News
After second place finish in Iowa's caucuses, DeSantis sets sights on South Carolina
Republican presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at a rally on Tuesday in Greenville, S.C. DeSantis stopped in South Carolina first, after his second place finish in the Iowa caucuses, before heading on to New Hampshire.
Jeffrey Collins/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jeffrey Collins/AP
Republican presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at a rally on Tuesday in Greenville, S.C. DeSantis stopped in South Carolina first, after his second place finish in the Iowa caucuses, before heading on to New Hampshire.
Jeffrey Collins/AP
GREENVILLE, S.C. — The skies above the airplane hangar where Ron DeSantis spoke to a packed crowd in Greenville, S.C., Tuesday morning were muted and gray, but the Florida governor spoke with rays of optimism after his performance in the 2024 Iowa Caucus the night before.
Presidential contenders usually trek straight to New Hampshire, the next state on the nominating calendar, but DeSantis’ stop in the Palmetto State was a targeted message to rival Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s former governor who finished just behind DeSantis in Monday’s contest. The overt part of that message is that he plans to compete — and win — on her home turf.
“This is an important state,” DeSantis told reporters after delivering a stump speech and answering questions from voters who braved the cold to hear his message about “woke ideology” in the military, mass firing of federal government employees and other plans for if he becomes president.
“Nikki Haley, this is her home state, if she can’t win this then I don’t see how she could say she’s gonna win on Super Tuesday or those other states,” he added.
The subtext delivered throughout his remarks is that DeSantis views himself as the only viable candidate to take on former President Donald Trump who handily won in Iowa with just over 50% of the vote, enjoys leads in virtually every state-level and national primary poll and earned more delegates than DeSantis and Haley combined.
“Half the people wanted somebody else,” DeSantis argued.
In South Carolina, DeSantis attacked Haley as “liberal,” said she had no major achievements while serving as governor and argued her support in the presidential race doesn’t come from conservatives.
“Her fundamental problem is that she does not have support amongst Republicans,” he said. “She’s relying on non-Republicans, which is not the way you win a Republican nomination.”
But DeSantis faces a difficult path towards winning the nomination himself. Running a campaign that has emphasized many of the same culturally conservative stances and issues that have drawn much of the party’s base to support Trump, DeSantis has failed to convert a meaningful share of Trump’s voters to support his campaign and alienated some moderate elements of the Republican Party worried about competitiveness and viability in the general election.
DeSantis is also trailing both Trump and Haley in polling of the New Hampshire primary slated for next week and risks not earning delegates from that state. Candidates are required to meet a 10% threshold of votes to be awarded delegates.
In Nevada later this month, DeSantis and Trump are the only candidates at the delegate-earning caucus while Haley is the only major candidate on the state-run primary that will not count towards earning the nomination. Effectively, this means Haley is not contesting Nevada, something DeSantis was quick to point out.
“Nikki Haley is not competing in Nevada at all,” DeSantis said. “She’s just not going to win any delegates in Nevada.”
“We’re gonna win delegates in Nevada,” he pledged.
There will be more than two weeks between Nevada and the South Carolina contest, which could see last-ditch efforts for Haley and DeSantis to break out and mount a serious challenge to Trump, by virtue of South Carolina’s delegates being awarded to the winner in each of its seven Congressional districts as well as the overall statewide winner.
Tuesday night, DeSantis is slated to appear at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire, while Haley and Trump have both indicated they will skip a planned debate in New Hampshire later this week.
News
Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state
UTAH COUNTY, Utah (ABC4) — Utah County has declared a state of emergency.
According to an announcement from the Utah County Commissioner Skyler Beltran, the county is in a dire position due to the extensive wildfires in the area and high fire risk.
The announcement states that declaring the State of Emergency will allow the county to access additional resources, and notes there is no imminent threat to Utah County residents.
“We have utilized a tremendous amount of our resources (very early in the traditional fire season schedule) responding to the Iron Fire and continue to face ongoing recovery concerns,” the statement read. “This was even before the Maple Peak and Cherry fires, which have now merged and are moving toward the Iron Fire.”
The Iron Fire, which started last week, has burned over 40,000 acres. Around 22,830 of those acres were in Utah County. Reportedly, the county has limited resources available to help those who are evacuating from Juab County, including the 600 residents in the Town of Eureka.
Due to the influx in evacuees, the Utah County Commission says that more resources are necessary to help the evacuation shelters in Elberta, Utah. Additionally, due to the Iron Fire and other wildfires, Utah County is facing immense repair needs to avoid future flooding, loss of homes, and disruption to local economies and ecosystems.
There is “imminent threat” to public safety due to the damage.
The commission also asks the public to be vigilant when handling heavy equipment, using campfires or barbecues, and discharging fireworks, to avoid preventing fires.
Their statement added, “Our firefighters are exhausted, our resources are stretched thin and we are in a very vulnerable position.”
News
A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.
The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.
After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.
What caused the hissy fit? Did Sotomayor really fail to tell him she would have an oral dissent? That really would have been a breach of the court’s practices. A justice typically notifies the chief justice and the author of the majority opinion in writing if there is to be an oral dissent.
In response Friday to an inquiry from NPR came this terse statement from the court’s public information office.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench. It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
News
“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement
The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.
Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years.
Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”
They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010.
Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze.
The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.
Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.
Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”
Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003.
Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife.
Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.”
“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.
For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.
In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”
-
Rhode Island3 minutes agoWhen will RI see promised Time-Varying Rates on electric bills? | Opinion
-
South-Carolina10 minutes agoMyrtle Beach is a hotspot for sharks and the potential to be bit
-
South Dakota12 minutes agoWork, housing and staffing: How South Dakota’s corrections chief aims to keep inmates from returning
-
Tennessee18 minutes ago
Tennessee GOP leaders denounce antisemitic Young Republicans mailers | The Jerusalem Post
-
Texas25 minutes agoA truck crash released 20 million bees. Local beekeepers rushed to save them.
-
Utah28 minutes ago‘2.5 minutes of terror’: Passengers sue Delta, alleging crew flew into dangerous weather despite warnings, injuring dozens
-
Vermont40 minutes agoFour Vermont beaches named among New England’s best. How to go
-
Virginia43 minutes agoVirginia Thomas – Scranton Times-Tribune