Weather update: Delhi to witness above-average rainfall, check other states’ forecast here
In addition to the Northeast and Northwestern areas, the forecast also calls for high levels of rainfall in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, and Jharkhand during the week of June 30 to July 6.
Trump touts Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling as ‘big win for our Constitution and for democracy’
EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump touted the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity as a “big win for our Constitution and for democracy” during an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. The high court said Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” – but left it to the lower court to determine exactly where the line between official and unofficial lay. “The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.” Although the decision appears to be less than a total victory for Trump, the former president lauded the ruling. “I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years,” Trump told Fox News Digital. “And now the courts have spoken.” TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE: SUPREME COURT RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION He added: “This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll – by a lot – and we will make America great again.” The Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of presidential immunity after Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, appealed to the justices when he was charged as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case. Smith charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. SCOTUS WEIGHS MONUMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL FIGHT OVER TRUMP IMMUNITY CLAIM Those charges stem from Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol breach and whether he tried to interfere with the results of the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution for official acts that occurred while he was president. Smith’s case against the former president has sat in limbo while the high court considered the issue. Shortly after the interview with Fox News Digital, Trump posted on his Truth Social account: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”
Olbermann leads left-wing meltdown against CNN, calling to ‘burn it down’ after Biden’s performance
Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann led liberal outrage toward CNN, calling for the network to be “burn[ed] down,” after its moderators otherwise received praise over its forum between President Biden and former President Trump. While bipartisan voices lauded moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, Olbermann and other Biden loyalists appeared to take their outrage at the president’s performance out on the moderators and network. “No audience, no moderators, no journalism,” Olbermann fumed as he opened the latest episode of his “Countdown” podcast. Olbermann called what he characterized as the refusal to “fact-check” former President Trump one of the most “immoral decisions” in the history of American journalism. STATE DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS RALLY BEHIND BIDEN AS A DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR SUGGESTS REPUBLICANS PULL TRUMP “Literally, I am suggesting that at some point tonight CNN should — it will not — go off the air in shame, fire everybody, seal off the buildings, make sure everybody’s out, and burn the Godd— place to the ground,” the onetime ESPN anchor added. Olbermann lashed out at CNN Worldwide CEO Sir Mark Thompson and called for Bash and Tapper to be “fired for journalistic malpractice” for how the debate went on. In an interview Friday, Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro – a Biden campaign surrogate – also criticized the network directly to anchor John Berman’s face. “Frankly, I think CNN could have a done a better job in calling [Trump’s] lies out,” Shapiro said while admitting Biden had a rough night. “I’ll be the first to admit that…,” Shapiro said, while adding that Biden’s “bad night” is less egregious than Trump being a “bad president.” Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., one of Trump’s staunchest critics who served as Democratic counsel during his impeachment, claimed CNN did not properly push back when the Republican “blatantly mischaracteriz[ed] the disaster that was his presidency.” BIDEN SENIOR ADVISER CLASHES WITH CNN ANCHOR OVER BIDEN’S DEBATE PERFORMANCE “He intimidated your network,” Goldman told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. Former Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem, a columnist at Salon who was known for his outbursts in the briefing room during Trump’s tenure, also took aim at Bash and Tapper. “The biggest sin was the fact that the moderators failed to moderate the debate. A complete abdication of journalistic responsibility,” Karem said, according to the Daily Mail. Stephanie Winston Wolkoff – a former top adviser-turned-critic of former first lady Melania Trump who wrote a “tell-all” about her former boss – criticized CNN’s lighting during the debate. Wolkoff claimed on X that the network’s choice of framing and lighting design conveyed “intended perceptions of fragility vs. dominance in visual composition.” “Biden was filmed in profile, looking pale as a ghost. Trump was filmed straight on, not looking his usual shade of tangerine, but more like marmalade,” she said. “Biden is a man of honor, integrity, resilience, and resolve.” Meanwhile, liberal actor John Cusack claimed CNN was letting a “deranged liar lie with no consequences,” adding on X that “this is the end, my beautiful friends.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP In a statement, CNN pointed to the aforementioned bipartisan praise, citing quotes from Republicans, Democrats and Fox News talent Sean Hannity and Charlie Gasparino, defending its debate production. “The role of the moderators is to present the candidates with questions that are important to American voters and to facilitate a debate, enabling candidates to make their case and challenge their opponent,” a CNN spokesperson said. “It is up to the candidates to challenge one another in a debate. CNN offered robust fact-checking coverage in post-debate analysis on TV and across our digital platforms during and following the debate’s conclusion.”
Supreme Court dismisses state challenges to red state restrictions on social media platforms
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed challenges to Florida and Texas laws that restrict how large social media companies moderate user content. Each law would require Big Tech companies like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to host third-party communications but prevent those businesses from blocking or removing users’ posts based on political viewpoints. In a unanimous ruling, the court said lower courts did not properly analyze the First Amendment issues at play in the case. As a result, each case will go back to its respective Circuit Court of Appeals. “Today, we vacate both decisions for reasons separate from the First Amendment merits, because neither Court of Appeals properly considered the facial nature of NetChoice’s challenge. The courts mainly addressed what the parties had focused on. And the parties mainly argued these cases as if the laws applied only to the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social-media platforms—as if, say, each case presented an as-applied challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control over the content of its News Feed,” the court wrote. GOP SENATOR URGES SCOTUS TO REIN IN BIG TECH’S CONTENT CENSORSHIP THAT DEFIES ‘LOGIC’ “But argument in this Court revealed that the laws might apply to, and differently affect, other kinds of websites and apps. In a facial challenge, that could well matter, even when the challenge is brought under the First Amendment,” the court added. There were no dissenting opinions; five justices filed separate concurring or concurring in judgment opinions as well. They included Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. In almost four hours of oral arguments in February, the justices weighed whether to offer a sweeping ruling on the First Amendment implications of the state laws, or a more limited approach that might have the lower courts take another look at how those content moderation policies would be applied. The Florida law blocked a social media platform from engaging in censoring, prioritizing, or so-called “shadow banning” that is “based on the content.” Texas’ law was broader. JAN 6 RIOTERS, ABORTION, GUN RIGHTS: A LOOK AHEAD AT LANDMARK CASES SCOTUS WILL HEAR IN 2024 It would have also prevented “willfully deplatforming a candidate” for public office for material posted by or about that candidate. Both Florida and Texas would also require those companies to notify a user when their content has been modified or edited, along with an explanation for that action. GOP AGS ASK SUPREME COURT TO PEEL BACK CONTENT MODERATION FROM BIG TECH IN LANDMARK FIRST AMENDMENT CASES Trade groups representing big tech companies argue that the laws violate their free speech rights to decide what content meets their policies — saying their forums should not be an open-ended portal for offensive or dangerous speech — including school bullying, harassment, terrorist ideology, racial hatred, medical misinformation and voter fraud. The laws were supported by Republicans in Congress and over a dozen GOP-led states, who filed amicus briefs in the case. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said the platforms wanted to keep liability protections granted by Congress for content on their sites, while simultaneously asking for unfettered ability to censor content, citing their First Amendment liberties. “Despite decades arguing for this position, today the tech platforms take precisely the opposite line. They claim that their content hosting and curation decisions are in fact expressive — expressive enough that they enjoy First Amendment protection,” the lawmaker argued. READ THE FULL SUPREME COURT OPINION BELOW. APP USERS CLICK HERE
Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive,” he said. SCOTUS WEIGHS MONUMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL FIGHT OVER TRUMP IMMUNITY CLAIM “The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party,” he continued. READ THE SUPREME COURT OPINION — APP USERS, CLICK HERE: The question stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Those charges stem from Smith’s months-long investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the U.S. JUSTICE ALITO QUESTIONS WHETHER PRESIDENTS WILL HAVE TO FEAR ‘BITTER POLITICAL OPPONENT’ THROWING THEM IN JAIL Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” “Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President … the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent,” she said. Smith’s case against the former president and its trial have been pending amid the high court’s consideration of the issue. In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, former President Trump said, “I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years, and now the courts have spoken.” “This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll—by a lot—and we will make America great again,” he said. The justices heard arguments from Trump attorney John Sauer and Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department attorney representing Special Counsel Jack Smith, on April 25 on whether presidents should have “absolute immunity.” During those arguments, both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications of the question for future presidents but raised sharply different concerns. Justice Samuel Alito questioned the repercussions of charging a former president. “Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent,” Alito asked, “will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” he said. Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, asked if the “potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country,” she said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes for the court’s decision: “This will have huge implications for the presidency.” TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL ‘CROOKED’ JOE BIDEN “I’m not talking about the present, so I’m talking about the future,” Kavanaugh said. And Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed during questioning: “We’re writing a rule for, yes, for the ages.” As for Alito’s question, the former president has repeatedly claimed that he is being prosecuted by his political opponents, warning Americans and voters that all cases against him, in all jurisdictions, are being brought by his opponent — President Biden — and being done in coordination with the White House. Meanwhile, the ruling comes after a New York jury found Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation.
Excise policy case: Delhi HC dismisses BRS leader K Kavitha’s bail pleas
A detailed order is awaited. Kavitha had challenged the trial court’s May 6 order by which her bail applications in the CBI’s corruption case as well as the ED’s money-laundering case were dismissed.
Biden campaign says Biden’s fundraising cash would go to Kamala Harris if he drops out as top donors waver
President Biden’s campaign staff were on damage control this weekend, working to shore up support among a top donor class deeply shaken by Biden’s performance at last week’s debate. A top campaign official held a phone call with Biden’s top donors on Sunday and stated that if Biden were to drop out of the race, all his funds would go to Vice President Kamala Harris. Some of the donors went so far as to ask for refunds, according to NBC News. Campaign Chair Jennifer O’Malley Dillon is reportedly scheduled to hold another call with more donors later Monday. Donors and even some of Biden’s family members have raised questions about Biden’s debate preparations and whether his aides might be to blame for Thursday’s disaster. The White House pushed back on the suggestion in a statement. THE DEMOCRATS’ SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT ATTEMPTS TO SPIN BIDEN’S DEBATE DEBACLE: ‘DID WE WATCH THE SAME DEBATE?’ “The aides who prepped the President have been with him for years, often decades, seeing him through victories and challenges. He maintains strong confidence in them,” Biden campaign spokesman Kevin Munoz said in a statement. BIDEN DEBATE DEBACLE: 10 EYE-OPENING MEDIA RESPONSES, FROM MSNBC PANIC TO ‘THE VIEW’ CALLING FOR REPLACEMENT Panicked Democrats across the country are raising questions about Biden’s candidacy following the debate, though it remains extremely unlikely that Biden would drop out. Biden himself attempted to spin the performance during a fundraiser in New Jersey on Saturday, arguing that more undecided voters were swayed to his side during the debate than Trump’s. The president reportedly acknowledged that his performance at the debate left much to be desired, but he argued that polling was on his side. BIDEN’S INNER CIRCLE SILENT AS PARTY REELS FOLLOWING ‘EMBARRASSING’ DEBATE PERFORMANCE “I didn’t have a great night, but I’m going to be fighting harder,” Biden told the several dozen people at the fundraising event, according to NJ.com. “Research during the debate shows us converting more undecided voters than Trump did, in large part because of his conduct on Jan. 6,” he added. “People remember the bad things during his presidency.”
Biden family blame staff for debate performance as he lays low again at Camp David: reports
President Biden’s family blamed staff for his rocky debate performance, as the commander in chief is laying low again at Camp David on Monday, according to reports. The president and first lady Jill Biden aren’t scheduled to return to the White House until Monday night. On Sunday, Biden’s wife, children and grandchildren used a gathering at Camp David to urge him to stay in the race and keep fighting despite his debate performance, and some family members criticized how his staff prepared him for the faceoff, The Associated Press reported, citing four people familiar with the discussions. Politico also reported that Biden’s family members cast blame widely on Biden staffers, complaining that they did not adequately prepare the president to go on the attack more, to focus more on laying out his vision for the next four years rather than getting bogged down in defending his record, and that they allowed him to become overworked without enough rest beforehand. The family’s criticism was hurled specifically toward Anita Dunn, the senior adviser who frequently has the president’s ear; her husband, Bob Bauer, the president’s attorney who played Donald Trump in rehearsals at Camp David; and Ron Klain, the former chief of staff who ran point on the debate prep and previous cycles’ sessions, Politico reported, citing three people briefed on the family conversations but not directly involved. JILL BIDEN BACKS HUSBAND AFTER BRUTAL DEBATE, TELLS VOGUE ‘WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT’ According to Politico, the sources “said the Biden family wanted the president to continue in the campaign rather than end his career with a calamitous debate performance against Trump, whom they all loathe.” Biden’s relatives were also asking why Klain allowed the president to become overburdened by statistics and why Biden, who came to the Atlanta debate with a summer tan, had makeup on during the debate, making him look pale, the New York Times reported, citing people close to the situation. In addition to the first lady, Hunter Biden was one of the strongest voices encouraging his father to stay in the race, according to all three reports. While his family was aware of how poorly he performed against Trump, they also continue to think he’s the best person to beat the Republican presumptive nominee, according to the people who were not authorized to speak publicly about internal discussions and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity. They also believe he is capable of serving as president for another four years. The president was reportedly making calls over the weekend with his inner circle to hear their thoughts about staying in the race. As Biden boarded Air Force One on Saturday, he spoke on the phone with Jon Meacham, a trusted confidant, the Politico reported, citing photographs of the caller ID. Biden’s granddaughters Finnegan and Natalie Biden traveled with their grandparents to participate in several fundraising events on Saturday in New York and New Jersey. FETTERMAN CITES OWN ‘DIFFICULT’ DEBATE IN ARGUING BIDEN CAN STILL WIN, SLAMS DEMOCRATS ‘DEFECTING’ TO TRUMP The Times reported that campaign advisers “have been burning up the phone lines all weekend with major donors angry about the situation in hopes of heading off a wave of defections.” The campaign scheduled a conference call Monday at 5:30 p.m. for its national finance committee to hear from Jen O’Malley Dillon, the campaign chair, the Times reported. “Many insiders have said that preserving the donor base will be key to the president staying in the race,” the report said. Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz defended re-election staffers in a statement to Politico. “The aides who prepped the President have been with him for years, often decades, seeing him through victories and challenges. He maintains strong confidence in them,” Munoz told Politico. Fox News Digital also reached out to the Biden campaign for comment on Monday. John Morgan, a top Democratic donor close to President Biden’s brother, Frank, had publicly blamed the advisers Dunn, Klain and Bauer for the debate performance. “Biden has for too long been fooled by the value of Anita Dunn and her husband,” Morgan wrote on X. “They need to go… TODAY. The grifting is gross. It was political malpractice.” “It would be like if you took a prizefighter who was going to have a title fight and put him in a sauna for 15 hours then said, ‘Go fight,’” Morgan told the Times in an interview. “I believe that the debate is solely on Ron Klain, Bob Bauer and Anita Dunn.” The Associated Press contributed to this report.
A Healthier Tomorrow: Naresh Dhoundiyal’s Mission to Support the Poor and Needy
Naresh Dhoundiyal and his team aren’t just feeding people; they are teaching too.
24-year-old Indian origin woman dies in Melbourne-Delhi Qantas flight before take-off
Before the aircraft could take off, a 24-year-old woman of Indian descent passed away on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Delhi. For the first time in four years, Manpreet Kaur, who aspired to be a chef, was thrilled to be returning to her family in India.