The judge set sentencing for July 11, just four days before the scheduled start of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.
5 hours ago
Slovenian government moves to recognize ‘Palestine’
Joe Manchin Leaves Democrat Party, Fueling Speculation on His Next Move
Bradley Jaye
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is finally pulling the trigger. The West Virginia senator announced Friday he will leave the Democrat party, a long-speculated move for the retiring senator.
“My commitment to do everything I can to bring our country together has led me to register as an independent with no party affiliation,” Manchin posted on X:
Manchin’s party affiliation might not change his style of governance. He reportedly will continue caucusing with Democrats, joining three other independents.
Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Angus King (I-ME) also style themselves as moderates, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-NH) has used his progressive stances to power a large fundraising operation and two presidential runs:
By continuing to caucus with Democrats, Manchin can continue chairing the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
However, the timing of Manchin’s announcement, less than 24 hours after a Manhattan jury found former President Donald Trump guilty on 34 counts for falsifying business records, fuels speculation about his next move.
Manchin could opt to run for a third Senate term as an independent. Potential candidates for West Virginia’s Senate seat reportedly must declare themselves a member of a political party by June 1 to run in November under that party’s banner. Candidates have until August 1 to declare their intent to run:
Gov. Jim Justice (R-WV), himself a former Democrat, is the Republican nominee for the Senate seat Manchin is vacating, decisively winning a contested primary. Justice would be a tough opponent for Manchin, who has held office as a Democrat even as West Virginia has shifted massively towards Republicans.
Manchin has also flirted with the possibility of a presidential run. He has criticized President Joe Biden for hostility towards American energy and refusing to fix the border crisis that is “his fault.” And he previously expressed interest in launching a candidacy on the “No Labels” ticket, particularly if Biden had a “health scare.”
Yet Manchin announced in February he “will not be seeking a third-party run” and “will not be involved in a presidential run.”
Any opening for Manchin – or anyone else – to win as a third party or independent candidate is miniscule. The dust has yet to settle after the Manhattan jury’s monumental verdict; however, Trump’s monumental fundraising in the hours after the verdict – overwhelming traffic shut down the GOP’s online fundraising platform Thursday evening – suggests Trump might consolidate or even grow his support.
House committee asks SJP for its funding documents
(JNS) National Students for Justice in Palestine has until June 12 to provide the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability with documentation of its communications related to Oct. 7 and its funding sources, according to a letter sent by the committee chair on Wednesday.
The request includes providing “all documents and communications, regardless of topic, created on or sent between Oct. 6, 2023, and Oct. 8, 2023, inclusive,” wrote Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
Comer also requested documents about SJP’s funding, efforts to ensure it isn’t receiving terror-linked financing, comments about Oct. 7, and “the promotion by National SJP of illegal activity or activity providing material support to terrorist organizations including, but not limited to, Hamas.”
“The committee is particularly concerned that organizations promulgating pro-Hamas propaganda and engaging in illegal activities at institutions of higher education might be receiving funding or other support from foreign or domestic sources which support the aims of Hamas or other foreign terrorist organizations,” he stated.
In the letter, Comer wrote that National SJP “is founded and controlled by American Muslims for Palestine,” a nonprofit that he said has “substantial ties to Hamas via its financial sponsor, Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation.”
Jason Miyares, the attorney general of Virginia, is currently investigating the latter nonprofit, AJP, “for violating state charitable solicitation laws and ‘benefitting or providing support to terrorist organizations,’” Comer wrote. He added that current board members of American Muslims for Palestine “have been involved in fundraising for Hamas charities.”
Israeli Mossad reveals who’s responsible for attacks on Israeli embassies
By JNS
The Islamic Republic of Iran is behind a series of terrorist attacks carried out by criminal gangs targeting Israeli embassies throughout Europe since Oct. 7, the Mossad intelligence agency said on Thursday.
The Israeli intelligence agency opened up a probe alongside European counterparts after an object believed to be a hand grenade was thrown towards the Israeli embassy in Stockholm on Jan. 31.
Following an investigation, detectives concluded that Sweden’s Foxtrot organized crime network carried out the attack on the compound at Tehran’s behest, the Mossad said on Thursday.
Dozens of Iran-backed terrorist plots against Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe were uncovered in recent months, many of which used local criminal rings, the agency said.
Two weeks ago, Stockholm police opened an investigation after a patrol heard gunshots near the embassy of the Jewish state. The Mossad said on Thursday that Swedish security forces arrested a 14-year-old suspect in connection with the attack, which was said to have been carried out by a crime group called Rumba and also directed by Iran.
Tehran-backed gangs are also thought to have carried out an attack on Israel’s mission in Brussels, in which two airsoft grenades were thrown.
(Airsoft is a team-based shooting game in which participants eliminate opposing players from play by shooting them with spherical plastic projectiles shot from airsoft guns. Airsoft grenades come in various types and functionalities, including gas airsoft grenades, sound airsoft grenades and airsoft smoke grenades.)
“Iran operates many criminal organizations in Sweden and Europe in general, while taking advantage of the relative advantage of each and sometimes the rivalry between them,” the Mossad statement continued.
Foxtrot and Rumba receive funding and direction from Iran, Jerusalem revealed, adding that they are closely monitored by local intelligence agencies.
In April, Israel renewed calls for other nations to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization and impose “painful” sanctions on Tehran after the regime launched hundreds of missiles and suicide drones at the Jewish state in a direct attack.
Last year, the European Parliament voted in favor of a measure calling for Brussels to designate the IRGC as a terrorist group, but the nonbinding measure was stymied by foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, who asserted that such a move was not possible until an E.U. court had ruled on the issue.
IRAN DESCRIBES TALKS WITH IAEA CHIEF AS ‘POSITIVE’
Responding last month to Borrell’s claim that the legal conditions have not been met, Charlie Weimers, a Swedish member of European Parliament for the Conservatives and Reformists group, called the top diplomat a “liar.”
“Here, I have the [European] Council’s secret legal opinion. Nowhere in this document does it say that it has to be an authority in the E.U.,” he said. “You know that. You knew the truth. You shamelessly lied to protect the IRGC. We won’t miss you, Mr. Borrell, but I’m sure the mullahs will.”
(The European Council is a collegiate body that defines the overall political direction and priorities of the European Union. It is part of the executive of the European Union beside the European Commission. It is composed of the heads of state or of government of the E.U. member states, the president of the European Council and the president of the European Commission. )
Some E.U. countries, including Germany, are pushing to classify the IRGC as a terrorist organization based on a Düsseldorf court ruling holding Tehran responsible for an attack on a synagogue in November 2022.
Columbia University Haunted by Shameful Nazi Past
By Lieba Nesis
Columbia University’s current anti-Jew hate dates back to the 1930’s when the University showed it welcomed Jewish hate speech. Upon Nazism’s rise in December 1933, Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler, who paradoxically received a 1931 Nobel Peace Prize, invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Dr. Hans Luther, to speak. Jewish students collected 500 signatures to protest Luther and Nazism while President Butler remained steadfast in his choice declaring Luther, “a gentleman, honest and well mannered … as the diplomatic representative of a friendly people.” Butler’s antisemitism was well documented as he pioneered methods to reduce Jewish enrollment at Columbia and extolled Hitler’s expansionist designs. After Hitler assumed power, Butler ignored the boycott of German goods and encouraged Columbia to partake in academic exchanges with Nazi Germany. Luther’s Columbia speech was met with 1000 student protestors, as he denied the oppression and militarism of Nazi Germany with complete silence from the administration.
Fast forward to 2007 and Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger, a free speech and First Amendment legal scholar, invites genocidal Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak despite Iran’s savage mistreatment of Jews and Mahmoud’s stated desire to repeat the Holocaust. Bollinger’s introduction calls Ahmadinejad a “petty and cruel dictator” and criticizes Mahmoud’s repeated Holocaust denials as well as his desire for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” Bollinger’s phony attempts at whitewashing the horrific invitation under the guise of free speech didn’t go unnoticed. Just as his predecessor Butler justified the invitation to Nazi’s Ambassador, Bollinger has longed masked his tolerance for antisemitism with powerful words and zero action-part of the Columbia handbook. Who can forget October 1995’s Columbia Spectator article where president of the Black Student Organization, Sharod Baker, referred to Jews as “tricksters”, “devils” and “leeches sucking the blood from the Black community” while “disguising evilness under the skirts and costumes of the rabbis…as their yarmulkes contain the blood of billions of Africans weighing on their heads.” As per Columbia’s custom, President George Rupp sent out a pathetically weak letter declaring the article “shameful and unacceptable” while allowing Baker to remain on campus without any repercussions.
The 79-year-old Lee Bollinger succeeded Rupp in 2002 through June 2023 and masked his anti-Jewishness with frequent diatribes against rising campus antisemitism along with repeatedly voting against divestment from Israel. Yet, beneath Bollinger’s pro-Israel visage Jew hatred flourished under the guise of his diehard commitment to free speech. September 2019 was another black day in Columbia’s history as Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad who called Jews “hook-nosed” and claimed “Jews rule the world by proxy” was greeted with open arms by Bollinger who said he was “strongly resolved to insist the campus remain an open forum and protect the freedoms essential to our university community.” This bullshit jargon was disproved as in 2006 Jim Gilchrist head of the anti-immigration group “The Minuteman Project” was bullied off stage by Columbia protestors and then canceled a year later without a word from Bollinger. More glaring was the barring of Nonie Darwish’s speech in November 2009 by Muslim activists, as the Egyptian American Nonie is an outspoken critic of Islam and supporter of Israel a no-no on Columbia’s campus. Once again Bollinger remained silent despite being an ardent advocate of free speech. In 2018 Elizabeth Midlarsky, a professor at Teacher’s College at Columbia found large red swastikas on her wall with the words “YID” inscribed after a similar swastika incident in 2007 was accompanied by antisemitic fliers. Midlarsky’s work researching the Holocaust made her an obvious Columbia target. Yet, Bollinger did nothing to find the perpetrators as antisemitic incidents increased due to few safeguards enacted. In December 2019 a Columbia University student along with The Lawfare Project filed a Title 6 Civil Rights Act complaint alleging antisemitism claiming that Jewish students were “singled out and discriminated against under the guise of pro-Palestinian advocacy.” Some examples cited were: vandalizing the offices of pro-Israel groups; Holocaust events interrupted by Students for Justice in Palestine screaming “intifada”; and “Israel Apartheid Week” on campus-a week of events decrying Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. A paradigm of Columbia’s tolerance for antisemitism is the 2005 investigation of tenured Professor Joseph Massad who remarked the “Jewish state is a racist state that doesn’t have a right to exist.” In 2002 Massad asked an Israeli student, “how many Palestinians have you killed?” Massad loved to call Palestinians the “New Jews” and Jews the “new Nazis”; and yet an ad-hoc Columbia committee cleared Massad of antisemitism charges in 2005 and gave him tenure in 2009 under Bollinger’s leadership.
Bollinger a huge proponent of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), invested $185 million to ensure faculty diversity. Under his leadership in 2010 Columbia launched its Center for Palestine Studies which is distinctly anti-Israel and expanded its postcolonial program in 2018 the year they opened the Center for the Study of Muslim Societies. Columbia’s postcolonial programs have steadily pushed BDS, Islamist and anti-Israel narratives. While Bollinger consistently voted against BDS his race based programs have paradoxically made Columbia’s Union Theological Seminary, the first private institution to divest. Bollinger created the environment for unlawful campus protests by stating in 2018, the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam protests, that bringing police on campus in 1968 was “a serious breach of the ethos of the University.”
And so Bollinger while claiming to decry antisemitism has set up a university that gives tenure to antisemitic professors, encourages antisemitic hate speech and advocates for terrorist hate groups Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. On October 4th 2023 President Minouche Shafik took the reins of a school permeated by Jew hatred nurtured in the Middle Eastern South, Asian and African Studies Department (MESAAS). The same Massad who taunted an IDF student and was granted tenure in 2009 praised the October 7th Hamas massacre as “astounding” and “amazing” while Columbia once again did nothing. Shafik and her administration allowed dangerous protests calling for the murder of Jews and threatening Jewish students with death to continue as per her predecessor’s example. As Jews became increasingly isolated in April a shelter in place order for Jewish students was enacted as antisemites took over the campus and Hamilton Hall. Under the tutelage of George Rupp, and Lee Bollinger, Columbia continues its paralysis against antisemitism as hate organizations are suspended and reinstated a day later; antisemitism disguised as free speech continues to remain the paramount virtue as exhibited by the welcoming of the Nazi party in the 1930’s.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Hails Historic Conviction of Former President Donald Trump
Edited by: Fern Sidman
In a groundbreaking legal milestone, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has achieved what no other prosecutor in American history has done: securing a conviction against a former U.S. president. According to a report in The New York Post, on Thursday, Bragg expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the case against Donald J. Trump, who was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Trump has been convicted of falsifying company documents, a case stemming from allegations that he orchestrated a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. This payment, facilitated by Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, aimed to silence Daniels’ claims of an affair with Trump during the crucial lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, according to the Post report.
The prosecution, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, represents a significant escalation in the legal scrutiny surrounding Trump and his business dealings.
‘The defendant, Donald J Trump is guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election’
DA Alvin Bragg makes a statement on the conviction of Donald Trump, calling the former President a defendant ‘like no other in history’. pic.twitter.com/DE8Ofz5fze
— GB News (@GBNEWS) May 30, 2024
Standing alongside his dedicated team, Bragg emphasized the significance of the jury’s verdict and underscored the integrity and thoroughness of the judicial process. “Donald J. Trump has been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records,” Bragg announced, his tone resolute and his stance firm, The Post report observed. He took a moment to acknowledge the hard work and diligence of the jurors, describing them as “12 everyday New Yorkers” who were “careful and attentive” throughout the trial.
“This type of white-collar prosecution is core to what we do at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office,” Bragg stated, at the press conference on Thursday. The Post report indicated that he took pride in the thorough investigation and prosecution that led to the conviction, reflecting on the importance of adherence to the facts and the law.
When pressed about potential sentencing, Bragg remained non-committal regarding whether he would seek jail time for Trump, who faces a maximum of four years in prison for each charge, the Post report said. At the very least, Trump could be placed on probation, a decision that remains pending as the legal proceedings continue.
“I did my job. Our job is to follow the facts and the law without fear or favor and that’s exactly what we did here,” Bragg boasted.
The trial has not been without its controversies, with Trump and his supporters alleging that the prosecution was politically motivated, aimed at derailing his potential 2024 presidential bid. The report in the Post noted that despite these accusations, Bragg maintained a silence on the matter. When asked if he had a response to Trump’s criticisms, Bragg succinctly replied, “I do not.”
“While this defendant may be unlike any other in American history, we arrived at this trial and ultimately this verdict in the same manner as every other case that comes through the courtroom doors — by following the facts, and the law, and doing so without fear or favor,” Bragg asserted.
In April 2023, Bragg made headlines by bringing forth this unprecedented criminal case against Trump. The case built on investigations initiated by Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr., and it represented a comprehensive effort to hold Trump accountable for alleged financial misconduct, as per the information contained in The Post report. Michael Cohen, once a loyal ally of Trump, became the prosecution’s star witness, providing crucial testimony about the hush money payment and its cover-up.
The conviction is not Bragg’s first encounter with Trump-related legal issues. In 2022, his office successfully prosecuted the Trump Organization on charges of orchestrating a 15-year tax fraud scheme. As detailed in The Post report, this case revealed how the company’s longtime Chief Financial Officer, Allen Weisselberg, admitted to evading taxes on company perks such as a luxury car and a rent-free apartment. Although Trump was not personally charged in that case, the conviction of his organization set a significant precedent.
Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s business practices extended beyond the hush money payment. He inherited a probe from Vance into whether Trump had misrepresented the values of his real estate properties. Despite internal pressures, Bragg decided not to pursue charges in this particular matter, a decision that stirred controversy within the district attorney’s office, the Post report indicated. This choice illustrated the complex considerations and high stakes involved in prosecuting a former president.
Bragg’s legal battles with Trump date back to his tenure as New York State’s Chief Deputy Attorney General from 2017 to 2018. During this period, Bragg played a pivotal role in the lawsuit that led to the dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation. The information in the Post report said that the foundation, which was found to have engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct, was ordered to pay $2 million in damages. This experience added to Bragg’s understanding of Trump’s business practices and provided a foundation for his later prosecutorial efforts.
The crux of the indictment centered on the accusation that Trump and his associates engaged in a scheme to subvert the truth by misclassifying these hush money payments as legitimate legal expenses. The Post report indicated that the grand jury was presented with evidence suggesting that these payments were, in reality, bribes intended to prevent potentially damaging stories from surfacing and influencing the outcome of the election.
Michael Cohen, who had already been convicted for perjury and other crimes, emerged as the prosecution’s star witness. Despite his tarnished credibility, Cohen’s testimony was pivotal. He confessed to having altered financial records to facilitate the creation of shell companies, which were then used to channel payments to Daniels and others, the Post report said. This manipulation of records, according to the indictment, was part of a broader effort to hide the true nature of the transactions and shield Trump from public scrutiny.
Michael Cohen’s involvement added a layer of complexity to the trial. As Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Cohen had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Trump’s business and personal dealings. The Post observed that his fall from grace, marked by a conviction for lying to Congress and other charges, had transformed him into a controversial yet crucial figure in the prosecution’s case.
Cohen testified that his previous lies under oath were made to protect Trump, revealing a deep entanglement of personal loyalty and legal misconduct. His admission of creating shell companies to manage the payoff to Daniels was a significant revelation. This not only called attention to the lengths to which Trump’s inner circle allegedly went to conceal the payments but also highlighted Cohen’s direct involvement in the illicit activities.
Legal experts and political analysts weighed in on the implications of the conviction. Some viewed it as a long-overdue accountability measure for a figure who had often seemed impervious to legal repercussions. Others saw it as a politically motivated attack designed to discredit a former president who remained influential within his party.
Trump’s Legal Battle Continues: What His Conviction Means and What to Expect Next
Edited by: Fern Sidman
In a significant legal development, former President Donald Trump has been found guilty in the Manhattan hush money case, which centers around allegations of corrupting the 2016 election. The 77-year-old Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. This payment, made in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, was intended to ensure Daniels’ silence regarding her claim of a 2006 affair with Trump, as was reported on Thursday in The New York Post.
A jury in Manhattan found Trump guilty of doctoring business records to facilitate another crime, a conviction that carries a potential sentence ranging from probation to a maximum of four years in prison. The verdict was delivered in Manhattan Supreme Court, with Justice Juan Merchan presiding. According to the report in The Post, Trump, who remains free until his sentencing date on July 11, has not been subjected to any travel restrictions, a notable detail given his ongoing political activities and campaign for the 2024 presidential election.
Despite the gravity of the conviction, legal experts, including Michael Bachner, a former prosecutor and experienced defense attorney, suggest that Trump is unlikely to face jail time. Bachner explained to The Post that the former president is most probably looking at a probationary sentence. “There is a very decent chance he’s looking at a probationary sentence. It would be unnecessary punishment to incarcerate somebody who very likely isn’t getting a jail sentence,” Bachner told The Post.
Given this expectation, it is unlikely that prosecutors will seek to have Trump remanded ahead of his sentencing. Even if such a request were made, it is improbable that the judge would grant it, considering the nature of the crime and the typical sentencing trends for similar offenses.
Trump’s legal team is expected to pursue all available avenues to mitigate the impact of the conviction. This could include appeals or efforts to negotiate terms of probation that allow him to continue his political activities with minimal disruption, as per the information contained in The Post report. The focus will likely be on arguing the non-violent nature of the offense and Trump’s lack of prior criminal history as factors favoring a more lenient sentence.
Their first step will likely be to request that Judge Juan Merchan set aside the verdict. According to The Post report, if this motion is denied, it will trigger a lengthy appeals process that could extend well beyond the upcoming election.
Jeffrey Lichtman, a prominent defense attorney known for representing high-profile clients such as drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, echoed the sentiment that Trump is unlikely to serve jail time, as was detailed in The Post report.
“He’s neither dangerous nor a flight risk. He’s one of the most well-known faces in the United States. Where is he going to run?” Bachner remarked to The Post, emphasizing the impracticality of Trump attempting to flee.
Legal experts such as Bachner and Lichtman agree that an appeal could take a year or longer. “Any appeal won’t be decided before the election,” Bachner told The Post. If Trump’s appeal to the mid-level court fails, he will likely seek a hearing from the state’s highest court, further extending the timeline. Lichtman noted, “An appeal could easily take a year or longer after the sentencing.”
If Trump were to be sentenced to jail time, it is expected that he would remain free pending the outcome of his appeal. Bachner explained the rationale to the Post by saying: “To the extent there is a reversal on the appeal by the time Trump’s appeal is decided he would have already done his jail time so it would just be unfair to incarcerate him.”
This approach aims to prevent unnecessary punishment in the event that the conviction is overturned on appeal. Given the high-profile nature of the case and the former president’s significant public following, the justice system is likely to proceed with caution to ensure fairness and due process.
Despite his felony conviction, Trump remains eligible to run for president. Legal experts consulted by CBS News confirm that Trump, who primarily resides in Florida, will likely retain his voting rights in the upcoming elections. The Post report explained that Florida law tends to defer to the laws of other states regarding voter disenfranchisement, meaning Trump’s conviction in New York does not necessarily preclude him from voting in Florida.
However, the federal Gun Control Act could impact Trump’s right to own a firearm. Felony convictions typically result in the loss of the right to possess firearms, the Post report said. Whether Trump actually owns any firearms is unclear, and his attorneys have not addressed this issue publicly.
Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for July 11. Before this date, he will undergo a meeting with the probation department to review his personal and criminal history. The Post report indicated that following this, both the prosecution and defense will submit their sentencing recommendations to the judge.
As July 11 approaches, all eyes will be on the sentencing hearing, where the legal system will further delineate the boundaries of accountability for public figures. The outcome will not only affect Trump’s future but also serve as a significant point of reference for the interplay between law and politics in the United States.
Trump’s conviction adds another layer of complexity to his already contentious political career. Despite the legal challenges, he remains a formidable figure within the Republican Party and is considered a leading contender for the 2024 presidential nomination, the Post report said. His supporters are likely to view the conviction and subsequent legal battles as politically motivated attacks, reinforcing their loyalty and possibly galvanizing further support.
Conversely, Trump’s detractors see the conviction as a step towards accountability and justice. The prolonged legal battles and potential appeals will keep the case in the public eye, influencing voter perceptions and the broader political landscape.
Mayor Eric Adams Delivers Fiery Speech at Gracie Mansion Jewish Heritage Month Celebration
Report and Photos By Lieba Nesis
On Wednesday May 29th 2024 more than 750 attendees gathered at Gracie Mansion from 5:30-7:30 PM to celebrate Jewish Heritage month with glatt kosher hamburgers and frankfurters, corn on the cob and a lavish dessert display. The primary agenda on the table however was decrying the rampant antisemitism that has become de rigueur in the halls of academia and politics. Jews are confounded as social media stars akin to Dan Bilzerian tweet “Fuck Israel” and call Israel a terrorist state. How can we relay to the formerly esteemed Columbia University that faculty that applaud Hamas’s massacre as “military action” must be terminated immediately? How do we tell CEO of IMG Ari Emanuel that accepting his Simon Wiesenthal award on May 2024 with a call to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is as traitorous as it gets? Hey Ari instead of speaking out about Bibi why not address your clients Gigi and Bella Hadid’s antisemitism as they hurl accusations of Israel unlawfully harvesting Palestinian organs while calling for the annihilation of the State of Israel-oh yeah you might lose some business if you do that.
Diametrically opposed to these diabolical naysayers is Mayor of New York Eric Adams who has spoken out against antisemitism in the boldest of terms; who has himself been the object of derision whether on a plane from Miami or the streets of New York as hecklers harass and harangue this defender of Israel. Adams has always expressed gratitude for the Jewish community’s alliance with the civil rights movement and has reciprocated with audacious statements and action. Tonight the impeccably clad Adams, gave a rousing and impassioned speech as he lamented the state of our youth: as only 18% of those from the ages of 18-34 claim to love America. The current radicalization on campuses where students are taught to hate Jews and their country was concerning to the Mayor as is the silence of the masses which Adams attributed to fear “of being canceled” enrapturing the crowd as he yelled “well I say cancel me any day I’m not going to sit back and allow this to happen to the country I love.” Adams called on the country to reject the normalization of hate and antisemitism while rebutting the chants of “destroy from the river to the sea” with “build from the river to the sea- embrace from the river to sea.” He reassured New Yorkers that the City will never devolve into a place where your yarmulke has to be removed before walking the streets.
“There is more of us then there is of them the loudest is not the majority”-Adams exclaimed, assuring the crowd the majority would remain victorious. One of the most vocal proponents of Israel, honoree and music executive Scooter Braun, helped bring the Nova festival exhibit from Israel to New York along with US partners Joe Teplow and Josh Kadden. Braun, the grandson of Holocaust survivors whose family came from Hungary to Manhattan in 1956 noted the silence of the music industry and said the Nova Festival was no different from Coachella, Stagecoach or Governor’s Ball. He urged Jews not to hide as he said every Jew in the last 1,000 years would switch places with us as we were still in the golden era. Kibbutz Be’eri resident Shoshan Haran might disagree with that assessment as she was kidnapped along with six family members by Hamas for 50 days. Haran recalled that fateful October 7th morning where her husband and sister were murdered after Hamas bulldozed their door in order to kidnap and kill.
Her son-in-law Tal Shoham remains in captivity as she vowed to speak out until he was returned. While saying she was advised to keep mum about her ordeal she said she read books on how Jews survived the Nazis in order to cope. Another honoree, social media sensation Montana Tucker who works tirelessly to combat antisemitism, thanked the Mayor for his intrepid advocacy as she vowed to honor her Holocaust grandparents memory by fighting eternally for the Jewish people.
The Mayor presented a special award to departing Jewish liaison Joel Eisdorfer who served the mayor with steadfast loyalty and professionalism as his right hand advisor. Adams heralded Eisdorfer as “a great American, a great member of the Jewish community and a great member of the human race.” The evening was replete with NYPD and FDNY officers some of whom donned yarmulkes along with a healthy smattering of Jewish influencers including Lizzy Savetsky, Malcolm Hoenlein and Mordechai Weiss. Weiss started the organization 1000 Strong where he gathers over a thousand millennials to raise money and awareness for Israel with every penny donated to orphans, widows and soldiers in the Israeli army. Joined by his real estate developer parents Miriam and Robert Weiss the group posed on the Gracie Mansion steps with dozens of influencers. African American Israeli rapper Nissim Black concluded the evening with some hefty tunes-a paradigm of the pivotal nexus between the Jewish and African American communities which is often overlooked.
Here’s what you should know about Donald Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial
(AP) Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts marks the end of the former president’s historic hush money trial but the fight over the case is far from over.
Now comes the sentencing and the prospect of a prison sentence. A lengthy appellate process. And all the while, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee still has to deal with three more criminal cases and a campaign that could see him return to the White House.
The Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records after more than nine hours of deliberations over two days in the case stemming from a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump angrily denounced the trial as a “disgrace,” telling reporters he’s an “innocent man.”
Some key takeaways from the jury’s decision:
Prison time?
The big question now is whether Trump could go to prison. The answer is uncertain. Judge Juan M. Merchan set sentencing for July 11, just days before Republicans are set to formally nominate him for president.
The charge of falsifying business records is a Class E felony in New York, the lowest tier of felony charges in the state. It is punishable by up to four years in prison, though the punishment would ultimately be up to the judge and there’s no guarantee he would give Trump time bars. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declined to say whether prosecutors would seek prison time.
It’s unclear to what extent the judge may factor in the political and logistical complexities of jailing a former president who is running to reclaim the White House. Other punishments could include a fine or probation. And it’s possible the judge would allow Trump to avoid serving any punishment until after he exhausts his appeals.
Trump faces the threat of more serious prison time in the three other cases he’s facing, but those cases have gotten bogged down by appeals and other legal fights so it remains unclear whether any of them will go to trial before the November election.
Avenues for appeal
After Trump is sentenced, he can challenge his conviction in an appellate division of the state’s trial court and possibly, the state’s highest court. Trump’s lawyers have already been laying the groundwork for appeals with objections to the charges and rulings at trial.
The defense has accused the judge of bias, citing his daughter’s work heading a firm whose clients have included President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats. The judge refused the defense’s request to remove himself from the case, saying he was certain of his “ability to be fair and impartial.”
Trump’s lawyers may also raise on appeal the judge’s ruling limiting the testimony of a potential defense expert witness. The defense wanted to call Bradley Smith, a Republican law professor who served on the Federal Election Commission, to rebut the prosecution’s contention that the hush money payments amounted to campaign-finance violations.
But the defense ended up not having him testify after the judge ruled he could give general background on the FEC but can’t interpret how federal campaign finance laws apply to the facts of Trump’s case or opine on whether Trump’s alleged actions violate those laws. There are often guardrails around expert testimony on legal matters, on the basis that it’s up to a judge — not an expert hired by one side or the other — to instruct jurors on applicable laws.
The defense may also argue that jurors were improperly allowed to hear sometimes graphic testimony from porn actor Stormy Daniels about her alleged sexual encounter with him in 2006. The defense unsuccessfully pushed for a mistrial over the tawdry details prosecutors elicited from Daniels. Defense lawyer Todd Blanche argued Daniels’ description of a power imbalance with the older, taller Trump, was a “dog whistle for rape,” irrelevant to the charges at hand, and “the kind of testimony that makes it impossible to come back from.”
A sparse defense
The former president’s lawyers called just two witnesses in a sparse defense case, including attorney and former federal prosecutor Robert Costello. The defense sought to use Costello to discredit prosecutors’ star witness, Michael Cohen, the Trump attorney-turned-adversary who directly implicated Trump in the hush money scheme. But the move may have backfired in devastating fashion because it opened the door for prosecutors to question Costello about a purported pressure campaign aimed at keeping Cohen loyal to Trump after the FBI raided Cohen’s property in April 2018.
While Costello buoyed the defense by testifying that Cohen denied to him that Trump knew anything about the $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels, Costello had few answers when prosecutor Susan Hoffinger confronted him with emails he sent to Cohen in which he repeatedly dangled his close ties to Trump-ally Rudy Giuliani. In one email, Costello told Cohen: “Sleep well tonight. you have friends in high places,” and relayed that there were “some very positive comments about you from the White House.”
Cohen largely kept his cool on the witness stand in the face of heated cross-examination by the defense, who tried to paint him as a liar with a vendetta against his former boss. The curt, pugnacious Costello, on the other hand, aggravated the judge — at times in view of the jury — but continuing to speak after objections and rolling his eyes. At one point, after sending the jury out of the room, the judge became enraged when he said Costello was staring him down. Merchan then briefly cleared the courtroom of reporters and scolded Costello, warning that if he acted out again, he’d be removed from the courtroom and his testimony would be stricken.
Laying the groundwork for a loss
While projecting confidence, Trump and his campaign also spent weeks trying to undermine the case ahead of a potential conviction. He repeatedly called the whole system “rigged” — a term he used to similarly used to falsely describe the election he lost to President Joe Biden in 2020.
“Mother Teresa could not beat these charge,” he said Wednesday, invoking the Catholic nun and saint as jury deliberations began.
Trump has lambasted the judge, insulted Bragg, and complained about members of the prosecution team. He has tried to paint the case as nothing more than a politically-motivated witch hunt.
Trump’s criticism also extended to choices seemingly made by his own legal team. He railed that “a lot of key witnesses were not called” by the prosecution — even though his side chose to call only two witnesses.
He has also complained about being restricted from speaking about aspects of the case by a gag order, but chose not to take the stand. Instead of testifying in the case — and subjecting himself to the inherent risks of perjury and cross examination, Trump has focused on the court of public opinion and the voters who will ultimately decide his fate.
What it means for the election
In a deeply divided America, it’s unclear whether Trump’s once-imaginable status as a person convicted of a felony will have any impact at all on the election.
Leading strategists in both parties believe that Trump still remains well-positioned to defeat Biden, even as he now faces the prospect of a prison sentence and three separate criminal cases still outstanding. In the short term, at least, there were immediate signs that the guilty verdict was helping to unify the Republican Party’s disparate factions as GOP officials across the political spectrum rallied behind their embattled presumptive presidential nominee and his campaign expected to benefit from a flood of fundraising dollars.
There has been some polling conducted on the prospect of a guilty verdict, although such hypothetical scenarios are notoriously difficult to predict. A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll found that only 4% of Trump’s supporters said they would withdraw their support if he’s convicted of a felony, though another 16% said they would reconsider it.
Melinda French Gates’ $1 Billion Pledge to Women, Families, and Abortion Rights
Melinda French Gates’ $1 Billion Pledge to Women, Families, and Abortion Rights
Edited by: TJVNews.com
In a groundbreaking announcement, Melinda French Gates revealed her intention to donate $1 billion over the next two years to support organizations and individuals dedicated to women’s rights, family support, and abortion rights, as was reported on Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal. This monumental pledge comes through her organization, Pivotal Ventures, and was made public shortly after her resignation from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
On June 7, Melinda French Gates formally stepped down from her role at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This decision follows a strategic agreement with Bill Gates, which allocated $12.5 billion to her philanthropic endeavors specifically targeting women and girls, the WSJ reported. The timing of her departure and subsequent announcement highlights her commitment to addressing what she perceives as urgent and neglected areas of need within the global landscape.
As was reported by the WSJ, French Gates’ $1 billion pledge will be distributed through grants to more than a dozen organizations. Notable recipients include:
The Center for Reproductive Rights: This organization is at the forefront of advocating for abortion rights, especially crucial in the aftermath of the 2022 Supreme Court decision that rescinded the constitutional right to an abortion in the U.S.
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research: A think tank dedicated to producing rigorous research and policy recommendations that address issues affecting women.
Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund: This fund provides legal support to individuals who have experienced workplace harassment, emphasizing the intersection of gender equality and workplace rights.
In her op-ed published in the New York Times, French Gates articulated her reasons for this substantial financial commitment. She highlighted the chronic underfunding of organizations that fight for women’s rights, which forces them into a defensive stance against well-resourced opponents, the WSJ report said. By infusing these organizations with significant capital, she aims to level the playing field and bolster their capacity to effect change.
“For too long, a lack of money has forced organizations fighting for women’s rights into a defensive posture while the enemies of progress play offense. I want to help even the match,” she wrote, according to the WSJ report.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion was a pivotal moment for French Gates. She expressed her profound concern over the rollback of women’s rights and emphasized the need for robust support for abortion rights in the U.S, as was detailed in the WSJ report. Her pledge is a direct response to this judicial action, reflecting her belief that women’s rights should be a paramount concern in the contemporary social and political climate.
French Gates’ advocacy for women and girls spans nearly two decades. She has consistently encountered resistance, with critics often suggesting that discussions on gender equality are ill-timed or less critical compared to other global issues.
The report in the WSJ said that In her New York Times piece, she reflected on this persistent challenge: “In nearly 20 years as an advocate for women and girls, I have learned that there will always be people who say it’s not the right time to talk about gender equality. The second the global agenda gets crowded, women and girls fall off.”
The Gates Foundation quickly became one of the largest and most impactful philanthropic organizations in the world, addressing a myriad of global health, education, and poverty issues.
The couple’s divorce in 2021 raised questions about the future direction of the foundation. Despite the personal upheaval, French Gates, 59, decided to stay with the foundation, ensuring continuity in its mission.
In 2021, French Gates published her own Giving Pledge, declaring her intention to donate the bulk of her $13.3 billion fortune to various causes rather than limiting her contributions to the Gates Foundation, the WSJ report indicated.
Pivotal Ventures, the organization she founded in 2015, plays a central role in this new phase of her philanthropy. The organization recently announced a novel initiative, distributing $20 million each to a dozen notable figures, including filmmaker Ava DuVernay, Olympian Allyson Felix, and former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, according to the information provided in the WSJ report. These funds are earmarked for charities focused on women’s health and well-being, representing an innovative approach to grant-making that French Gates hopes will unlock new funding opportunities.
In her opinion piece, French Gates expressed her profound sense of responsibility and opportunity: “As a young woman, I could never have imagined that one day I would be part of an effort like this. Because I have been given this extraordinary opportunity, I am determined to do everything I can to seize it and to set an agenda that helps other women and girls set theirs, too.”
The WSJ reported that among the recipients of French Gates’ largesse are organizations deeply engaged in gender, racial, and reproductive issues. Notable beneficiaries include:
The Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity: This organization addresses the intersections of gender, racial, and reproductive justice, working to create a more equitable society.
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research: A think tank dedicated to producing rigorous research and policy recommendations on issues affecting women, thereby informing and influencing public policy.
MomsRising Education Fund: This group advocates for economic security for families, addressing issues such as paid family leave, affordable childcare, and workplace equality.
The 19th: A news organization focused on women’s and LGBT people’s issues, the 19th expressed profound gratitude for French Gates’ support, stating, “Sometimes dreams do come true. We are beyond grateful for French Gates’ confidence in our team and our mission.”
Nearly two-thirds of Israelis think Jewish state will achieve war aims, new Pew study suggests
NS)
Most Israelis believe that the Israel Defense Forces military response in Gaza has been appropriate and that the Jewish state will achieve its military aims, although Jewish and Arab Israelis are disagree on how the war is going, a new Pew Research Center poll suggests.
Nearly three-quarters of Israelis say that the Jewish state’s military operations against Hamas in Gaza have been appropriate, with 39% saying they have been “about right” and 34% saying that the IDF has not gone far enough. About one-fifth (19%) say that Israel has gone too far.
Some two-thirds of Israelis polled believe that the Jewish state will either “probably” (27%) or “definitely” (40%) succeed in its military goals against the Hamas terror organization. Some 13% think that Israel will “probably fail” and 6% said it would “definitely fail.”
Pew polled 1,001 Israeli adults—both Jewish and Arab—in person between March 3 and April 4. It did so in Hebrew and Arabic. It did not interview residents of Gaza or Judea and Samaria.
The survey was conducted “before U.S. President Joe Biden took a tougher stance toward Israel in the wake of an Israeli airstrike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers,” Pew notes. “And it predates Biden’s declaration that the U.S. would not provide offensive weapons to Israel in the event of a Rafah invasion as well as the subsequent Israeli strikes in Rafah.”
Israelis had mixed reactions to Biden’s approach to the war and the role that the United States ought to play.
While most Israelis said that Washington should play either a major (72%) or minor (16%) diplomatic role in ending the war, just 46% of Israeli Jews and 12% of Israeli Arabs approve of Biden’s approach to the conflict. More than 9 in 10 Jews (91%) have a favorable opinion of the United States, compared to 29% of Israeli Arabs.
Israeli Jews and Arabs also differed on the Jewish state’s handling of the war against Hamas in Gaza, with 74% of Israeli Arabs saying that Israel has gone too far, compared to 4% of Israeli Jews, and 76% of Israeli Jews saying that the Jewish state will achieve its military aims, compared to 38% of Israeli Arabs.
Overall, Israelis polled view Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unfavorably (58%) compared to favorably (41%), with 39% having very unfavorable views and 20% having very favorable views. Some 51% of Israeli Jews had at least a somewhat favorable view of Netanyahu, compared to 7% of Israeli Arabs.
“The share of Israelis who have a somewhat or very unfavorable view of Netanyahu is the largest it has been since the center first started asking the question in 2013,” per Pew.
Most Israelis (57%) had confidence that Biden will do the right thing with respect to world affairs, while 42% did not. That was down from the 68% that had confidence in Biden doing the right thing when polled last year.
More than two-thirds (66%) of Israeli Jews had at least some confidence that Biden would do the right thing, while 77% of Israeli Arabs had “not too much” confidence of “none at all” that he would do the right thing.
Biden’s ‘Green’ Spending Controversy Fuels Hamas Terrorism
Biden’s ‘Green’ Spending Controversy Fuels Hamas Terrorism
The Biden administration’s approach to addressing inflation has come under heavy criticism for its allocation of funds towards environmental justice initiatives that critics argue have little to do with economic stability. At the heart of this controversy is the $50 million grant awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) under the Inflation Reduction Act. This allocation is seen by some as an egregious example of misdirected spending, raising serious questions about the priorities and vetting processes within the administration.
The Climate Justice Alliance has openly linked its mission to the liberation of Palestine, an association that many find deeply troubling, especially in light of the recent violence perpetrated by Hamas. The CJA’s website and promotional materials propagate an anti-colonial framework, which they claim connects the struggle for climate justice with the fight against so-called settler colonialism and imperialism. This narrative, often intertwined with anti-Israel rhetoric, positions the organization in a controversial light, particularly given its silence on condemning the October 7 atrocities committed by Hamas.
The EPA’s grant to the CJA was made in December, well after these events, yet the CJA had already called for a ceasefire by October 20, without addressing the violence instigated by Hamas. This raises significant concerns about the ideological leanings of the organizations receiving federal funds and the potential for taxpayer money to support groups with controversial or extremist agendas. The CJA’s network includes entities like the NDN Collective, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, and DemilitaRISE, all of which promote anti-imperialist ideologies and advocate for defunding the police and the military.
This situation begs the question: Did the EPA adequately vet the CJA and its affiliates before disbursing funds, or did it simply turn a blind eye to the potential implications? The answer to this question is critical because it speaks to the broader issue of how public funds are being utilized under the guise of promoting environmental justice.
The Biden administration’s strategy, as perceived by critics, appears to be a deliberate effort to channel resources to far-left groups under the pretext of serving the public good. This approach not only undermines the stated goal of combating inflation but also raises ethical concerns about the use of taxpayer dollars to support divisive and potentially harmful agendas. The notion that such spending is justified by its alignment with broader social justice goals is seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize the redistribution of wealth to ideological allies.
Furthermore, this practice exacerbates the nation’s debt burden, placing an undue financial strain on future generations. The irony is palpable: while the administration accuses its opponents of threatening democracy, it simultaneously engages in fiscally irresponsible behavior that could destabilize the economy and erode public trust.
In sum, the allocation of funds to the Climate Justice Alliance under the Inflation Reduction Act exemplifies the broader concerns about the Biden administration’s fiscal policies and their ideological underpinnings. It is imperative that public funds are allocated transparently and responsibly, with a clear focus on addressing the nation’s most pressing economic challenges rather than advancing partisan agendas. Failure to do so not only jeopardizes economic stability but also risks deepening political divisions and undermining democratic institutions.
Stanley P. Goldstein: The Visionary Behind CVS’s Retail Empire
Stanley P. Goldstein: The Visionary Behind CVS’s Retail Empire
Edited by: TJVNews.com
Stanley P. Goldstein, a pioneering entrepreneur who co-founded Consumer Value Stores (CVS) and transformed it into the largest drugstore chain in the United States, passed away on Tuesday at his home in Providence, Rhode Island. He was 89. A New York Times report indicated that the company, headquartered in Rhode Island, confirmed his death, and family members informed The Providence Journal that the cause was cancer, diagnosed just a month ago.
Born on June 5, 1934, in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, Stanley Goldstein was one of four sons of Israel and Etta (Halpern) Goldstein. The NYT report noted that the family lived in a triple-decker, a common type of housing for working-class immigrants in New England. This upbringing instilled in Goldstein a strong work ethic and a deep understanding of the challenges faced by ordinary families.
He graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1955. Initially, he showed little interest in the retail sector, having witnessed the demanding nature of the business through his father, Israel Goldstein, as was noted in the NYT report. Instead, Stanley pursued a career as a stockbroker, seeking a different path from the family business.
The turning point came with the death of Israel Goldstein. Stanley’s brother, Sidney Goldstein, persuaded him to take over their father’s struggling enterprise. The NYT report explained that their father’s business had started by selling bags and paper products to grocery stores and had expanded to include various health and beauty aids, strategically displayed near cash registers.
In the early 1960s, Goldstein, his brother Sidney, and Ralph Hoagland, a Harvard Business School graduate with experience at Procter & Gamble, devised a novel approach, the NYT report affirmed. They envisioned a stand-alone store dedicated to discount personal care items, a concept that was both innovative and timely.
The first Consumer Value Store opened in Lowell, Massachusetts, a low-income neighborhood where residents would appreciate the opportunity to purchase essential items at reduced prices. The NYT report said that the store featured a sign encouraging customers to bag their own purchases to save even more money, an early example of the customer-centric strategies that would become a hallmark of CVS.
Following the success of the first store, a second location was opened in Haverhill, Massachusetts. To trim costs, the company soon abbreviated its name to CVS. “All those letters cost a lot of money, so we shortened it to CVS,” Stanley Goldstein explained in a 2017 interview with The Providence Journal, as was reported by the NYT.
The innovative model proved highly successful, and the chain rapidly expanded. By 1969, CVS had grown to 42 stores, including the first locations with pharmacies, marking a significant evolution in its service offerings, the report in the NYT said. That same year, the company was sold to the Melville Corporation, a retail conglomerate that included Thom McAn shoes, K-B Toys, and Marshalls discount clothing.
Under Stanley Goldstein’s leadership, CVS underwent significant expansion. In the early years, the founders made a strategic decision to shorten the company’s name to CVS, a move Goldstein attributed to the cost savings on signage, the report in the NYT pointed out. This attention to detail and operational efficiency became a hallmark of the company’s growth strategy.
The innovative model proved highly successful, and the chain rapidly expanded. By 1969, CVS had grown to 42 stores, including the first locations with pharmacies, marking a significant evolution in its service offerings. That same year, the company was sold to the Melville Corporation, a retail conglomerate that included Thom McAn shoes, K-B Toys, and Marshalls discount clothing.
The late 1960s were a period of turbulence and change for CVS. According to the information provided in the NYT report, Ralph Hoagland, whose political views were influenced by the counterculture movement of the 1960s, left the company in 1969 after an article in The Boston Globe revealed his financial support for a faction of the antiwar Students for a Democratic Society. This revelation angered some Melville directors, prompting Hoagland’s departure. Stanley Goldstein then assumed the role of CVS’s president, a position previously held by Hoagland.
“Ralph was the wild man who’d push the envelope,” Stanley later recalled. “Sid was quite conservative. And I was in the middle.”
By the time Goldstein retired as CEO in 1998, CVS had grown to over 4,000 stores nationwide. His tenure saw the company diversify its offerings and establish a robust presence in the health and beauty sector. The NYT reported that today, CVS boasts more than 9,000 outlets across the United States and its territories, with revenues surpassing those of major corporations like Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, and Ford.
Under Goldstein’s leadership, CVS continued to thrive and expand. His no-nonsense approach and focus on customer needs were reflected in the company’s growth strategy, which emphasized affordability and accessibility.
Goldstein’s contributions to CVS have left an indelible mark on the retail landscape. Today, CVS stands as a testament to his vision and leadership, serving millions of customers across the United States. As the company continues to evolve, it carries forward the principles and values that Goldstein championed, ensuring that his legacy endures in the hearts of those who knew him and the countless lives he impacted through his work.
Maurie McInnis Named Yale University’s Next President: A Historic Appointment Amidst Higher Education Turmoil
Edited by: TJVNews.com
Yale University has announced the appointment of Maurie McInnis, the current president of Stony Brook University and a Yale trustee, as its next president. McInnis, 58, will be the first woman to hold the role on a permanent basis when she assumes the position in July. Accordiing to a report in the Wall Street Journal, this historic appointment comes at a critical juncture for American higher education, which is grappling with multiple challenges, including skepticism about the value of a college degree, debates over universities’ roles as moral arbiters, concerns about ideological biases, and strained relationships with influential donors.
McInnis is a distinguished historian whose academic research focuses on slavery. Her scholarly work and administrative experience position her uniquely to lead Yale through these turbulent times. At Stony Brook University, McInnis has demonstrated a commitment to academic excellence and a keen understanding of the complex issues facing higher education today.
American higher education is experiencing a period of significant upheaval. Increasingly, the value of a degree is questioned as tuition costs rise and student debt becomes more burdensome. Universities are also under scrutiny for their perceived roles as moral arbiters on contentious issues. Indicated in the WSJ report was that the ideological leanings of faculty members and their influence on campus culture have sparked debates, while major donors are demanding more influence over university operations, often leading to conflicts over institutional governance.
Yale University is no exception to these trends. The campus has recently been a hotspot for anti-Israel student protests. Calls for a cease-fire in Gaza and demands for divestment from companies doing business with Israel have sparked significant campus activism, the WSJ reported.
In an interview with the WSJ in which she discussed her new role at Yale, McInnis emphasized the importance of upholding free expression while ensuring campus safety. “True freedom of expression demands that we acknowledge the rights of others to hold and express beliefs that are different from our own,” she told the WSJ. “But we also have to ensure the safety and well-being of our campus community. That’s been tested this year. It will likely be tested as we return in the fall.”
McInnis brings a wealth of experience to her new role at Yale. Since 2020, she has served as the president of Stony Brook University, a Long Island campus of the State University of New York (SUNY) system. Her leadership there has been marked by a commitment to academic excellence and innovation. Prior to her tenure at Stony Brook, McInnis served as provost at the University of Texas at Austin, where she played a critical role in overseeing the academic operations of one of the nation’s largest and most prestigious public universities, according to the WSJ report. Her administrative career began at the University of Virginia, where she spent a decade in various leadership positions.
McInnis’ connection to Yale runs deep. She received her Ph.D. in art history from the university and has been an active member of Yale’s board of trustees since 2022, the WSJ report added. Her academic background and governance experience provide her with a unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing Yale today.
McInnis will succeed Peter Salovey, who announced in August that he would step down in June after 11 years as Yale’s president. Salovey will return to the faculty, leaving behind a legacy of growth and stability at the university. McInnis’ appointment comes at a time of considerable change in the leadership of other major American universities. Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania are currently led by interim presidents, following the resignation of their leaders partly due to controversial testimony at a congressional hearing on campus anti-Semitism, as was noted in the WSJ report. Similarly, Cornell University will see an interim president starting in July, while Stanford University has recently appointed economist Jonathan Levin as its new president, also beginning in July, the WSJ report added. Dartmouth College and Columbia University have both had new leaders in place for just a year.
McInnis steps into her role at Yale amid a turbulent period for higher education. Universities across the country are grappling with questions about the value of a college degree, the role of institutions as moral arbiters, and the ideological balance of their faculties, the WSJ report observed. Furthermore, relationships with major donors have become increasingly complex, with some donors seeking greater influence over university operations.
Report: Heir to Levi Strauss Dynasty Behind Funding of Anti-Israel College Protest Movement
Report: Heir to Levi Strauss Dynasty Behind Funding of Anti-Israel College Protest Movement
Edited by: TJVNews.com
In an intricate twist of political alliances and philanthropic endeavors, one of America’s wealthiest and most politically active Jewish families has emerged as a significant financial supporter of the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) movement. Known for orchestrating anti-Israel protests across U.S. college campuses, the NSJP’s financial backing and operational legitimacy have come under scrutiny following a revealing 2024 report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). This report, titled “National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) – Antisemitism, Anti-Americanism, Violent Extremism and the Threat to North American Universities,” sheds light on the complex web of support that sustains the NSJP and its associated activities.
The NSJP is a prominent student organization that has gained notoriety for its vocal opposition to Israeli policies and its active role in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. The NSJP’s activities include organizing campus protests, educational events, and advocacy campaigns aimed at raising awareness about Palestinian issues and promoting actions against what they perceive as Israeli injustices.
WESPAC, identified by the ISGAP report as the main fiscal sponsor of the NSJP, originated as a civil rights advocacy group in the 1970s. Over the years, it has evolved into a significant supporter of various pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel initiatives. The report suggests that WESPAC’s support provides the NSJP with a veneer of legitimacy, enabling it to carry out its activities under the guise of civil rights advocacy.
At the top of WESPAC’s list of grant providers is the Covina, California-based Bafrayung Fund, which has contributed a substantial $300,000. The Elias Foundation, dedicated to promoting “progressive ideas,” follows with a donation of $100,500. These financial contributions call attention to the intricate network of support that underpins WESPAC and, by extension, the NSJP.
The ISGAP report meticulously documented the connections between WESPAC and several organizations identified as virulently anti-Israel and antisemitic. These organizations include:
National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP)
US Palestinian Community Network (USPCN)
Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM)
Adalah New York
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN)
Palestine Freedom Project (PFP)
The report contends that WESPAC’s sponsorship of these groups not only facilitates their operations but also bolsters their credibility and reach. This support network has enabled these organizations to amplify their messages and mobilize broader audiences, particularly within academic settings.
At the heart of this issue is the substantial financial support these movements receive from influential individuals and organizations.
Rachel Gelman, a 33-year-old prominent resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, is the scion of the Levi Strauss dynasty and cousin to Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY). The Bafrayung Fund, managed by Gelman, receives its financing from two primary sources: Gelman herself and the Morningstar Philanthropic Foundation, her parents’ charity. According to a report on The Daily Beast web site, this foundation that is managed by her parents who are major Democratic Party donors.
The thread connecting Rachel Gelman to the congressman from New York and the Levi Strauss empire runs through her mother, Susie Gelman. Susie, appointed by President Joe Biden to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, has a deep-rooted history in Jewish issues and American-Israeli relations. The Daily Beast reported that her grandfather, Walter Haas, transformed Levi Strauss into a global denim brand. Her father, Richard Goldman, was a major insurance mogul who made the Forbes billionaire list before selling his company in 2001. Her late brother, also named Richard, was a federal prosecutor and the father of Representative Dan Goldman.
According to a 2013 profile in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Susie Gelman’s involvement in Jewish issues began early, and she met her husband through a youth group of the Jewish Federations of North America. The couple co-owns the Mid-Atlantic Media Group, which publishes several prominent Jewish newspapers.
Susie Gelman’s attachment to Israel began in her youth, making her first trip to the Jewish state in 1970. During the Second Intifada, she volunteered at a Jerusalem hospital, driven by a profound sense of solidarity with Israelis experiencing trauma, as was indicated in The Daily Beast report. From 2016 to 2023, she served as chairwoman of the Israel Policy Forum, advocating for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and critiquing the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Despite tensions with Israel’s current leadership, the Gelman family has been among the biggest supporters of the Birthright Israel Foundation, which sponsors free trips for Jewish young adults to Israel. Their financial backing of Birthright Israel and the Israel Policy Forum suggests a commitment to fostering Jewish identity and Israeli engagement among young adults. However, their substantial contributions to the Bafrayung Fund and its anti-Israel agenda undermine these efforts and contribute to an environment of hostility and division on college campuses.
The Morningstar Philanthropic Foundation has a history of supporting left-wing, progressive causes and pro-Israel initiatives. However, the Foundation’s significant financial contributions to the Bafrayung Fund, which supports anti-Israel movements, represent a stark contradiction. As per the Daily Beast report, between 2019 and 2022, the Bafrayung Fund received $3,470,000 from Morningstar Philanthropic.
The Bafrayung Fund has disbursed $60,000 to the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) through annual grants to its sponsor, the Westchester Peace Action Committee (WESPAC). PYM is known for its anti-Israel activism, which often crosses the line into promoting hostility rather than fostering constructive dialogue.
Another beneficiary of the Bafrayung Fund is the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), which received $40,000. The report in The Daily Beast said that AROC has a history of engaging in activities that disrupt public order, such as protests that temporarily shut down major infrastructure like San Francisco Airport, the Bay Bridge, and the Port of Oakland. These actions, while aimed at raising awareness, often alienate broader public support and perpetuate divisive rhetoric.
Critical Resistance, a prison abolition organization, has received $298,000 from the Bafrayung Fund. While its primary focus is on dismantling the prison-industrial complex, it has increasingly aligned itself with pro-Palestinian events, working alongside PYM and AROC. The intersection of these movements at various protests further amplifies anti-Israel sentiments under the guise of broader social justice causes.
The Daily Beast reached out to more than a dozen members of the Gelman, Goldman, and Haas families, including Representative Dan Goldman, but received no response. Rachel Gelman herself did not respond to repeated inquiries, citing maternity leave. This silence from a family with such a significant public and philanthropic profile raises questions about their accountability and transparency regarding their financial support for anti-Israel movements.
Harvard University’s New Stance on Public Statements: A Shift Towards Neutrality
Harvard University’s New Stance on Public Statements: A Shift Towards Neutrality
Edited by: Fern Sidman
Harvard University, one of the world’s most prestigious institutions, has announced a significant shift in its approach to public statements on global events and political issues. According to a report in The New York Post, this decision comes in the wake of intense controversy surrounding the university’s previous comments on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
On Tuesday, Harvard University revealed that it would stay silent on public matters that fall outside its primary mission. This decision follows recommendations from Harvard’s Institutional Voice Working Group, which highlighted the risks associated with the university taking stances on wide-ranging global issues. The Post report indicated that the working group’s report emphasized that Harvard “runs the risk of appearing to care more about some places and events than others” and that making public statements could unintentionally alienate parts of its diverse community.
The catalyst for this policy shift was the backlash Harvard faced following its statements on the Israel-Hamas conflict. As per The Post report, former President Claudine Gay condemned the “barbaric atrocities perpetrated by Hamas” but was criticized for not addressing a letter from 30 Harvard student groups that blamed Israel for the October 7 attack by Hamas. This incident highlighted the challenges and potential pitfalls of the university issuing statements on contentious global events.
This decision follows months of internal debate and controversy, including the resignation of its former president, testimony before Congress, and allegations of plagiarism, the report in The Post said. The new policy aims to protect the integrity and credibility of the institution by avoiding public stances on far-reaching global issues.
In response to these challenges, Harvard established the Institutional Voice Working Group in April to explore the extent and circumstances under which the university should comment on matters beyond its jurisdiction. The working group’s findings were clear: “The integrity and credibility of the institution are compromised when the university speaks officially on matters outside its institutional area of expertise,” as was noted in The Post report. The report emphasized that public statements on such issues could lead to intense internal and external pressures, distracting from the university’s primary mission.
The Institutional Voice Working Group’s report outlined several key recommendations that Harvard has accepted:
Limitation of Official Statements: The university will no longer issue official statements on public matters unless they directly affect its core educational and research functions.
Risk of Alienation: The report noted that official empathy statements could alienate parts of the community by implicitly showing solidarity with some groups over others.
Focus on Core Functions: Harvard’s primary mission of education and research will remain the focus, without delving into global political statements that could detract from this mission.
Interim President Alan Garber acknowledged that implementing these new principles would require careful consideration and adaptation. “The process of translating these principles into concrete practice will, of course, require time and experience, and we look forward to the work ahead,” Garber said in a statement, according to The Post report. This approach marks a move towards neutrality, intending to maintain unity and focus within the university community.
The new policy suggests that rather than issuing public statements, Harvard should encourage discussions on these topics within the classroom, where open debate can occur without the need for a permanent institutional stance, the report added. This approach aligns with the university’s educational mission and avoids the pitfalls of appearing partial or politically motivated.
The policy announcement comes on the heels of further controversy during Harvard’s recent commencement ceremony. Shruthi Kumar, the senior selected to deliver the English address, criticized the university for not allowing more than a dozen students to receive their diplomas. These students had participated in an anti-Israel campus encampment, leading to their disqualification. The Post reported that Kumar accused Harvard of displaying an “intolerance for freedom of speech,” which sparked a walkout by over 1,000 people chanting “let them walk.”