News
Vivek Ramaswamy drops out of the 2024 presidential race, endorses Trump
DES MOINES, Iowa — Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy dropped out of the 2024 presidential race Monday night after a disappointing showing in the Iowa caucuses and endorsed former President Donald Trump.
Ramaswamy finished fourth in Iowa, NBC News projects, coming in well behind Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Ramaswamy had 8% of the GOP caucus vote with more than 90% of precincts reporting late Monday night.
Ramaswamy said he called Trump to congratulate him on his victory and would attend a rally with him in New Hampshire on Tuesday.
“There needs to be an America First candidate in this race,” Ramaswamy said. “Going forward, he will have my full endorsement for the presidency.”
The 38-year-old entrepreneur was not well known when he entered the race in February 2023, in his first run for political office. But he quickly broke through with Republican voters in a campaign that aligned with Trump in both tone and policy substance, as he positioned himself as an heir to the MAGA movement.
But his campaign was unable to pull much support away from Trump, who retained the loyalty of Republican voters despite Ramaswamy’s efforts to convince them that he’d be better able to push the “America First” agenda he and Trump both championed. And he was unable to turn out the wave of first-time caucusgoers he often said were poised to boost him in Iowa.
As the campaign got closer to caucus day, Ramaswamy’s rhetoric took on an increasingly conspiratorial bent, imploring supporters to “wake up” and speaking of plots and forces working to shape the election. His pitch to Trump fans was convoluted: He told supporters not to “waste” their votes on Trump because “they” would not “let him anywhere near the White House,” citing the criminal cases against the former president and the battles to keep him off the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds in Colorado and Maine.
But, three days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump took direct aim at Ramaswamy for calling him “wounded.” In a post on Truth Social, Trump said: “Vivek started his campaign as a great supporter, ‘the best President in generations,’ etc. Unfortunately now all he does is disguise his support in the form of deceitful campaign tricks.”
Ramaswamy campaigned on taking Trump’s policies even further as president. He pledged to shut down government agencies including the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Education and to massively shrink the number of federal workers. He vowed to use the United States military to secure the southern and northern borders.
And he proposed ending birthright citizenship for American-born children of undocumented immigrants, arguing that the 14th Amendment — which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” — was not designed to apply to them.
Ramaswamy also set himself up as an antagonist to the other candidates in the Republican presidential debates — especially former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Ramaswamy and Haley sparred repeatedly at debates, and Ramaswamy repeatedly claimed toward the end of his campaign that she was a “puppet” for the “deep state.”
But he hewed closer to Trump, so much so that many people at Ramaswamy’s events urged him to push for the vice presidential slot on Trump’s ticket if it was offered to him. Ramaswamy would say in response that he’s “not a Plan B” person.
Ramaswamy poured millions of dollars of his own money into the campaign and held the most public events out of all of his GOP rivals, including over 300 in Iowa, hitting all 99 counties in the Hawkeye State twice. He moved his campaign staff to the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire as a last-ditch primary effort in November.
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.”
-
World4 minutes agoTrump threatens 100% tariffs over EU digital tax
-
News29 minutes agoUtah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoMan found guilty of sex trafficking victim along L.A.’s Figueroa Corridor
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoNo. 23 overall pick in the 2026 NHL draft | Detroit Red Wings
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoSan Francisco Pride kicks off with rainbow lasers, ValQueeries celebrate at Valkyries Pride Night
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoHow to buy Egypt vs. Australia World Cup soccer tickets
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoHelping Venezuela: Miami search-and-rescue team prepares to deploy
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoHow to buy Paraguay vs. Germany 2026 World Cup tickets in Boston