around like a dog.” While Bernal’s apparent power grab coincided with Jill Biden’s growing role in the Biden White House, Li added that he ran the East Wing more than the West Wing. 

Li, who attended events at the White House and organized fundraisers in critical battleground states during the 2024 presidential election, said that in addition to Bernal, deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed, counselor Steve Ricchetti and senior advisors Anita Dunn and Mike Donilon were among those running the White House during Biden’s presidency. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the aforementioned Biden aides but did not receive a response. 

Biden’s former domestic policy advisor, Neera Tanden, testified for hours before the House Oversight Committee last week about her knowledge of the autopen, an automatic signature tool used throughout past presidencies that allowed aides to sign pardons, memos and other important documents on Biden’s behalf. 

Tanden told reporters that she “answered every question, was pleased to discuss my public service, and it was a thorough process,” adding she was “glad I answered everyone’s question.”

Li said Tanden played an “intricate” role in using the autopen when “Biden was manifestly unqualified and unable to prosecute the duties of the office.”

The former DNC insider said Tanden’s remarks that she “answered every question” reminded her of Jill Biden’s demeanor after her husband’s disastrous and consequential debate performance one year ago. 

Li said she was in the room when Jill proclaimed, “You answered every question!” and said the Democratic Party went to great lengths, even then, to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline. She said that included talking points from Biden’s campaign managers, who claimed Biden couldn’t drop out of the race due to campaign finance laws. 

“This is such an eerie parallel. It’s not enough to just give empty answers,” Li said. 

The former Democrat, who said she has faced the wrath of her former friends and colleagues since she left the party, added that Jill Biden was ultimately the one running the White House. 

“Joe was not able to do a lot of campaign events, so Jill would come out on his behalf, acting like the president or the presidential candidate. That’s why she graced the Vogue cover three times. She loved it. If I were to pinpoint two reasons why Joe decided to run again, it would be two people: Jill and Hunter Biden. Because Hunter Biden’s freedom was on the line and Jill’s ego was on the line,” Li said. 

Before the president ultimately dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris last summer, Jill Biden took a break from the campaign trail to show her support for Hunter Biden at his federal trial. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Hunter was found guilty on all counts but received a presidential pardon from his father before departing the White House in January. 

When reached for comment about her allegations, a former Biden official quipped, “Who is Lindy Li?”

Trump scores major win as University of Pennsylvania apologizes in trans athlete case

FIRST ON FOX: The U.S. Department of Education announced Tuesday that the University of Pennsylvania has agreed to a resolution with President Donald Trump‘s administration to keep biological male trans athletes out of women’s sports, in a statement provided to Fox News Digital.

The department previously launched an investigation into UPenn on Feb. 6 for Title IX violations that occurred in the swimming program. Trans athlete Lia Thomas competed for the women’s team in the 2021-22 season, after previously competing for the men’s team. 

“Today, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) has entered into a Resolution Agreement to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX),” the statement read. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

Per the DOE’s announcement, under UPenn’s new agreement the following actions will be taken: 

• UPenn will restore to female athletes all individual UPenn Division I swimming records, titles, or similar recognitions which were misappropriated by male athletes allowed to compete in female categories;
• UPenn will issue a public statement to the University community stating that it will comply with Title IX, specifying that UPenn will not allow males to compete in female athletic programs or occupy Penn Athletics female intimate facilities;
• The statement will specify that UPenn will adopt biology-based definitions for the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ pursuant to Title IX and consistent with President Trump’s Executive Orders “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism” and “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”;
• UPenn will post the statement in a prominent location on its main website and on each of its websites for women’s athletics;
• UPenn will rescind any guidance which violated Title IX, remove or revise any internal and public-facing statements or documents that are inconsistent with Title IX, and notify all staff and women’s athletics of all such rescissions; and
• UPenn will send a personalized letter of apology to each impacted female swimmer.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon credited Trump for the resolution. 

“Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the University for future generations of female athletes,” McMahon said in a statement. 

“Today is a great victory for women and girls not only at the University of Pennsylvania, but all across our nation. The Department commends UPenn for rectifying its past harms against women and girls, and we will continue to fight relentlessly to restore Title IX’s proper application and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law.” 

Former UPenn women’s swimmer Paula Scanlan, who was the first of Thomas’ teammates on the women’s team to speak out against the school for allowing the situation to play out, told Fox News Digital that she is “grateful.” 

HOW TRANSGENDERISM IN SPORTS SHIFTED THE 2024 ELECTION AND IGNITED A NATIONAL COUNTERCULTURE

“I am deeply grateful to the Trump administration for standing firm in protecting women and girls and restoring our rightful accolades,” Scanlan said. 

“It is because of their strong leadership that my alma mater now knows it has no choice but to begin the process of reforming its policies to uphold women’s rights. Today marks a momentous step toward repairing the past mistreatment of female athletes and forging a future where sex discrimination no longer limits girls’ potential.”

Scanlan isn’t the only one of Thomas’ former teammates to speak out anymore. 

Three other former UPenn swimmers filed a lawsuit against the university on Feb. 5, the same day Trump signed the “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” executive order. 

The lawsuit sought to have Thomas’ accolades withdrawn and redistributed to the women’s swimmers who competed against the athlete, and it alleges university administrators suggested any female swimmer opposed to Thomas competing with them had a “psychological problem” and were referred to the school’s LGBTQ center. 

Trump’s administration later froze $175 million in funding for the school on March 20. Then, on April 28, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights announced its investigation concluded that UPenn did violate Title IX in its handling of the Thomas situation.

The Thomas saga at the 2022 NCAA championships is largely considered a cultural turning point in the national debate over transgender athletes in women’s sports. Back then, current prominent conservative activist Riley Gaines was just a dental student who had to settle for a tie with Thomas in one of the NCAA championship events. 

Since then, Gaines has taken the lead on an entire political platform focused on combating male inclusion in women’s and girls’ sports, stemming from her experience competing against Thomas in 2022. 

Gaines previously told Fox News Digital that she would send a “thank-you” note to “people like” Thomas for bringing attention to the issue back then, as she believes it influenced the 2024 election. 

“I think we should send a thank-you note to people like Will Thomas, I really do, signed and sealed by me. I will sign the thank-you note, I will write it, because I believe he handed us the election,” Gaines said. 

“There was a lot that was wrong with Joe Biden, his administration and the Democratic Party as a whole outside of the sports stuff … but this was the perfect visual. It’s like the South Park episode. … It painted the picture that many of us were concerned about for a while, but made it a reality.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A national exit poll conducted by the Concerned Women for America legislative action committee found that 70% of moderate voters saw the issue of “Donald Trump’s opposition to transgender boys and men playing girls’ and women’s sports and of transgender boys and men using girls’ and women’s bathrooms” as important to them. Additionally, 6% said it was the most important issue of all, while 44% said it was “very important.”

Fox News Digital reached out to UPenn and Thomas’ listed representative for comment.

AOC faces renewed scrutiny over Bronx roots after high school nickname resurfaces

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tough Bronx persona is under fresh scrutiny with a resurfaced childhood nickname from her suburban upstate New York upbringing casting doubt on that publicly portrayed image.

The progressive champion’s latest spat with President Donald Trump over the Iran strikes again called into question her true upbringing when she declared on X that she was a “Bronx girl” to make a point against the president. 

The 35-year-old “Squad” member wrote in part on X last week: “I’m a Bronx girl. You should know that we can eat Queens boys for breakfast. Respectfully,” she said, referring to the president’s upbringing in Queens as she called for his impeachment over his decision to bypass Congress in authorizing U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 

AOC’S CONSTITUENTS WEIGH IN ON PRESIDENTIAL RUN, RECALL HER STUNNING 2018 POLITICAL UPSET

Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx but moved to Yorktown – which is nearly an hour outside New York City — when she was 5 years old and went on to attend Yorktown High School, from where she graduated in 2007.

She was considered an accomplished student there and well-thought of by teacher Michael Blueglass, according to a 2018 report by local media outlet Halston Media News. 

“There, known by students and staff as ‘Sandy,’ she was a member of the Science Research Program taught by Michael Blueglass,” the report states.

“She was amazing,” Blueglass said, per the report. “Aside from her winning one of the top spots and going to the [Intel International Science and Engineering Fair], she was just one of the most amazing presenters in all of the years I’ve been at Yorktown. Her ability to take complex information and explain it to all different levels of people was fantastic.”

After high school, Ocasio-Cortez attended Boston University, where she majored in economics and international relations, per the report.

Ocasio-Cortez’s “Sandy” nickname — which carries a more suburban and preppy tone — appears to undercut her politically crafted image as a tough, inner-city fighter, one she has portrayed since her famous 2018 congressional campaign, where she eventually ousted former 10-term Congressman Joe Crowley. 

AOC, DEMS CALLED OUT AS ‘HYPOCRITES’ FOR IMPEACHMENT TALK FOLLOWING US STRIKES ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES 

New York GOP Assemblyman Matt Slater, who now represents Yorktown, added to the scrutiny of Ocasio-Cortez’s persona in the wake of her brush with Trump and released images of Ocasio-Cortez from his high school yearbook. He claimed he and the rising Democratic star attended Yorktown High School at the same time when she was a freshman and he was a senior. 

“I saw the attacks on the president and her [Ocasio-Cortez] claims that she’s a big, tough Bronx girl,” said Slater. “To sit there and say that she’s a Bronx girl is just patently ridiculous.” 

“Everybody in our community knows this is just a bold-face lie,” said Slater on “Fox & Friends First” last week. “She grew up in Yorktown, she was on my track team.” 

“She’s lying about her background, she’s lying about her upbringing,” Slater claimed.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Slater’s post sent social media ablaze and prompted Ocasio-Cortez to respond after an image of her family’s home in Yorktown was posted online. 

“I’m proud of how I grew up and talk about it all the time,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X Friday, responding to the post. “My mom cleaned houses and I helped. We cleaned tutors’ homes in exchange for SAT prep.”

“Growing up between the Bronx and Yorktown deeply shaped my views of inequality & it’s a big reason I believe the things I do today!”

Maine governor stunned when peppered with cocaine questions: ‘What the f—?’

Maine Democrat Gov. Janet Mills was at a loss for words last month during a trip to the nation’s capital when pressed about her alleged cocaine use. 

“What the f—?” Mills replied when asked if “sniffing cocaine at work” is a “human right.”

Mills refused to answer the question, which was followed by, “How much more does an eight-ball cost with inflation?” Mills ignored the second question and continued walking. 

A source shared the video with Fox News Digital after reporting Friday revealed the Department of Justice contradicted Mills’ decades-old claim that the investigation over her alleged cocaine use was politically motivated. 

DEM GOVERNOR’S DECADES-OLD POLITICAL PERSECUTION CLAIM OVER ALLEGED COCAINE USE DISPUTED BY BOMBSHELL MEMO

In early 1990, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) in Maine, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Maine’s Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement (BIDE) investigated Mills, then a sitting district attorney in Maine, after a drug suspect accused her of using cocaine. 

BONDI SLAMS MAINE GOV FOR BRUSHING OFF TRANS ATHLETE ISSUE

The investigation was eventually dropped without charges being filed. Mills has maintained that the investigation never had any merit and that she was politically targeted for her Democratic affiliation and criticism of BIDE. In 1990, she and two other district attorneys in Maine criticized BIDE for inflating arrest numbers through excessive enforcement of low-level drug offenders. 

“It’s scary,” Mills told the Portland Press Herald in November 1991. “Maine apparently has a secret police force at work that can ruin the reputation of any who opposes it.”

A March 1995 memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ/OPR), addressed to the deputy attorney general – Merrick Garland was serving as the principal associate deputy attorney general – and unearthed by Fox News Digital, refutes Mills’ claim. It revealed that there was no misconduct by federal or state authorities investigating her case. 

According to the DOJ memo, WCSH-TV reported in December 1990 that Mills was being investigated by a federal grand jury for drug use, citing law enforcement sources. Mills later sued that reporter for libel and slander. The report also prompted Mills’ attorney to demand a grand jury investigation, arguing that “the press received leaks from BIDE law enforcement officials.”

The results of the libel and slander suit are no longer available. The docket for the case showed that the records were disposed of in 2015 in accordance with policy. However, a 1991 Lewiston Sun-Journal article appears to state that the effort to “end drug probe rumors” was thrown out by a judge. 

In January 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., stepped in and requested the DOJ/OPR investigate allegations that Maine’s USAO had “refused to investigate the grand jury leak” and that attorneys had engaged in “intimidation and coercion of witnesses” during the investigation.

Those concerns were initially raised by Patrick Paradis and N. Paul Gauvreau, the House and Senate chairs of the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature, in a letter sent to then-Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine. The letter suggested that the allegations involving Maine’s USAO “go far beyond the state agency involved.”

Ultimately, no charges were filed against Mills. 

But the Department of Justice (DOJ) also found that all of Mills’ claims were “unsubstantiated,” including allegations that she was politically targeted, that investigators solicited false testimony, that witnesses were coerced or threatened and that BIDE agents leaked grand jury information to the press. 

“The USAO in Maine conducted a proper investigation of serious allegations; no misconduct of any kind can fairly be attributed to any member of that office,” DOJ/OPR concluded in 1995. 

While the DOJ debunked Mills’ claims, she dismissed the allegations against her as politically motivated throughout the investigation.

According to the memo, Mills “announced publicly that she was the victim of a smear campaign” in 1991. 

“I’d say it’s awfully coincidental that this investigation started and was leaked to the press shortly after my public comments about the lack of accountability at BIDE,” Mills said that same year.

Mills also claimed it sets a “very bad precedent when a prosecutor has to look over his or her shoulder every time you put somebody in jail and wonder whether that person is going to find an audience down the street in the BIDE office or down the road in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to say dirty things about you.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Mills’ office multiple times for comment about the memo but did not receive a response.

Earlier this year, Mills accused President Donald Trump of leading a “politically directed investigation” into Maine’s Department of Education. 

During a National Governors Association (NGA) meeting at the White House in February, Mills and Trump publicly sparred over biological men playing in women’s sports. 

Trump said Mills should comply with his executive order preventing transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, or “you’re not going to get any federal funding,” to which she replied, “We’ll see you in court,” which is exactly where the issue has been tied up. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins is up for re-election in 2026, and with Mills’ governorship term limited next year, she would be a competitive Democratic candidate to challenge Collins. 

Mills indicated in April that she did not “plan to run for another office,” but admitted that “things change week to week, month to month,” leaving the door open to a potential Senate bid. 

New detail on Bryan Kohberger’s plea deal emerges as families rip agreement

Idaho student murders suspect Bryan Kohberger has accepted a plea deal to spare his life in the murders of four University of Idaho students, two sources close to the case told Fox News Digital Monday.

Kohberger, 30, is accused of killing Madison Mogen, 21, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Ethan Chapin, 20, in a 4 a.m. home invasion attack on Nov. 13, 2022. As part of his plea, he will apparently not have to explain himself or answer why he committed the crimes as part of the deal, according to a source close to the case.

“Those families have been victimized by the very prosecutors who should have had their backs,” said Ted Williams, a Fox News contributor and a former Washington, D.C. homicide detective who has been following the case since the beginning.

The Goncalves expressed their disappointment with what they described as a “secretive deal” on Monday and issued another statement Tuesday saying they want Kohberger to confess in court.

“We stand strong that it is not over until a plea is accepted. We will not stop fighting for the life that was stolen unjustly,” the Tuesday statement said. “If you feel called or moved to try to make a difference, please contact the Ada County Courthouse to express your thoughts or feelings. While we are cognizant that some may have wanted the plea, the prosecution relayed to us it was NOT a majority vote that was the deciding factor in offering this plea.”

BRYAN KOHBERGER RETURNS TO COURT FOR HEARING ON PILE OF EVIDENCE HE WANTS THROWN OUT BEFORE TRIAL

The family is further asking the court to “require a full confession, full accountability, location of the murder weapon, confirmation the defendant acted alone, [and] the true facts of what happened that night.”

“We deserve to know when the beginning of the end was,” the statement reads, adding that a confession “should be the minimum price to pay for his own life.”

The family called on supporters to contact Ada County Judge Steven Hippler.

On Monday, the family described the death penalty as “a bargaining tool for the State, and when rarely applied, it’s never enforced due to a highly inefficient appellate process.”

” The notion that someone can plead guilty to a crime and still face years of appellate delays reveals a systemic failure,” the statement said. “The Latah County Prosecutor’s Office’s treatment of our family during this process is something I wouldn’t wish on anyone.”

The family added that they “questioned decisions early in the investigation” and were “branded as aversaries” as a result. 

“So, it was no shock how the Latah County Prosecutor’s Office mishandled the plea deal,” the statement read. “They vaguely mentioned a possible plea on Friday, without seeking our input, and presented the plea on Sunday. Latah County should be ashamed of its Prosecutor’s Office. Four wonderful young people lost their lives, yet the victims’ families were treated as opponents from the outset.”

The family said prosecutors never called them directly about a plea on Monday and gave “families just one day to coordinate and appear at the courthouse for a plea on July 2.”

“Who do they think they are?” the statement continued. “After more than two years, this is how it concludes with a secretive deal and a hurried effort to close the case without any input from the victims’ families on the plea’s details. Our family is frustrated right now and that will subside and we will come together as always and deal with the reality that we face moving forward.”

Goncalves’ parents live more than seven hours away, in Rathdrum. The hearing will be held Wednesday in Boise after Kohberger successfully argued for a change of venue.

The family questioned early choices in the investigation, the restrictive gag order, pressure from school officials as frustrating factors in the way they were treated.

Members of Kernodle’s family also condemned the plea deal. Her aunt, Kim Kernodle, told TMZ that relatives were vehemently opposed to the idea when Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson’s office first raised it over the weekend.

All four had been stabbed multiple times with a large knife. Police recovered a Ka-Bar sheath that they allege had Kohberger’s DNA on it near Mogen’s body.

Kohberger was studying for a Ph.D. in criminology at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington. That’s 10 miles up the road from Moscow, Idaho, where all four victims were undergrads at the University of Idaho.

“By taking a plea deal, Bryan Kohberger has insulated himself from a sentence that would require his execution,” said Edwina Elcox, a Boise defense attorney who said the deal came as a surprise. “Only a jury can sentence him to death. Regardless, he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison, without the possibility of ever being in society again.”

She said she hopes the process brings peace to the families after the horrifying crime – and also that the move would spare Kohberger from facing Idaho’s newly revived firing squad as the means of execution if he were convicted and sentenced to death. 

“They will not have to go through the stress of a trial and the virtually guaranteed appeal process, in the event Kohberger was convicted at trial,” Elcox told Fox News Digital. “The judge will take his guilty plea and then set a hearing for Kohberger to be sentenced. He can absolutely expect to spend the rest of his life behind bars.”

The plea deal came as a surprise – prosecutors had not telegraphed the move and fought hard to keep the death penalty on the table in pretrial proceedings.

Kohberger’s defense failed repeatedly to have it removed, revealing his autism diagnosis and crying foul over discovery deadlines it claimed that prosecutors missed.

“If they don’t get the why, this is the most incomprehensible deal of all time,” Paul Mauro, a retired NYPD inspector who is following the case, said before the latest update that indicates Kohberger will apparently not have to explain his crimes.

If Kohberger agreed to truthfully explain what happened, that could be a reason for the deal to have materialized so unexpectedly, he said. Especially with opposition from at least one family, he said. 

Williams agreed.

“These four kids did not deserve to die this way, and as a part of any plea, he should be required to tell when, how and why he committed these offenses,” he told Fox News Digital before more details of the plea deal emerged. “I think that should be a part of any plea – he owes those families, and the public.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The latest development comes hours after a hearing in Pennsylvania to determine whether witnesses there can be compelled to travel to Idaho to testify in a trial that would have started on Aug. 18.

Why Justice Jackson is a fish out of water on the Supreme Court

Much has been written in recent days about the war of words between Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown-Jackson in the opinions handed down in ., the case involving an injunction issued in a case challenging birthright citizenship.

But as I pointed out in a Post on X Friday morning, Barrett’s decision was written on behalf of herself and the five other justices in the majority. The fact that Barrett was assigned this opinion by the chief judge (the chief judge decides who writes the opinion when he votes with the majority) is a signal that the other five justices turned her loose on Jackson. Such an unsparing smackdown of the most junior justice with a vastly different view of the judicial function would have been received much differently had it come from one of the other five justices in the conservative wing of the Court.

BARRETT EVISCERATES JACKSON, SOTOMAYOR TAKES ON A ‘COMPLICIT’ COURT IN CONTENTIOUS FINAL OPINIONS

But coming from another female justice, one with only two more terms on the Court than Jackson, it was the least harsh way to deliver the rebuke that the majority opinion represented. But the language was anything but gentle, and the point was anything but subtle. 

If Jackson seems out of her element, there’s a reason. There have been many career paths followed by justices who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. But it is quite uncommon for someone to be appointed to the Supreme Court without meaningful experience at the level of an appellate court, as is the case with Jackson.

Justice Elena Kagan charted a very different course to the Supreme Court, largely through academia. However, before joining the court she did serve in various DOJ positions in the Clinton administration, and as the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama. The solicitor general argues cases on behalf of the United States before the Supreme Court.  Kagan also wrote extensively on legal issues during the nine years she served as both a professor and dean at Harvard Law School.

Another outlier was Justice Lewis Powell, who joined the Court in 1972 directly out of a large law firm where he had practiced corporate law for 35 years, never having been a judge in any court at any level. 

Jackson did not join the Court with no experience as a judge as was the case with Justices Kagan and Powell. But the judicial experience she had is not necessarily conducive to the largely cerebral approach of judging that happens on the Supreme Court.

Jackson hashad  a distinguished academic career, having graduated from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School with honors. In the 17 years between Harvard Law School and her first judicial appointment, she had several noteworthy positions in various legal enterprises, including five years as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Jackson also served as an assistant federal defender in the District of Columbia for three years, during which she enjoyed success as a trial lawyer.

Her first judicial appointment was to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2014, where she served as a district judge for seven years. In June of 2021, following President Biden’s nomination, Jackson was confirmed to replace Merrick Garland on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

But only eight months later, Biden named her to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. In her eight months on the Court of Appeals, Justice Jackson authored only two opinions. 

The practical reality was that Biden nominated a district court judge to a seat on the Supreme Court consisting of nine justices who decide cases by majority vote. 

District court is where federal cases begin – where “cases” and “controversies” are first decided. The district judges are the “referees” between the litigants, and sometimes they serve as the decision-makers on the outcome of the cases. There is a significant amount of trial work where the district judge presides alone over the proceedings. Many quick decisions and judgments are made during a trial, often with little time for research or considered analysis.   

Even where time and research are available, the district judge is still working “solo” with the assistance of one or more law clerks. The final decision on such motions belongs to the judge alone. 

District judges largely operate independent of their peers in the same courthouse. Their decisions are not binding on each other. They preside over their own dockets and make decisions in the cases assigned to them as they see fit.

Under this system, legal mistakes and errors are inevitable. The only requirement for proceedings at the district court level – including trials – is that they be fair. It is not required that they be “error-free.” Only when errors result in unfairness that prejudices one side or the other is the outcome of the case called into doubt.       

Appellate courts sit in review of the outcomes in trial courts. They focus on the errors in the case presented. While broader legal questions are sometimes an issue on appellate review, the focus is primarily on the presence or absence of errors in the case in the district court, and whether any identified errors justify altering the outcome in that court. 

The Supreme Court plays a very different role. While it does make a judgment about the correctness of the outcome of cases, the focus of the Supreme Court is normally on the broader legal implications for hundreds/thousands of other cases in the future from affirming or reversing the case being reviewed.   

The federal district judge often plays the role of interrogator of the attorneys representing each side. Anyone who has been a trial attorney for any substantial period of time in federal district courts understands this. The questioning by that district judge can be hostile, aggressive, condescending, dismissive, humiliating, etc.  But that questioning is focused on the facts and specific legal issues presented in that case, and not the broader implications of how the outcome of that case might impact other cases. Part of the reason is because that district judge’s decisions are not binding on other district judges.

Jackson just completed her third term on the court. This chart, which is from the 2024-2025 term, is highly revealing in terms of one of the issues that stands between her and her colleagues – her conduct as a justice is still influenced by her eight years as a district judge, i.e., she spends much more time examining the attorneys before the court than do her colleagues.

The same source has a similar chart for the 2023-2024 Term of the Court, and the numbers are no different.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Setting aside this quantitative measure, in listening to many oral arguments of the Court this past term, one gets the very familiar vibe from Jackson of a district judge interrogating one counsel or the other to wring out admissions or concessions about the specifics of the case. The focus is on the outcome of the case, and not the broader implications that the outcome might foretell.       

Justice Samuel Alito can often present in the same manner, but he spoke less than half the number of words as Jackson. She separates herself from her colleagues both in terms of how much time she is involved in the dialogue and her sharply partisan tenor that gives away what her likely vote will be in pretty much every case with any political implications.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Her rhetoric in dissenting from the Trump v. Casa– “With deep disillusionment, I dissent” – seems an almost unintended peek behind the curtain of her thinking.  What the majority did was take away one of the most powerful weapons possessed by a district court judge to shape how a case goes forward from the outset. 

The progressive activist inner district judge in her – who seeks only to “do right” – is protesting that loss.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM WILLIAM SHIPLEY