Raw Story

New disturbing details have emerged about threats targeting a Springfield university after former President Donald Trump spread baseless claims about local immigrant eating pets, CNN reported Tuesday.

Wittenberg University president Dr. Michael Frandsen appeared on the cable news network Tuesday morning to discuss the violent threats that forced him to transition students to remote learning — and to share a fact that shocked anchor Wolf Blitzer.

"It's chilling to hear that students are being named in some of these threats," Blitzer said. "That's very chilling."

Wittenberg University has received multiple threats from what appears to be a single source now being investigated by Springfield police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Frandsen told Blitzer.

The threats, not deemed credible, warn of physical violence, bombings and shootings, he said.

ALSO READ: 'I want Vance to apologize': We went to Springfield and found community hurt — and divided

Frandsen said students are stunned by what is occurring in the Ohio town, which has seen 33 bomb threats, trooper patrols at 17 local schools, two elementary school evacuations and virtual learning implemented at two colleges, CNN reported.

"There's shock and disbelief given what are experience here in Springfield is every day," Fransden said. "We've seen tremendous growth in our population, primarily a Haitian immigrants coming here legally to work, and the interactions with those folks around town are positive."

The uptick in violent threats occurred after Trump and running mate Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) spread baseless claims that Haitians had been stealing and eating residents' dogs and cats.

Trump did so at his first presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris last Tuesday.

Vance on Sunday told CNN's Dana Bash that he felt justified in creating stories if it focused media attention on problems caused by the Biden Administration's immigration policies.

But Frandsen condemned Trump's and Vance's remarks as falsehoods and said what his town needs is "help, not hate."

Watch the video below or click here.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) wants answers after former President Donald Trump was the target of a second assassination plot at Mar-a-Lago — and she wants to enlist the help of tech billionaire Elon Musk.

Boebert weighed in on the matter during a Monday evening interview with the right-wing cable network Newsmax.

"Do you have confidence that the Secret Service can keep President Trump safe?" asked the host.

"I am a member of the Oversight and Accountability Committee and I do not have any such confidence," said Boebert. "We had Director Cheadle in the day before she resigned. She refused to answer any of our questions. She lied before us, you know, or just simply acted like she didn't have the answers and only the FBI did when she absolutely saw the details that we were requesting from her and we have not seen any accountability since now."

ALSO READ: Corporate media keeps hiding the truth about madman Donald Trump

"President Trump says that he's going to create a commission when he's president, a commission to oversee the federal government, hold them accountable whether it's for their spending or their actions and have, possibly, Elon Musk as the director of this commission," said Boebert. "You know, we used to call this Congress, but unfortunately, the agencies that Congress has allocated taxpayer money to and has authorized to exist refuses to answer to us."

This all comes a day after Musk, who has endorsed Trump, made a post to his X social media platform noting that no one had made assassination threats against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, before deleting it amid a firestorm of backlash.

Watch the video below or at the link here.

A judge dealt former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows a blow on Monday, rejecting his request to move his criminal charges in Arizona to federal court.

U.S. District Judge John Tuchi wrote Monday that Meadows failed to "present good cause for his untimely filing" of his removal request, and that he failed to "demonstrate that the conduct charged in the state's prosecution relates to his former color of office as Chief of Staff to the President."

In April, an Arizona grand jury indicted 18 people on nine felony counts in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Prosecutors have said Meadows worked with the Trump campaign to "coordinate and implement the false Republican electors' votes in Arizona" and "was involved in the many efforts to keep [Trump] in power despite his defeat at the polls."

ALSO READ: Behind the legal tactics Trump is using to dodge justice for January 6

Meadows has argued that the case ought to be moved to federal court because the allegations that he essentially facilitated communication to and from the president related to the Election was within the scope of his official duties.

But the judge wasn't buying it — and laid into the argument.

"Mr. Meadows has not so much removed the State’s indictment as rewritten it," wrote Tuchi.

"Contrary to Mr. Meadows’s assertions, the State has not indicted Mr. Meadows for merely facilitating communication to and from the President or for simply staying abreast of campaign goings-on," Tuchi added. "Instead, the State has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly orchestrating and participating in an illegal electioneering scheme. Few, if any, of the State’s factual allegations even resemble the secretarial duties that Mr. Meadows maintains are the subject of the indictment."

Meadows also faces charges in Georgia in the scheme to overturn the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty in both states.

A Florida sheriff remarked Monday that the suspect in a second assassination plot targeting former President Donald Trump appeared as calm as if he was heading to church when he was arrested.

Martin County Sheriff William Snyder told CNN anchor Erin Burnett that suspect Ryan Routh was stopped in a "chaotic" scene. Around 15-20 armed deputies in body armor stopped Routh and blocked traffic in both directions. A police dog unit and a helicopter were also involved in the stop.

Even so, Snyder noted that Routh appeared "nonplus."

ALSO READ: Behind the legal tactics Trump is using to dodge justice for January 6

"He was nonplus would be the way I would describe it. His facial affect was relatively flat. He was engaged, you could tell. He was alert. He knew what was going on. But yet he never asked, 'What is this about? What's going on?' The normal things that you would expect. Even from guilty people oftentimes try to put on a front, but not him."

Snyder added that Routh appeared "calm as if he was getting ready to go to a late-night church service" and said it was "odd" that Routh didn't ask any questions while in the law enforcement vehicle.

The sheriff said a key witness who identified Routh as the suspect was airlifted to the location.

"He makes the positive ID and really, as far as we're concerned, that's the best ending that could've happened," said Snyder.

Routh, 58, was charged with possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number at his initial court appearance.

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has fallen silent on abortion as he faces a challenge from Democratic Rep. Colin Allred in 2024, and as his state has come under fire for one of the nation's most extreme abortion bans and women have been forced to flee to other states for care. But back in his first term in office, he was much more outspoken in favor of laws like this.

And furthermore, he had ties to a known extremist figure who called for the killing of "abortionists," according to Mother Jones.

“I am grateful to receive the endorsement of Troy Newman,” Cruz said while running for president in 2015 at the Iowa Republican caucuses. “He has served as a voice for the unborn for over 25 years, and works tirelessly every day for the pro-life cause. We need leaders like Troy Newman in this country who will stand up for those who do not have a voice.”

Newman, reported Abby Vesoulis, is best known as the leader of the extreme anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, "a group that in 1991 held weeks-long protests at the abortion clinic of George Tiller, who was later assassinated by an anti-abortion extremist. Moreover, Newman has claimed that extreme weather was God’s punishment for America’s tolerance for abortion and gay rights; he also co-wrote a book that endorsed the execution of abortion providers." The book stated, "The United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists.”

ALSO READ: Scientific American magazine backs Harris with second endorsement in 179-year history

His co-author, Cheryl Sullenger, was actually sentenced to prison over a plot to bomb a California abortion clinic in 1987.

Following the Supreme Court's elimination of Roe v. Wade protections and a sustained backlash to GOP abortion bans that has seen voters defeat anti-abortion proposals and laws at the ballot box in states like Kansas and Ohio, Cruz has become considerably more muted on the topic. He has also introduced legislation to protect access to in vitro fertilization, as anti-abortion judges and activists try to attack that procedure as well.

Progressive legal expert Elie Mystal, in his blistering condemnation of the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial 6-3 immunity ruling in Trump v. the United States, has made a major distinction between "qualified immunity" and "absolute immunity."

The High Court's decision, Mystal has argued, is dangerous to the rule of law in the U.S. because it grants Trump and future presidents "absolutely immunity" — not merely "qualified immunity" — from criminal prosecution for "official" acts committed as part of their "core" duties.

Even some frequent critics of the Roberts Court were shocked by how far the six GOP-appointed justices went in that ruling. But a memo leaked to the New York Times shows that Chief Justice John Roberts encouraged this outcome.

Salon's Nicholas Liu explains, "John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, on February 22, issued a memo to his colleagues urging them not only to take up an appeal from former President Donald Trump over his immunity claim, but also, to rule in favor of granting him that immunity…. The document, along with other justices' memos, accounts of the proceedings and testimony from sources the Times interviewed, offers a window into Roberts' high level of involvement in several cases that benefited Trump and ultimately helped him climb out of a mire of legal troubles that threatened to upend his 2024 presidential campaign."

ALSO READ: Behind the legal tactics Trump is using to dodge justice for January 6

According to Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak, the February 22 memo that Roberts sent to the eight other justices "radiated frustration and certainty."

Liu notes that the memo is relevant not only to Trump v. the United States, but also, to the High Court's 14th Amendment-related case decision involving the former president.

"Roberts exerted his influence in March this year, when he persuaded the other judges to rule that states could not unilaterally kick federal candidates from a ballot," Liu observes. "While the judges agreed unanimously on the matter, the Court's liberals dissented to an additional proposition that anyone seeking to enforce the Constitution's 14th Amendment against insurrectionist candidates running for office would need to first obtain congressional approval."

Roberts' memo, according to Kantor and Liptak, vehemently disagreed with a lower federal court ruling that tore apart Trump's presidential immunity claims.

The Times journalists report, "The chief justice’s February 22 memo, jump-starting the justices’ formal discussion on whether to hear the case, offered a scathing critique of a lower-court decision and a startling preview of how the high court would later rule, according to several people from the court who saw the document. The chief justice tore into the appellate court opinion greenlighting Mr. Trump’s trial, calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned."

Read the New York Times' full report at this link (subscription required) and Salon's analysis here.