web analytics



Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.


Call For Free 15/M Consultation



Westlake Legal Group > News and News Media (Page 50)

Kamala Harris Drops Out of the 2020 Presidential Race

Senator Kamala Harris of California dropped out of the Democratic presidential race on Tuesday after months of low poll numbers, a deflating comedown for a campaign that began with significant promise.

The decision came after upheaval among staff and disarray among Ms. Harris’s own allies. She told supporters in an email on Tuesday that she lacked the money needed to fully finance a competitive campaign.

“My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue,” Ms. Harris wrote.

The announcement is perhaps the most sudden development to date in a Democratic presidential campaign where Ms. Harris began in the top tier. She opened her campaign on Martin Luther King’s Birthday with comparisons to historic black politicians like Barack Obama and Shirley Chisholm. Her speech that day in Oakland, Calif., drew more than 20,000 people, giving credence to the idea that Ms. Harris could become the first woman of color elected president.

But Ms. Harris, the barrier-breaking prosecutor and second black woman to serve in the United States Senate, was almost immediately overcome with questions about where she fit on the party’s ideological spectrum. She reversed her position on single-payer health care, removing herself from the Medicare for All bill sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. She struggled with how to frame her record as a prosecutor, oscillating between defending it against progressive criticism and embracing it in a play for more moderate votes.

Ms. Harris also faced questions about her political strategy and her campaign’s organizational structure. She relied on a stable of California political strategists, led by the longtime political operative Averell Smith, who did not heed warnings from grass-roots organizers to invest more heavily in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Instead, the campaign focused on later primaries in states with more nonwhite voters, including South Carolina and California.

They miscalculated. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. remained popular with black voters, preventing the campaign from making significant headway in South Carolina. In California, Ms. Harris was increasingly boxed out, as progressives like Mr. Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts excited the state’s liberal wing and Mr. Biden persisted among moderates.

Westlake Legal Group 2020-presidential-candidates-promo-1548014688187-articleLarge-v50 Kamala Harris Drops Out of the 2020 Presidential Race Presidential Election of 2020 Harris, Kamala D

Who’s Running for President in 2020?

Who’s in, who’s out and who’s still thinking.

Still, Ms. Harris had already qualified for the next presidential debate, scheduled for later this month, the only non-white candidate to do so thus far. Without her, Democrats may have an all-white debate stage after beginning the primaries with the most racially diverse field in history, though candidates like Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and businessman Andrew Yang may still qualify in the coming weeks.

“No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic,” wrote Leah Greenberg, a co-executive director of Indivisible, a national progressive group.

It was on an earlier debate stage when Ms. Harris generated one of the most electric moments of the race so far, when she challenged Mr. Biden over his record on race and busing in June. “I do not believe you are a racist,” she began. Mr. Biden was so taken aback he cut off his own answer short. “Anyway, my time is up. I’m sorry,” he said.

Money poured into her campaign and she spiked in the polls, rocketing to second place in several and generally peaking at 20 percent support. But her poll numbers declined steadily since then, beginning when she undercut her star turn when she struggled to articulate her own position on mandated busing.

Mr. Biden’s support, however, has proved durable, and he has shown himself a challenging politician to attack. The other most frontal assault on him came from Julián Castro, the former federal housing secretary, who also dropped in the polls after their debate-stage confrontation.

In recent months, Ms. Harris had struggled financially as her online fund-raising slowed and her large donors increasingly turned away from her campaign. In the third quarter of the year, she spent more than $1.41 for every dollar she raised, burning through millions of her treasury. She stopped buying ads, both online and on television, implemented layoffs, slashed staff in New Hampshire and retrenched to Iowa, where she spent the Thanksgiving holiday with her family.

But it was not enough, as her campaign determined that she did not have the financial resources needed to compete, even as a new allied super PAC began reserving ads on Tuesday. The group quickly began canceling its reservations.

“As the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete,” Ms. Harris wrote to supporters.

Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota quickly expressed admiration for Ms. Harris, as did Mr. Castro, who called her “a lifelong fighter for opportunity and justice for all Americans.”

“Sometimes campaigns can tear friendships apart but we have grown closer,” Ms. Klobuchar tweeted. “Her good work will continue.”

“Her campaign broke barriers and did it with joy,” Mr. Booker tweeted. “Love you, sister.”

Mr. Biden, campaigning in Iowa, called Ms. Harris “a first-rate intellect, first-rate candidate, real competitor.” He walked away when a reporter asked whether he would consider Ms. Harris as a running mate.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Jonathan Martin and Maggie Astor contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

READ: Impeachment Inquiry Report By House Intelligence Committee

Westlake Legal Group ap_19325554216583_wide-c15f2a6991cbc6ea5afe24d359df3bb03b37b760-s1100-c15 READ: Impeachment Inquiry Report By House Intelligence Committee

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. (center); ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes of California (right); and committee counsel Daniel Goldman hold an impeachment inquiry hearing on Nov. 21. Schiff has released the panel’s report on the inquiry. Matt McClain/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Matt McClain/AP

Westlake Legal Group  READ: Impeachment Inquiry Report By House Intelligence Committee

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. (center); ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes of California (right); and committee counsel Daniel Goldman hold an impeachment inquiry hearing on Nov. 21. Schiff has released the panel’s report on the inquiry.

Matt McClain/AP

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has released a report that outlines the findings from public and closed-door hearings conducted by impeachment investigators since late September.

“As the evidence conclusively shows, President Trump conditioned official acts — a White House meeting desperately desired by the new Ukrainian president and critical U.S. military assistance — on Ukraine announcing sham, politically motivated investigations that would help President Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign,” the chairman said in a statement before Thanksgiving recess.

Republicans released their own report on Monday, arguing that Democrats had not proven “evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.” The minority party’s prebuttal to Schiff’s summary cast the inquiry as a partisan attack on Trump.

The Intelligence Committee report marks triggers the next step of the impeachment process, in which the House Judiciary Committee becomes the central player.

Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and the members of that committee will use the Intelligence Committee report as well as additional information requested through committee procedures to determine if the facts support writing articles of impeachment.

If the Judiciary Committee does write and approve articles of impeachment, those articles would then go to the full House of Representatives. If the House votes to impeach Trump, the Republican-led Senate will begin a trial on whether to remove the president.

Read the House Intelligence Committee report here.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

House Intelligence Committee Releases Impeachment Report

Westlake Legal Group 5de66bc3250000a13cd2efb8 House Intelligence Committee Releases Impeachment Report

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee laid out “overwhelming” evidence of misconduct by President Donald Trump in a detailed report released Tuesday, marking the next stage in the impeachment inquiry against the president. 

The committee plans to vote on approval of the report Tuesday evening. By doing so, it will formally pass the impeachment proceedings to the House Judiciary Committee, which will begin its own set of impeachment hearings Wednesday.

The report comes after several marathon days of hearings in November, featuring testimony from current and former U.S. officials familiar with the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the events surrounding it, which are at the center of the inquiry.

During the call, Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, whose son had business dealings in the country while Biden was vice president. The president also pushed the roundly debunked claim that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 presidential election. 

The Intelligence Committee report states that “the call record alone is stark evidence of misconduct; a demonstration of the President’s prioritization of his personal political benefit over the national interest.” But it also details other allegations of improper conduct by the president, his administration and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to influence Ukraine, calling it “a dramatic crescendo within a months-long campaign … to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President.”

Intelligence Committee Democrats write in the report that they’re not out to “overturn an election,” as Republicans have claimed for weeks. Instead, they write that the authors of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress impeachment powers specifically “as a remedy of last resort for a president who fails to faithfully execute his oath of office ‘to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

The report also details efforts by Trump to thwart Congress’ investigation, calling it “an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony.” A dozen witnesses refused to testify, including some who were subpoenaed, and multiple agencies and the White House itself declined to turn over relevant documents.

Trump also sought to intimidate witnesses who did agree to come forward, the report alleges, noting that it is “a federal crime to intimidate or seek to intimidate any witness appearing before Congress.” The president did so by publicly attacking multiple witnesses as well as an anonymous whistleblower who expressed concerns about his call with Zelensky.

“If left unanswered, President Trump’s ongoing effort to thwart Congress’ impeachment power risks doing grave harm to the institution of Congress, the balance of power between our branches of government, and the Constitutional order that the President and every Member of Congress have sworn to protect and defend,” the report states.

Trump has insisted he did nothing wrong; he has said repeatedly that his call with Zelensky was “perfect.” Soon after the Democrats released their report, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham dismissed it as part of “a one-sided sham process” and claimed lawmakers “utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump.”

“Chairman Schiff’s report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing,” Grisham said in a statement, referring to Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Giuliani has similarly denied any wrongdoing, including after Democrats released their report, which included phone records showing his conversations with the Office of Management and Budget ― the agency involved in delaying aid for Ukraine.

“I did not have any knowledge of aid that’s it,” he said in a text message to HuffPost. “None. Zero and no one has claimed I did. Otherwise I don’t comment on discussions with WH.”

Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill have largely agreed with his claims that the inquiry is unfair. And Republicans have said the slew of witnesses testifying about what happened between the U.S. and Ukraine are simply mistaken about Trump’s motives. Trump wasn’t out for dirt on his political rival, Republicans argued in their own report this week. Rather, the president withheld assistance from Ukraine because of his “long-standing, deep-seated skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.”

Republican lawmakers have struggled to point to other examples of Trump attacking corruption, despite his “drain the swamp” campaign slogan. 

As Democrats note in their report, according to the White House memorandum of the call with Zelenesky, “President Trump did not mention corruption at all.”

Read the report below:

This article has been updated with more details from the report. S.V. Dáte, Paul Blumenthal contributed reporting.

CORRECTION: This article previously stated the House Intelligence Committee had held a vote to approve the report. The committee released the report publicly before its vote Tuesday evening.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Who is in, who is out

WASHINGTON – The 2020 Democratic presidential field may finally be narrowing in a significant way.

In less than 48 hours over Sunday evening and Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Kamala Harris, once considered among the top tier of candidates, former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock all dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination. They likely won’t be the last before the first votes are even counted.

And with just two months until the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses, the Democratic race is still shifting, with an unsettled December debate stage and polling showing a variety of leaders in several states and nationally.

Who is still in the race

There are now 15 Democratic hopefuls running for president. The departure of Harris, Sestak and Bullock follows closely behind former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam, who both dropped out in November. Several other candidates dropped out even earlier. 

More:Kamala Harris ends her bid for president: ‘In good faith, I can’t tell you … that I have a path forward’

“Quite a few of those (candidates still in the race) are down to similar levels of support that people like Sestak and Bullock had,” said Seth Masket, professor of political science and director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver. “We’ll likely see quite a few people drop out before anyone starts participating the Iowa caucuses.”

There are two reasons candidates may soon find themselves with a tough decision: They run out of campaign cash or they fail to make it to the debate stage, said Matt Bennett, the executive vice president of public affairs for Third Way, a center-left think tank.

“If you’re not on the debate stage, it’s just impossible,” Bennett said of continuing to the Iowa caucuses. “Not being on the stage, probably means you’re doomed.”

‘You can’t take any of them for granted’:The voters who will sway 2020’s swing states

Only six candidates so far have qualified for the December debate, according to the Washington Post: former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Harris had qualified before she dropped out.

Candidates have until Dec. 12 to meet the qualifications, which include earning 4% or more support in at least four polls, or hitting 6% support in two early state polls. Those states include Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. Candidates must also get at least 200,000 unique donors to qualify for the debates.

Where things stand in the polls

Even as the field starts to thin, a handful of candidates have risen to the top of both national and early state polls.

Biden is leading the pack nationally, averaging about 27 percent in national polls, according to an average from RealClearPolitics. Sanders’ polling average is at 16.2 percent, followed by Warren at 14 percent. Buttigieg is the only other candidate with an average in the double digits, standing at 11.4 percent, according to the RealClearPolitics average.

But in Iowa, Buttigieg was at the top of the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll published last month, netting 25 percent support. Warren, who led the September poll, was at 16 percent in the November poll. Both Biden and Sanders were at 15 percent. 

The same four candidates are also on top of polling, in various orders, in the other early states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

But Masket warned that there was still time for another candidate to make a run at the top tier.

“There’s still time in the next two months for Buttigieg to fall, for another candidate to rise,” Masket said. “And maybe for that cycle to repeat itself several times, so I don’t know that … where the polls are today is a great indication of where they’re going to end up two months.”

Bennett said that John Kerry was “basically dead and buried in December of 2003” but went on to win the caucuses in 2004, which helped propel him to become the Democratic nominee.

Voters likely will continue to see polling shift in Iowa and elsewhere. In the past 10 contested caucuses, only three candidates who were leading polls in December have gone on to win Iowa, according to historic data from The Des Moines Register. Those candidates were Walter Mondale in 1984, Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.

An interactive guide:Who is running for president in 2020?

Bennett, who worked on several presidential campaigns, including Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark, noted that some candidates began seeing poll movement in December, including then-Sen. Barack Obama. Obama, who started gaining traction in late December both in Iowa and nationally, went on to win the Iowa caucuses in 2008 before becoming the party’s nominee and being elected president.

He noted it’s unclear what historical precedent will factor in during this election cycle.

“It’s very difficult to say whether candidates who have not yet made their move in the polls are hopeless, or whether they’re more, you know John Kerry types you can bolt from the back, just at the right moment,” Bennett said.

Westlake Legal Group  Who is in, who is out   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Megathread: Sen. Kamala Harris Drops Out Of Presidential Race

Westlake Legal Group M9aeiLFeQnuhtkax3OIzs6xgYaDOmUg5lNpTUp7QmMk Megathread: Sen. Kamala Harris Drops Out Of Presidential Race r/politics

Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California is ending her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Ms. Harris has informed staff and Democratic officials of her intent to drop out the presidential race, according to sources familiar with the matter, which comes after a upheaval among staff and disarray among her own allies.

Harris had qualified for the December debate but was in single digits in both national and early-state polls.

Harris, 55, a former prosecutor, entered the race in January.

Submissions that may interest you

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Loses Appeal on Deutsche Bank Subpoenas

Westlake Legal Group 03deutschetrump-facebookJumbo Trump Loses Appeal on Deutsche Bank Subpoenas United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Deutsche Bank AG Decisions and Verdicts Capital One Financial Corporation Banking and Financial Institutions

A federal appeals court said Tuesday that Deutsche Bank must turn over detailed documents about President Trump’s finances to two congressional committees, a ruling that will most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The decision was the latest victory for House Democrats investigating Mr. Trump and his businesses. And it put extensive information about Mr. Trump’s personal and business finances — which the president has spent years fighting to keep secret — one step closer to becoming public.

Democratic-controlled congressional committees issued subpoenas to two banks — Deutsche Bank, long Mr. Trump’s biggest lender, and Capital One — this year for financial records related to the president, his companies and his family. Mr. Trump sued the banks to block them from complying.

The court’s ruling comes at a perilous time for Mr. Trump, who is facing an unrelated impeachment inquiry in the Democrat-controlled House.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, said in a statement that “we are evaluating our next options including seeking review at the Supreme Court of the United States.” He called the congressional subpoenas “invalid as issued.”

Mr. Trump has seven days to seek a further delay from the high court before the banks must comply.

Mr. Trump, who broke with decades of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns during the 2016 campaign, has already turned to the Supreme Court in an effort to fend off other government investigations into his personal finances. Two other cases, involving the disclosure of his tax returns to the Manhattan district attorney and to a congressional committee, are awaiting action by the court.

But the requests for documents from Deutsche Bank are notable because of the breadth of financial information they could provide about Mr. Trump and his business dealings.

Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s main lender after a string of bankruptcies and loan defaults cost other banks hundreds of millions of dollars; over the past two decades, the German bank lent him and his companies a total of well over $2 billion. The bank’s files would most likely contain a rich trove of documents including details about how he made his money, who his partners have been, the terms of his extensive borrowings and other transactions.

The subpoenas, issued in April by the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees, sought nearly a decade’s worth of tax returns and other financial documents that the banks obtained from Mr. Trump, his family and his companies. The subpoenas also demanded information about any suspicious activities that Deutsche Bank detected in Mr. Trump’s accounts.

Investigators for the two committees are hoping the materials will shed light on any links Mr. Trump has had to foreign governments and whether he or his companies were involved in any illegal activity, such as money laundering for people overseas.

The committees have also said the information is important to their attempts to craft legislation. Mr. Trump’s lawyers have argued that the subpoenas served no legitimate legislative purpose and were overly broad. Spokesmen for the committees had no immediate comment on Tuesday.

The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit contained one caveat: The lower court must consider whether and how the banks disclose a limited set of sensitive personal information that would have no bearing on the government investigations. Such information could include checks that were written by Mr. Trump or his companies to cover employees’ medical expenses.

But, the court ruled, the presumption should be in favor of handing over more documents, not fewer. “Many documents facially appearing to reflect normal business dealings will therefore warrant disclosure for examination and analysis by skilled investigators assisting the committees to determine the effectiveness of current regulation and the possible need for improved legislation,” the court wrote.

The ruling concluded: “The committees’ interests in pursuing their constitutional legislative function is a far more significant public interest than whatever public interest inheres in avoiding the risk of a chief executive’s distraction arising from disclosure of documents reflecting his private financial transactions.”

The decision is the latest this year by a federal court to uphold the broad powers of Congress to investigate the president.

In two similar cases, the president has asked the Supreme Court to overrule lower courts and to block attempts to review his finances. Last month, the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay related to a subpoena that the House Oversight and Reform Committee issued in April. Mr. Trump has also filed a petition seeking review of a request from prosecutors in Manhattan who are seeking information from his accounting firm, Mazars USA.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Harris Dropping Out Of Presidential Race

Westlake Legal Group 5de6a67521000066df34ee22 Kamala Harris Dropping Out Of Presidential Race

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is dropping her presidential bid. She informed her staff on Tuesday.

Harris held a call with her team in Iowa on Tuesday, saying that she had made the decision because of financial struggles experienced by the campaign.

“I don’t think anyone on my team was expecting this,” said one staffer, who said they were completely shocked by the news. 

Harris will be going to New York City and Baltimore to inform staff there, and she intends to travel to the four early states where she has a campaign presence to be with her team there as well this week.

On Tuesday afternoon, Harris emailed her supporters that she was withdrawing from the presidential race: 

My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue.

I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign. And as the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete.

In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do.

So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret ― but also with deep gratitude ― that I am suspending my campaign today.

The news came just as a super PAC reserved airtime in Iowa for an ad blitz, set to begin on Tuesday, meant to bolster the candidate. Harris’ team had been upfront about its financial issues and had cut staff in New Hampshire in order to double down on the caucus state

Presidential hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to reporters after a town hall in Iowa, said he was disappointed the California senator had been forced out of the contest. 

“She’s a first-rate candidate and a real competitor and I have mixed emotions about it because she is really a solid, solid person and loaded with talent,” he said. 

Harris entered the race as a top-tier candidate, drawing more than 20,000 people to a kickoff rally in Oakland. She faced immediate progressive scrutiny of her record as a prosecutor in California. Throughout the campaign, she struggled to weave together her progressive positioning as a senator and presidential candidate with the more traditional stances she held during her decades as a prosecutor.

The high point of her campaign came during the first presidential debate, when she attacked Biden for his stance on desegregation efforts in the 1970s. She skyrocketed in the polls, but was unable to sustain her place in the field as the Biden campaign aggressively fought back.  

As her poll numbers began to sink in the late summer and early fall, her campaign announced a renewed focus on Iowa, ditching a previous strategy of focusing on her delegate-rich home state of California and heavily African-American South Carolina. 

Robillard reported from Mason City, Iowa. This is a breaking news story and will continue to be updated.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

2 School Shootings In Wisconsin In 2 Days

Westlake Legal Group 5de69f8921000066df34ee11 2 School Shootings In Wisconsin In 2 Days

An officer shot an armed student at a Wisconsin high school on Monday. It happened again on Tuesday, just 90 miles away.

Waukesha South High School went into lockdown Monday morning after an officer shot a 17-year-old student armed with a handgun, Waukesha Police Chief Russell Jack said.

According to Jack’s statement, a student reported to school officials that a classmate had a gun. When the school resource officer responded to the classroom, police say the armed student ignored commands to take his hands from his pockets. The student then allegedly removed a gun from his waistband and pointed it at the officer, who shot the student.

Both the officer and student have not been identified. The officer is an 11-year veteran of the department. The armed student was taken to a hospital and is in stable condition.

As classes at Waukesha South resumed Tuesday morning, another school shooting took place just 90 miles away at Oshkosh West High School.

Oshkosh police say the student was “armed with a weapon and confronted a school resource officer. The student and officer were both injured and transported to local hospitals.” Police later said the student was armed with a knife.

Student Dakota Meisel told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he heard people yelling and running, and what sounded like a gunshot.

“We all got into the part of the room, closed all the doors, turned off the lights, and sat in the back of the class room quiet and we contacted parents and siblings, and waited until told what to do,” he told the publication.

Police have not said whether the two shooting incidents are related.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sharon Osbourne on Gabrielle Union’s ‘AGT’ exit: ‘I didn’t get let go’

Former “America’s Got Talent” judge Sharon Osbourne is speaking out about the controversial exit of Gabrielle Union following reports that she faced racial discrimination on set.

The 67-year-old host spoke about the controversy as well as her experience on the competition show during Monday’s episode of “The Talk.”

Osbourne, who was a host on “AGT” from Seasons 2 through 7, noted that she left the show on her own in 2012.

“It’s hard,” she began. “Everybody’s experience on a show is different, and I was at that show for six years. I didn’t get let go. I left.”


Unlike Union, Osbourne noted that her problem with the position had nothing to do with the people behind the scenes of “AGT,” but rather its network, NBC.

Westlake Legal Group gabunion Sharon Osbourne on Gabrielle Union's 'AGT' exit: 'I didn't get let go' Tyler McCarthy fox-news/entertainment/genres/reality fox-news/entertainment/events/scandal fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 53c192f4-c4be-5ad7-9259-68befce5b87a

Gabrielle Union was let go from ‘America’s Got Talent’ ahead of its upcoming season. (Trae Patton/NBC)

“I left. And that’s the truth. I left because NBC, not because of the show. I had my own problems with the network. I don’t know about any of her concerns about the show,” she said of Union’s gripes with producers.

Osbourne continued: “Obviously, there wasn’t anybody of color on the panel when I was there. So, I honestly can’t say. But when I was there it was, you know, a great show to work on.”


“The crew and everybody was amazing to me, everybody, except the network,” Osbourne concluded.

NBC and the producers of “America’s Got Talent” previously released a joint statement in response to backlash from Union’s firing.

“We remain committed to ensuring a respectful workplace for all employees and take very seriously any questions about workplace culture,” the joint statement said. “We are working with Ms. Union through her representatives to hear more about her concerns, following which we will take whatever next steps may be appropriate.”

The message comes just days after Variety broke the news that Union was let go from the show after submitting complaints about the series reportedly fostering a toxic workplace.

Sources also told the outlet that Union was told that her rotating hairstyles were “too black” for the show’s audience.


Union, 47, reportedly complained to NBC’s human resources department about a joke made by “AGT” guest star Jay Leno that she found insensitive toward Asian communities.

After the news broke, Union took to Twitter to thank her fans for their support, saying: “So many tears, so much gratitude. THANK YOU! Just when you feel lost, adrift, alone… you got me up off the ground. Humbled and thankful, forever.”

Fox News’ Nate Dat contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group sharon-osbourne-getty Sharon Osbourne on Gabrielle Union's 'AGT' exit: 'I didn't get let go' Tyler McCarthy fox-news/entertainment/genres/reality fox-news/entertainment/events/scandal fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 53c192f4-c4be-5ad7-9259-68befce5b87a   Westlake Legal Group sharon-osbourne-getty Sharon Osbourne on Gabrielle Union's 'AGT' exit: 'I didn't get let go' Tyler McCarthy fox-news/entertainment/genres/reality fox-news/entertainment/events/scandal fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 53c192f4-c4be-5ad7-9259-68befce5b87a

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden Doubts Enthusiasm For Warren In Iowa: ‘Give Me A Break’

Westlake Legal Group 5de66dc01f0000f431df0448 Biden Doubts Enthusiasm For Warren In Iowa: ‘Give Me A Break’

Traveling through Iowa with Joe Biden, a reporter asserted that one of his rival contenders for the Democratic nomination, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, was enjoying enthusiasm in the early-voting state.

The former vice president scoffed.

“You don’t see that with Warren,” he shot back in the Monday exchange, according to The Wall Street Journal. “Stop kidding a kidder, OK? C’mon, man. Give me a break.”

While Biden is still leading the crowded pack of Democratic candidates nationally, he has struggled to resonate in Iowa. As of Sunday, the RealClear Politics polling average showed Biden with 16.3% of the Democratic vote in Iowa ― a dip of more than 1 percentage point from the previous month. Warren, who once dominated the state’s polls, remained slightly ahead of Biden with 17.7%, but her support has slipped 5 points in the previous month.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is on the rise in the state with 18.3% ― a 5-point increase from October. Meanwhile, Iowa front-runner Pete Buttigieg climbed to 24%.

The candidates have seen similar trajectories in New Hampshire, another early-voting state. But in Nevada and South Carolina, which also vote early in the primary cycle, Biden maintains a commanding lead over second-place Warren.

In his criticism Monday, Biden also took a swipe at Warren’s spending on advertising in Iowa. Warren’s spokesperson told HuffPost the “campaign is not on air” there, and ran no television ads during her 2018 Senate reelection.

Warren’s campaign hit back at Biden’s remarks on Monday night, tweeting that it had secured “2 million+ grassroots donations (and 90k+ selfies) for a candidate who’s never run for president before.” Warren, her campaign said, is “the fastest first-time presidential candidate ever to hit those milestones of grassroots enthusiasm.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com