WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has dismissed all impeachment charges against Homeland Security Secretary&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/alejandro-mayorkas">Alejandro Mayorkas</a>, ending the House Republican push to remove the Cabinet secretary from office over his handling of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-security-migrants-homeland-security-1c6e9f612dff721191c0254f980947a5">the U.S.-Mexico border</a>&nbsp;and ending his trial before arguments even began.

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?534981-1/senate-session&amp;live">Click here to watch a replay of the Senate</a>&nbsp;impeachment debate.

<a href="https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/01/Articles-of-Impeachment.pdf">Click here to read full</a>&nbsp;articles of impeachment against Sec. Mayorkas

Senators voted to dismiss both articles of impeachment and end the trial, with Democrats arguing that the articles were unconstitutional. The first article charged Mayorkas with “willful and systemic refusal to comply" with immigration law. The second article charged Mayorkas with a “breach of trust” for saying the border was secure. The votes were 51-48 and 51-49, both along party lines.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the House Republicans’ case failed to meet “the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors” and could set a dangerous precedent.

“For the sake of the Senate’s integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today’s charges,” said Schumer, D-N.Y., as he opened Wednesday’s session.

Senate Republicans had argued for a full impeachment trial after the House&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-mayorkas-impeachment-vote-border-security-80cbd5bbb8f512c6814f155f825a1214">narrowly voted</a>&nbsp;in February to impeach Mayorkas for his handling of the border, arguing in the two articles that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce immigration laws. The House vote was the first time in nearly 150 years that a Cabinet secretary was impeached.

An outright dismissal of House Republicans’ prosecution of Mayorkas, with no chance to argue the case, is an embarrassing defeat for House Republicans and embattled House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who made the impeachment a priority. And it is likely to resonate politically for both Republicans and Democrats in a presidential election year when border security has been a top issue.

Republicans argue that President Joe Biden has been weak on the border as arrests for illegal crossings skyrocketed to more than 2 million people during the last two years of his term, though they have fallen from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-crossings-mexico-biden-18ac91ef502e0c5433f74de6cc629b32">a record-high</a>&nbsp;of 250,000 in December amid heightened enforcement in Mexico. Democrats say that instead of impeaching Mayorkas, Republicans should have accepted a bipartisan Senate compromise aimed at reducing the number of migrants who come into the U.S. illegally.

House impeachment managers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/senate-mayorkas-impeachment-trial-border-security-63e9ec242ec8a2f0a95f84497c506e0d">delivered the charges to the Senate</a>&nbsp;on Tuesday, standing in the well of the Senate and reading them aloud to a captive audience of senators. But they did not get a chance to present the case before the Senate dismissed it.

Once the senators were sworn in on Wednesday, the chamber turned into the court of impeachment, with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington presiding. Murray is the president pro tempore of the Senate, or the senior-most member of the majority party who sits in for the vice president. Senators approached the front of the Senate in groups of four to sign an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/political-news-57ef0cdd29d9875b13713f4974eab9d5">oath book</a>&nbsp;that is stored in the National Archives.

Schumer then called for the votes to dismiss the trial after Republicans rejected a proposed agreement for Senate debate time and several votes on GOP objections. Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt said Democrats were “bulldozing 200 years of precedent" on impeachments by trying to dismiss the trial.

Angry Republicans called for several votes to delay the inevitable final outcome, but none of them passed as all Democrats and three Independents held together.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said “history will not judge this moment well.”

“This process must not be abused," McConnell said. "It must not be short-circuited."

Still, Republicans similarly moved to dismiss former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial in 2021, weeks after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/2021-united-states-capitol-riot">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the Capitol. All but five GOP senators — including McConnell — voted to end the trial, arguing it was unconstitutional because Trump had already left office.

As Johnson signed the articles Monday in preparation for sending them across the Capitol, he said Schumer should convene a trial to “hold those who engineered this crisis to full account.”

Schumer “is the only impediment to delivering accountability for the American people,” Johnson said. “Pursuant to the Constitution, the House demands a trial.”

Even if the Senate held a trial, Republicans would not be able to win the support of the two-thirds of the Senate that is needed to convict and remove Mayorkas from office — Democrats control the Senate, 51-49, and they appear to be united against the impeachment effort. Not one House Democrat supported it, either.

Mayorkas, who was in New York on Wednesday to launch a campaign for children’s online safety, reiterated that he’s focused on the work of his department. “The Senate is going to do what the Senate considers to be appropriate as that proceeds,” he said. “I am here in New York City on Wednesday morning fighting online sexual exploitation and abuse. I’m focused on our mission.”

Johnson delayed sending the articles to the Senate for weeks while both chambers finished work on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-shutdown-budget-speaker-johnson-85dc1e93f6c49c154c02a166d0e8e784">government funding</a>&nbsp;legislation and took a two-week recess. Johnson had said he would send them to the Senate last week, but he&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/mayorkas-impeachment-house-speaker-johnson-border-534cbf59e92c9cf141bba1ff38dc01cf">punted again</a>&nbsp;after Senate Republicans said they wanted more time to prepare.

At a hearing with Mayorkas on Tuesday about President Joe Biden's budget request for the department, some of the House impeachment managers previewed the arguments they would have made.

Tennessee Rep. Mark Green, the chairman of the House Homeland Security panel, told the secretary that he has a duty under the law to control and guard U.S. borders, and “during your three years as secretary, you have failed to fulfill this oath. You have refused to comply with the laws passed by Congress, and you have breached the public trust.”

Mayorkas defended the department's efforts but said the nation's immigration system is “fundamentally broken, and only Congress can fix it."

The impeachment trial is the third in five years. Democrats impeached President Donald Trump twice, once over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-politics-election-2020-d78192d45b176f73ad435ae9fb926ed3">his dealings with Ukraine</a>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-impeachment-vote-capitol-siege-0a6f2a348a6e43f27d5e1dc486027860">second time</a>&nbsp;in the days after the Capitol attack.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-ut-state-wire-acquittals-politics-93c85dcfb0e6b2185391965e77ebea51">Trump was acquitted</a>&nbsp;by the Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-siege-riots-trials-impeachments-b245b52fd7d4a079ae199c954baba452">both times</a>.

If the Senate had moved to a trial on Mayorkas, senators would have been forced to sit in their seats for the duration, maybe weeks, while the House impeachment managers and lawyers representing Mayorkas made their cases.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has voted to dismiss the first of two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/alejandro-mayorkas">Alejandro Mayorkas</a>, the first step in ending its trial on his handling of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-security-migrants-homeland-security-1c6e9f612dff721191c0254f980947a5">the U.S.-Mexico border</a>,

Democrats said the article, which charged Mayorkas with “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law,” is unconstitutional. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for a second vote that would dismiss the second article, which charges Mayorkas with a breach of trust over saying that the border was secure.

The vote to dismiss the first article was 51-48 along party lines, with Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voting “present.”

If the Senate votes to dismiss both articles, the trial will be over before arguments start. Schumer said the House Republicans' case fails to meet "the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors" and could set a dangerous precedent.

“For the sake of the Senate's integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today's charges,” said Schumer, D-N.Y., as he opened Wednesday's session.

The House&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-mayorkas-impeachment-vote-border-security-80cbd5bbb8f512c6814f155f825a1214">narrowly voted</a>&nbsp;in February to impeach Mayorkas for his handling of the border, arguing in the two articles that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce immigration laws. House impeachment managers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/senate-mayorkas-impeachment-trial-border-security-63e9ec242ec8a2f0a95f84497c506e0d">delivered the charges to the Senate</a>&nbsp;on Tuesday, standing in the well of the Senate and reading them aloud to a captive audience of senators.

An outright dismissal of House Republicans’ prosecution of Mayorkas, with no chance to argue the case, would be an embarrassing defeat for House Republicans and embattled House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who made the impeachment a priority. And it is likely to resonate politically for both Republicans and Democrats in a presidential election year when border security has been a top issue.

Schumer then called for the votes to dismiss the trial after Republicans rejected a proposed agreement for Senate debate time and several votes on GOP objections. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called for a delay in the proceedings while Republican senators huddled on the floor to discuss how to proceed and called for several votes to delay the final outcome. All the votes were party-line.

In any case, Republicans would not be able to win the support of the two-thirds of the Senate that is needed to convict and remove Mayorkas from office — Democrats control the Senate, 51-49, and they appear to be united against the impeachment effort. Not one House Democrat supported it, either.

While most Republicans oppose quick dismissal, some have hinted they could vote with Democrats.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said last week he wasn’t sure what he would do if there were a move to dismiss the trial. “I think it’s virtually certain that there will not be the conviction of someone when the constitutional test has not been met,” he said.

At the same time, Romney said he wants to at least express his view that “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the president and has not met the constitutional test of a high crime or misdemeanor.”

The two articles argue that Mayorkas not only refused to enforce existing law but also breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure. The House vote was the first time in nearly 150 years that a Cabinet secretary was impeached.

Since then, Johnson delayed sending the articles to the Senate for weeks while both chambers finished work on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-shutdown-budget-speaker-johnson-85dc1e93f6c49c154c02a166d0e8e784">government funding</a>&nbsp;legislation and took a two-week recess. Johnson had said he would send them to the Senate last week, but he&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/mayorkas-impeachment-house-speaker-johnson-border-534cbf59e92c9cf141bba1ff38dc01cf">punted again</a>&nbsp;after Senate Republicans said they wanted more time to prepare.

House impeachment managers previewed some of their arguments at a hearing with Mayorkas on Tuesday morning about President Joe Biden's budget request for the department.

Other impeachment managers are Michael McCaul of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ben Cline of Virginia, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Michael Guest of Mississippi, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Laurel Lee of Florida, August Plfuger of Texas and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

If Democrats were unable to dismiss or table both articles, they could follow the precedent of several impeachment trials for federal judges over the last century and hold a vote to create a trial committee that would investigate the charges. While there is sufficient precedent for this approach, Democrats may prefer to end the process completely, especially in a presidential election year when immigration and border security are top issues.

The impeachment trial is the third in five years. Democrats impeached President Donald Trump twice, once over&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-politics-election-2020-d78192d45b176f73ad435ae9fb926ed3">his dealings with Ukraine</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-impeachment-vote-capitol-siege-0a6f2a348a6e43f27d5e1dc486027860">a second time</a>&nbsp;in the days after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/2021-united-states-capitol-riot">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the Capitol.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-ut-state-wire-acquittals-politics-93c85dcfb0e6b2185391965e77ebea51">Trump was acquitted</a>&nbsp;by the Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-siege-riots-trials-impeachments-b245b52fd7d4a079ae199c954baba452">both times</a>.

At a trial, senators would be forced to sit in their seats for the duration, maybe weeks, while the House impeachment managers and lawyers representing Mayorkas make their cases. The Senate is allowed to call witnesses, as well, if it so decides, and it can ask questions of both sides after the opening arguments are finished.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Wednesday opened the impeachment trial of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/alejandro-mayorkas">Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas</a>&nbsp;over his handling of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-security-migrants-homeland-security-1c6e9f612dff721191c0254f980947a5">the U.S.-Mexico border</a>, swearing in senators as jurors while Democrats said they wanted to end the trial before arguments even begin.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that he will move to dismiss the trial, arguing that House Republicans' two impeachment articles “fail to meet the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors" and could set a dangerous precedent.

“For the sake of the Senate's integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today's charges,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said as he opened the Senate.

Now that the the senators are sworn in, the chamber has turned into the court of impeachment, with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington presiding. Murray is the president pro tempore of the Senate, or the senior-most member of the majority party who sits in for the vice president. Senators approached the front of the Senate in groups of four to sign an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/political-news-57ef0cdd29d9875b13713f4974eab9d5">oath book</a>&nbsp;that is stored in the National Archives.

The entire process could be done within hours. Schumer said he will seek an agreement from Republicans for a period of debate — an offer they are unlikely to accept — and then allow some Republican objections. He will them move to dismiss the trial and hold a vote.

To win that vote, Schumer will need the support of all of the Senate's Democrats and three independents.

If Democrats are unable to dismiss or table the articles, they could follow the precedent of several impeachment trials for federal judges over the last century and hold a vote to create a trial committee that would investigate the charges. While there is sufficient precedent for this approach, Democrats may prefer to end the process completely, especially in a presidential election year when immigration and border security are top issues.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats could end the impeachment trial of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/alejandro-mayorkas">Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas</a>&nbsp;on Wednesday before arguments even begin.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is expected to call votes to dismiss two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas after senators are sworn in as jurors midday, a move that could scuttle the trial and frustrate Republicans who have demanded that House prosecutors be able to make their case. Democrats appear to be united in opposition to moving forward.

The House&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-mayorkas-impeachment-vote-border-security-80cbd5bbb8f512c6814f155f825a1214">narrowly voted</a>&nbsp;in February to impeach Mayorkas for his handling of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-security-migrants-homeland-security-1c6e9f612dff721191c0254f980947a5">the U.S.-Mexico border</a>, arguing in the two articles that he “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce immigration laws. House impeachment managers appointed by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., delivered the charges to the Senate on Tuesday, standing in the well of the Senate and reading them aloud to a captive audience of senators.

The entire process could be done within hours on Wednesday. Majority Democrats have said the GOP case against Mayorkas doesn’t rise to the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/cc4471115abf4d7bad43e07cb64958d7">“high crimes and misdemeanors”</a>&nbsp;laid out as a bar for impeachment in the Constitution, and Schumer probably has enough votes to end the trial immediately if he decides to do so.

Schumer has said he wants to “address this issue as expeditiously as possible.”

“Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement,” Schumer said. “That would set a horrible precedent for the Congress.”

Mayorkas, who was in New York to launch a campaign for children’s online safety, reiterated that he’s focused on the work of his department. “The Senate is going to do what the Senate considers to be appropriate as that proceeds,” he said. “I am here in New York City on Wednesday morning fighting online sexual exploitation and abuse. I’m focused on our mission.”

Once the senators are sworn in on Wednesday, the chamber will turn into the court of impeachment, with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington presiding. Murray is the president pro tempore of the Senate, or the senior-most member of the majority party who sits in for the vice president.

Exactly how Democrats will proceed on Wednesday is still unclear. Impeachment rules generally allow the Senate majority to decide how to manage the trial, and Schumer has not said exactly what he will do.

Senate Republicans are likely to try to raise a series of objections if Schumer calls votes to dismiss or table. But ultimately they cannot block a dismissal if majority Democrats have the votes.

🎥 Despite effort of Kan. Senator historic impeachment ends with no trial

NEW YORK (AP) —Toronto Raptors player Jontay Porter was banned for life from the NBA on Wednesday after a league probe found he disclosed confidential information to sports bettors and wagered on games, even betting on the Raptors to lose.

Porter is the second person to be banned by Commissioner Adam Silver for violating league rules. The other was now-former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling in 2014, shortly after Silver took office.

In making the announcement, Silver called Porter's actions “blatant.”

“There is nothing more important than protecting the integrity of NBA competition for our fans, our teams and everyone associated with our sport, which is why Jontay Porter’s blatant violations of our gaming rules are being met with the most severe punishment,” Silver said.

The investigation started once the league learned from “licensed sports betting operators and an organization that monitors legal betting markets” about unusual gambling patterns surrounding Porter's performance in a game on March 20 against Sacramento. The league determined that Porter gave a bettor information about his own health status prior that game and said that another individual — known to be an NBA bettor — placed an $80,000 bet that Porter would not hit the numbers set for him in parlays through an online sports book. That bet would have won $1.1 million.

Porter took himself out of that game after less than three minutes, claiming illness, none of his stats meeting the totals set in the parlay. The $80,000 bet was frozen and not paid out, the league said, and the NBA started an investigation not long afterward.

“You don't want this for the kid, you don't want this for our team and we don't want this for our league, that's for sure," Raptors President Masai Ujiri said Wednesday in Toronto, speaking shortly before the NBA announced Porter's ban. “My first reaction is obviously surprise, because none of us, I don't think anybody, saw this coming.”

Later, after the NBA revealed the ban, the Raptors said they are "fully supportive of the league’s decision to ban Jontay Porter from the NBA and are grateful for the swift resolution to this investigation. We will continue to cooperate with all ongoing inquiries.”

The league has partnerships and other relationships with more than two dozen gaming companies, many of whom advertise during NBA games in a variety of ways. Silver himself has been a longtime proponent of legal sports wagering, but the league has very strict rules for players and employees regarding betting.

And what Porter was found to have done was in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states: “Any Player who, directly or indirectly, wagers money or anything of value on any game or event in the Association or in the NBA G League shall, on being charged with such wagering, be given an opportunity to answer such charges after due notice, and the decision of the Commissioner shall be final, binding, and conclusive and unappealable.”

Silver cautioned last week that this move was possible, saying what Porter was accused of represented “cardinal sin” in the NBA. Porter has not commented since the investigation began, and never played for the Raptors again — he was listed as out for all of Toronto's games for the remainder of the season citing personal reasons.

The league also determined that Porter — the brother of Denver Nuggets forward Michael Porter Jr. — placed at least 13 bets on NBA games using someone else's betting account. The bets ranged from $15 to $22,000; the total wagered was $54,094 and generated a payout of $76,059, or net winnings of $21,965.

Those wagers did not involve any game in which Porter played, the NBA said. But three of the wagers were multi-game parlays, including a bet where Porter — who was not playing in the games involved — wagered on the Raptors to lose. All three of those bets lost.

“While legal sports betting creates transparency that helps identify suspicious or abnormal activity, this matter also raises important issues about the sufficiency of the regulatory framework currently in place, including the types of bets offered on our games and players,” Silver said. "Working closely with all relevant stakeholders across the industry, we will continue to work diligently to safeguard our league and game.”

Porter was on what is called a two-way contract, meaning he could play for both the Raptors and their affiliate in the G League. His salary for this year was around $410,000; had the Raptors signed him to a standard NBA contract next season, as seemed possible, his salary would have exceeded $2 million.

The 24-year-old Porter averaged 4.4 points, 3.2 rebounds and 2.3 assists in 26 games, including five starts. He also played in 11 games for Memphis in the 2020-21 season.

ESPN first reported the investigation, which it said surrounded Porter’s performance in games on Jan. 26 and March 20. In both games, Porter played briefly before leaving citing injury or illness. Porter played 4 minutes, 24 seconds against the Los Angeles Clippers in the first of those games, then 2:43 against Sacramento in the second game.

In both of those games, Porter did not come close to hitting the prop-wager lines for points, rebounds and 3-pointers that bettors could play at some sportsbooks. For example, one set of prop wagers for Porter for the Clippers game was set at 5.5 points, 4.5 rebounds and 1.5 assists; he finished with no points, three rebounds and one assist. For the Kings game, they were around 7.5 points and 5.5 rebounds; Porter finished that game with no points and two rebounds.

The league said its probe “remains open and may result in further findings,” and that those findings are being shared with federal prosecutors.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713394692575.png" alt="&nbsp;Jontay Porter photo Toronto Raptors" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;Jontay Porter photo Toronto Raptors</figcaption>
 </figure>NEW YORK (AP) —Toronto Raptors player Jontay Porter was banned for life from the NBA on Wednesday after a league probe found he disclosed confidential information to sports bettors and wagered on games, even betting on the Raptors to lose.Porter is the second person to be banned by Commissioner Adam Silver for violating league rules. The other was now-former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling in 2014, shortly after Silver took office.In making the announcement, Silver called Porter's actions “blatant.”“There is nothing more important than protecting the integrity of NBA competition for our fans, our teams and everyone associated with our sport, which is why Jontay Porter’s blatant violations of our gaming rules are being met with the most severe punishment,” Silver said.The investigation started once the league learned from “licensed sports betting operators and an organization that monitors legal betting markets” about unusual gambling patterns surrounding Porter's performance in a game on March 20 against Sacramento. The league determined that Porter gave a bettor information about his own health status prior that game and said that another individual — known to be an NBA bettor — placed an $80,000 bet that Porter would not hit the numbers set for him in parlays through an online sports book. That bet would have won $1.1 million.Porter took himself out of that game after less than three minutes, claiming illness, none of his stats meeting the totals set in the parlay. The $80,000 bet was frozen and not paid out, the league said, and the NBA started an investigation not long afterward.“You don't want this for the kid, you don't want this for our team and we don't want this for our league, that's for sure," Raptors President Masai Ujiri said Wednesday in Toronto, speaking shortly before the NBA announced Porter's ban. “My first reaction is obviously surprise, because none of us, I don't think anybody, saw this coming.”Later, after the NBA revealed the ban, the Raptors said they are "fully supportive of the league’s decision to ban Jontay Porter from the NBA and are grateful for the swift resolution to this investigation. We will continue to cooperate with all ongoing inquiries.”The league has partnerships and other relationships with more than two dozen gaming companies, many of whom advertise during NBA games in a variety of ways. Silver himself has been a longtime proponent of legal sports wagering, but the league has very strict rules for players and employees regarding betting.And what Porter was found to have done was in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which states: “Any Player who, directly or indirectly, wagers money or anything of value on any game or event in the Association or in the NBA G League shall, on being charged with such wagering, be given an opportunity to answer such charges after due notice, and the decision of the Commissioner shall be final, binding, and conclusive and unappealable.”Silver cautioned last week that this move was possible, saying what Porter was accused of represented “cardinal sin” in the NBA. Porter has not commented since the investigation began, and never played for the Raptors again — he was listed as out for all of Toronto's games for the remainder of the season citing personal reasons.The league also determined that Porter — the brother of Denver Nuggets forward Michael Porter Jr. — placed at least 13 bets on NBA games using someone else's betting account. The bets ranged from $15 to $22,000; the total wagered was $54,094 and generated a payout of $76,059, or net winnings of $21,965.Those wagers did not involve any game in which Porter played, the NBA said. But three of the wagers were multi-game parlays, including a bet where Porter — who was not playing in the games involved — wagered on the Raptors to lose. All three of those bets lost.“While legal sports betting creates transparency that helps identify suspicious or abnormal activity, this matter also raises important issues about the sufficiency of the regulatory framework currently in place, including the types of bets offered on our games and players,” Silver said. "Working closely with all relevant stakeholders across the industry, we will continue to work diligently to safeguard our league and game.”Porter was on what is called a two-way contract, meaning he could play for both the Raptors and their affiliate in the G League. His salary for this year was around $410,000; had the Raptors signed him to a standard NBA contract next season, as seemed possible, his salary would have exceeded $2 million.The 24-year-old Porter averaged 4.4 points, 3.2 rebounds and 2.3 assists in 26 games, including five starts. He also played in 11 games for Memphis in the 2020-21 season.ESPN first reported the investigation, which it said surrounded Porter’s performance in games on Jan. 26 and March 20. In both games, Porter played briefly before leaving citing injury or illness. Porter played 4 minutes, 24 seconds against the Los Angeles Clippers in the first of those games, then 2:43 against Sacramento in the second game.In both of those games, Porter did not come close to hitting the prop-wager lines for points, rebounds and 3-pointers that bettors could play at some sportsbooks. For example, one set of prop wagers for Porter for the Clippers game was set at 5.5 points, 4.5 rebounds and 1.5 assists; he finished with no points, three rebounds and one assist. For the Kings game, they were around 7.5 points and 5.5 rebounds; Porter finished that game with no points and two rebounds.The league said its probe “remains open and may result in further findings,” and that those findings are being shared with federal prosecutors.

Banned for life: NBA player bet on his team to lose

&nbsp;WASHINGTON —As of April 15, the Center for Disease Control has received reports of 19 people in 9 states who experienced harmful reactions after receiving counterfeit botulinum toxin injections (commonly known as “botox”) or injections&nbsp;administered by unlicensed or untrained individuals and/or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes or spas, according to a statement from the agency.

·Nine people have been hospitalized and four were treated with botulism antitoxin because symptoms were consistent with possible spread of toxin. No deaths have been reported.&nbsp;

Many of the products being investigated are counterfeit or were administered in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, or by an unlicensed or untrained individual. Questions regarding product investigation should be directed to FDA.&nbsp;

The CDC, FDA, and state and local health departments are working together to investigate these reactions.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp; Only get injections of FDA-approved botulinum toxin from licensed and trained professionals in healthcare settings.&nbsp;&nbsp;

If you need an injection of botulinum toxin for a medical condition, your doctor will choose the safest dose.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

If you get an injection of botulinum toxin for cosmetic reasons, go to a licensed and trained professional and get the injection in a medical or licensed setting.

&nbsp;Your state might have a license look-up tool you can check to see if a provider or setting has the appropriate license.&nbsp;

Ask if the product is approved by FDA and obtained from a reliable source.&nbsp;&nbsp;If in doubt, don’t get the injection.&nbsp;

&nbsp;If you have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/symptoms.html" target="_blank">symptoms of botulism</a>, such as trouble swallowing or breathing, seek medical attention immediately. See a doctor or go to the emergency room.&nbsp;Do not wait.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;Some localized effects can be expected following botulinum toxin injection. Your provider will explain these to you.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;More concerning botulism symptoms might include double or blurred vision, drooping eyelids, slurred speech, difficulty swallowing, dry mouth, and difficulty breathing. These symptoms are typically followed by muscle weakness that progresses over hours to days.&nbsp;See a doctor or go to the emergency room right away if you experience these symptoms.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;Without treatment, botulism can lead to paralysis, respiratory failure, or death.  &nbsp;

If you have questions about cases call the statehealth department.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713382663849.png" alt="Counterfeit package FDA image" />
 <figcaption>Counterfeit package FDA image</figcaption>
 </figure>&nbsp;WASHINGTON —As of April 15, the Center for Disease Control has received reports of 19 people in 9 states who experienced harmful reactions after receiving counterfeit botulinum toxin injections (commonly known as “botox”) or injections&nbsp;administered by unlicensed or untrained individuals and/or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes or spas, according to a statement from the agency.·Nine people have been hospitalized and four were treated with botulism antitoxin because symptoms were consistent with possible spread of toxin. No deaths have been reported.&nbsp;Many of the products being investigated are counterfeit or were administered in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, or by an unlicensed or untrained individual. Questions regarding product investigation should be directed to FDA.&nbsp;The CDC, FDA, and state and local health departments are working together to investigate these reactions.&nbsp;&nbsp;What You Should Do:&nbsp;&nbsp; Only get injections of FDA-approved botulinum toxin from licensed and trained professionals in healthcare settings.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you need an injection of botulinum toxin for a medical condition, your doctor will choose the safest dose.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If you get an injection of botulinum toxin for cosmetic reasons, go to a licensed and trained professional and get the injection in a medical or licensed setting.&nbsp;Your state might have a license look-up tool you can check to see if a provider or setting has the appropriate license.&nbsp;Ask if the product is approved by FDA and obtained from a reliable source.&nbsp;&nbsp;If in doubt, don’t get the injection.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/symptoms.html" target="_blank">symptoms of botulism</a>, such as trouble swallowing or breathing, seek medical attention immediately. See a doctor or go to the emergency room.&nbsp;Do not wait.&nbsp;&nbsp;Symptoms of Botulism:&nbsp;&nbsp;Some localized effects can be expected following botulinum toxin injection. Your provider will explain these to you.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;More concerning botulism symptoms might include double or blurred vision, drooping eyelids, slurred speech, difficulty swallowing, dry mouth, and difficulty breathing. These symptoms are typically followed by muscle weakness that progresses over hours to days.&nbsp;See a doctor or go to the emergency room right away if you experience these symptoms.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Without treatment, botulism can lead to paralysis, respiratory failure, or death.  &nbsp;If you have questions about cases call the statehealth department.&nbsp;

CDC: Counterfeit botox linked to hospitalizations

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska lawmakers are set for the first time to pass a bill that would block the public from voting on a ballot measure initiated by citizens of the state, setting up what could be a long battle over whether to fund private school tuition with public dollars.

On Thursday, lawmakers will take a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/school-choice-nebraska-bill-ballot-1975555bf4ce97a602d77a2a910f7f6a">final vote</a>&nbsp;on a bill that would repeal a law passed last year to divert millions in income tax receipts to pay for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/private-school-scholarships-nebraska-taxpayers-c7be118aa5a43b3ebc2da82aacaa4e29">private school scholarships</a>. The bill would replace it with a measure that would directly fund private school tuition from state coffers. If it passes, it will effectively block voters from repealing the private school funding law that is set to appear on the November ballot following a successful&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tax-diversion-private-schools-nebraska-ballot-a4c033b5e004d1ef8f3f06214c519c21">petition drive</a>.

Retired Lincoln high school teacher Rita Bennett described lawmakers' plan to circumvent a vote of the people with one word.

The use of ballot initiatives has long been a source of pride not just for residents, but Nebraska's unique one-chamber, nonpartisan legislature. Lawmakers often refer to the state's residents as “the Nebraska Legislature's second house.”

It's why the move to “usurp the will of voters” is so audacious, said Bennett, a volunteer who collected petition signatures last summer to get the repeal question on the ballot.

For Gretna resident Angie Lauritsen — who collected signatures last summer at county fairs, on sidewalks and by knocking on doors — the issue is personal. Her son was rejected from a private preschool because he was born with a condition that left him nonverbal until he was nearly 4, but through public school, he was given a specialist at the age of 2 and is now a talkative and thriving teen, she said.

“It’s about taking away the right of the people to vote,” Lauritsen said, noting that many people who signed mentioned being related to a public school teacher. “This is personal for a lot of people, not just me.”

The new bill is an “end-run” around the ballot initiative, said State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the author of last year’s law, during a public hearing. But it also gives a choice to families whose public school is not serving them well. A large portion of the private school scholarships would go to students who are being bullied, foster kids and students with a parent serving active military duty or had a parent killed in the line of duty, she said.

“This isn't an anti-public schools bill,” she said recently during debate. “This is to give parents a choice. Why would we be against that?”

Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, testified against Linehan's new bill to directly fund private school tuition, saying he believes it violates the Nebraska Constitution's prohibition against appropriating public funds to nonpublic schools.

Opponents could try to launch another petition effort to ask voters to repeal the new bill this November, although they would have only weeks to gather enough signatures to meet a July deadline. Or they could sue, Schutz said.

“One line of argument is that it's an appropriation to students and their parents, not a direct appropriation to private schools,” Schutz said.

But because the money can only be used for private school tuition, it might be difficult to convince a court, he said.

Linehan floated another argument earlier this year to try to convince Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen to pull the repeal measure from the November ballot. Linehan held that the ballot initiative was unconstitutional because the state constitution places the power of taxation solely in the hands of the legislature.

Evnen ultimately found the ballot initiative to be legal, but acknowledged the issue was likely to be decided in court.

Asked whether the ballot initiative to repeal last year's private school tuition scholarship law would remain on the November ballot or be pulled from it if Linehan's new bill passes, Evnen's office said it is consulting with the Nebraska Attorney General to make that decision.

Were the measure to remain on the ballot, it could prove a humbling rebuke if voters decide against public money going to private schools. Lauritsen said a good portion of the signatures she collected came from those who said they supported Linehan's bill, but wanted to give “everybody a chance to vote on it.”

“At the end of the day, it’s an unprecedented use of legislation to cut off a referendum,” Schutz said. “It’s a politically difficult action to defend.”

Opponents of the bill say they're ready for another fight.

“I stand ready to do whatever is necessary,” Bennett said. “If it means I'm out collecting signatures all summer, that's where I'll be.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713364638261.jpeg" alt="John Heineman delivers a box of petition signatures from Support Our Schools Nebraska to the Nebraska Secretary of State, Aug. 30, 2023, in Lincoln, Neb. Nebraska lawmakers are set for the first time to pass a bill that would block the public from voting on a ballot measure initiated by citizens of the state, setting up what could be a long battle over whether to fund private school tuition with public dollars. (Justin Wan/Lincoln Journal Star via AP, File)" />
 <figcaption>John Heineman delivers a box of petition signatures from Support Our Schools Nebraska to the Nebraska Secretary of State, Aug. 30, 2023, in Lincoln, Neb. Nebraska lawmakers are set for the first time to pass a bill that would block the public from voting on a ballot measure initiated by citizens of the state, setting up what could be a long battle over whether to fund private school tuition with public dollars. (Justin Wan/Lincoln Journal Star via AP, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska lawmakers are set for the first time to pass a bill that would block the public from voting on a ballot measure initiated by citizens of the state, setting up what could be a long battle over whether to fund private school tuition with public dollars.On Thursday, lawmakers will take a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/school-choice-nebraska-bill-ballot-1975555bf4ce97a602d77a2a910f7f6a">final vote</a>&nbsp;on a bill that would repeal a law passed last year to divert millions in income tax receipts to pay for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/private-school-scholarships-nebraska-taxpayers-c7be118aa5a43b3ebc2da82aacaa4e29">private school scholarships</a>. The bill would replace it with a measure that would directly fund private school tuition from state coffers. If it passes, it will effectively block voters from repealing the private school funding law that is set to appear on the November ballot following a successful&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tax-diversion-private-schools-nebraska-ballot-a4c033b5e004d1ef8f3f06214c519c21">petition drive</a>.Retired Lincoln high school teacher Rita Bennett described lawmakers' plan to circumvent a vote of the people with one word.“Outrage,” Bennett said.The use of ballot initiatives has long been a source of pride not just for residents, but Nebraska's unique one-chamber, nonpartisan legislature. Lawmakers often refer to the state's residents as “the Nebraska Legislature's second house.”It's why the move to “usurp the will of voters” is so audacious, said Bennett, a volunteer who collected petition signatures last summer to get the repeal question on the ballot.“It's quite chilling," she said.For Gretna resident Angie Lauritsen — who collected signatures last summer at county fairs, on sidewalks and by knocking on doors — the issue is personal. Her son was rejected from a private preschool because he was born with a condition that left him nonverbal until he was nearly 4, but through public school, he was given a specialist at the age of 2 and is now a talkative and thriving teen, she said.“It’s about taking away the right of the people to vote,” Lauritsen said, noting that many people who signed mentioned being related to a public school teacher. “This is personal for a lot of people, not just me.”The new bill is an “end-run” around the ballot initiative, said State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the author of last year’s law, during a public hearing. But it also gives a choice to families whose public school is not serving them well. A large portion of the private school scholarships would go to students who are being bullied, foster kids and students with a parent serving active military duty or had a parent killed in the line of duty, she said.“This isn't an anti-public schools bill,” she said recently during debate. “This is to give parents a choice. Why would we be against that?”Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, testified against Linehan's new bill to directly fund private school tuition, saying he believes it violates the Nebraska Constitution's prohibition against appropriating public funds to nonpublic schools.Opponents could try to launch another petition effort to ask voters to repeal the new bill this November, although they would have only weeks to gather enough signatures to meet a July deadline. Or they could sue, Schutz said.“One line of argument is that it's an appropriation to students and their parents, not a direct appropriation to private schools,” Schutz said.But because the money can only be used for private school tuition, it might be difficult to convince a court, he said.Linehan floated another argument earlier this year to try to convince Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen to pull the repeal measure from the November ballot. Linehan held that the ballot initiative was unconstitutional because the state constitution places the power of taxation solely in the hands of the legislature.Evnen ultimately found the ballot initiative to be legal, but acknowledged the issue was likely to be decided in court.Asked whether the ballot initiative to repeal last year's private school tuition scholarship law would remain on the November ballot or be pulled from it if Linehan's new bill passes, Evnen's office said it is consulting with the Nebraska Attorney General to make that decision.Were the measure to remain on the ballot, it could prove a humbling rebuke if voters decide against public money going to private schools. Lauritsen said a good portion of the signatures she collected came from those who said they supported Linehan's bill, but wanted to give “everybody a chance to vote on it.”“At the end of the day, it’s an unprecedented use of legislation to cut off a referendum,” Schutz said. “It’s a politically difficult action to defend.”Opponents of the bill say they're ready for another fight.“I stand ready to do whatever is necessary,” Bennett said. “If it means I'm out collecting signatures all summer, that's where I'll be.”

The push for school choice in Nebraska is pitting lawmakers against their constituents

NEW YORK (AP) — Ford is recalling more than 456,000 Bronco Sport and Maverick vehicles due to a battery detection issue that can result in loss of drive power, increasing crash risks.

According to documents published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the body and power train control modules for these cars may fail to detect changes in battery charge. And when undetected, a low battery charge can cause an unexpected loss of drive power — including sudden stalling or inability to restart — and the use of other electric capabilities like hazard lights.

The recall covers about 403,000 model year 2021-2024 Bronco Sports produced between February 2020 and March 2024, as well as more than 53,000 model year 2022-2023 Mavericks manufactured from February 2021 to October 2022, a&nbsp;<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCLRPT-24V267-6161.PDF">recall report</a>&nbsp;dated Friday notes.

To remedy this issue, dealers will recalibrate the impacted vehicles' body and power train control modules at no cost. Owner notification letters are set to be mailed out on May 13, a Tuesday NHSTA recall acknowledgment&nbsp;<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCAK-24V267-7377.pdf">letter</a>&nbsp;notes.

Whether the remedy would be available before mid-May was not immediately clear. The Associated Press reached out to Ford for further information Wednesday, including the total number of any incidents reported to date.

As of February 8, Friday's recall report notes, Ford was not aware of any injuries tied to the issue — but the Dearborn, Michigan-based the company noted 917 related warranty reports, 11 field reports and 54 customer complaints. There were also two property damage claims and three unverified fire reports.

This isn't the only recall impacting Bronco Sport owners.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/investigation-ford-recall-gasoline-leak-bronco-sport-escape-da330635bdaa1663d9b8e4d689be4284">said last week that</a>&nbsp;it was investigating the remedy Ford had proposed after the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ford-recall-engine-compartment-fire-fuel-leak-a002bb4d939d59cab10136abbc471fbd">recall of nearly 43,000 select Bronco Sport and Escape SUVs</a>, in which gasoline can leak from the fuel injectors onto hot engine surfaces, increasing the risk of fires. The NHTSA said remedy did not include repairing the fuel leaks.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1675177408123.png" alt="Google image" />
 <figcaption>Google image</figcaption>
 </figure>NEW YORK (AP) — Ford is recalling more than 456,000 Bronco Sport and Maverick vehicles due to a battery detection issue that can result in loss of drive power, increasing crash risks.According to documents published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the body and power train control modules for these cars may fail to detect changes in battery charge. And when undetected, a low battery charge can cause an unexpected loss of drive power — including sudden stalling or inability to restart — and the use of other electric capabilities like hazard lights.The recall covers about 403,000 model year 2021-2024 Bronco Sports produced between February 2020 and March 2024, as well as more than 53,000 model year 2022-2023 Mavericks manufactured from February 2021 to October 2022, a&nbsp;<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCLRPT-24V267-6161.PDF">recall report</a>&nbsp;dated Friday notes.To remedy this issue, dealers will recalibrate the impacted vehicles' body and power train control modules at no cost. Owner notification letters are set to be mailed out on May 13, a Tuesday NHSTA recall acknowledgment&nbsp;<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCAK-24V267-7377.pdf">letter</a>&nbsp;notes.Whether the remedy would be available before mid-May was not immediately clear. The Associated Press reached out to Ford for further information Wednesday, including the total number of any incidents reported to date.As of February 8, Friday's recall report notes, Ford was not aware of any injuries tied to the issue — but the Dearborn, Michigan-based the company noted 917 related warranty reports, 11 field reports and 54 customer complaints. There were also two property damage claims and three unverified fire reports.This isn't the only recall impacting Bronco Sport owners.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/investigation-ford-recall-gasoline-leak-bronco-sport-escape-da330635bdaa1663d9b8e4d689be4284">said last week that</a>&nbsp;it was investigating the remedy Ford had proposed after the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ford-recall-engine-compartment-fire-fuel-leak-a002bb4d939d59cab10136abbc471fbd">recall of nearly 43,000 select Bronco Sport and Escape SUVs</a>, in which gasoline can leak from the fuel injectors onto hot engine surfaces, increasing the risk of fires. The NHTSA said remedy did not include repairing the fuel leaks.

Ford recalls Bronco Sport and Maverick vehicles due to loss of drive power risk

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/04/16/nu-partners-with-google-to-offer-career-certificates-to-students-alumni-and-all-nebraskans/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN —&nbsp;The University of Nebraska and Google are entering a new partnership designed to further Nebraskans’ education and support state workforce needs.

Interim NU President Chris Kabourek announced Tuesday that the university will soon offer&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://grow.google/certificates/">Google Career Certificates</a>&nbsp;in a variety of fields.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&amp;q=https://unomaha.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_37QYcgFNHNXVf8O&amp;ust=1713357180000000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3veBMEv1c7VLur2WtVc-eq&amp;hl=en&amp;source=gmail">Pre-registration for the programs</a>&nbsp;is open now on a first-come, first-served basis and will begin with the 2024-25 academic year. Three cycles will be offered — in August, December and April —&nbsp;with 2,500 seats available in each.

Kabourek said “it’s a win” when more education is brought directly to Nebraskans and students.

“As a native of rural Nebraska myself, I believe strongly that every Nebraskan should have access to quality, affordable educational opportunities no matter where they live or what their personal circumstances are,” Kabourek said in a statement.

The goal of the partnership is to provide opportunity, not make money, Kabourek added in a text. NU will retain all revenue raised through enrollment in the certificates, which will cover administrative costs and any associated technological needs.

Google experts teach the programs, which are vetted by leading employers. NU students, alumni and Nebraska residents can get a special first-year rate of $20 per enrollment.&nbsp;

Students learn at their own pace over three to six months of part-time study in multiple courses:

Advanced certifications are also available, tailored for learners with multiple years of experience or as a next step after completing an entry-level certificate:

U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., endorsed the partnership as providing affordable access to education and as “yet another pathway for Nebraskans to pursue their dreams and expand their career horizons.” He said he looks forward to seeing the positive impact it will have.

“Developing Nebraskans to take the jobs of the future is one of the cornerstones of growing Nebraska’s economy,” Flood said in a statement.

A 2023 report from the American Association of Colleges and Universities found that employers are generally in strong support of these “microcredentials.” In the report, two-thirds said they would prefer college graduates with microcredentials for entry-level positions.

More than 250,000 people in the United States have earned a Google certificate, 75% of whom had a positive career impact, such as a new job, promotion or raise, according to Google.

“We’re committed to investing in Nebraskans to ensure that they have the tech and other job ready skills to enter the workforce and reach their full economic potential,” said Lisa Gevelber, founder of Grow with Google.

Kabourek said the new partnership advances a 2022 legislative goal, which NU supported, to increase the percentage of Nebraskans with postsecondary credentials by 2030 to 70%.&nbsp;

State Sen. Lynne Walz of Fremont, who was then chair of the Legislature’s Education Committee, shepherded the 2022&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=47210">resolution&nbsp;</a><a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/107/PDF/CS/LR335.pdf">unanimously through her committee</a>&nbsp;and through the Legislature&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=8358">32-1</a>.

Tim Jares, dean of the University of Nebraska at Kearney’s College of Business and Technology, described the new partnership as “terrific” and said it adds to the work faculty are doing to support students and alumni “amplify their marketability.”

“From our perspective, the more opportunities for education we provide, the better,” Jares said. “I’m proud that the University of Nebraska is playing a leadership role in creating access for Nebraskans and growing a skilled workforce for our state.”

Other leading U.S. institutions already offer career certificates, including Syracuse University, the University of Texas system and two fellow Big Ten members —&nbsp;the University of California-Los Angeles and Rutgers.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713360511975.jpeg" alt=" The University of Nebraska announced Tuesday that the university will soon offer Google Career Certificates in a variety of fields. (Cindy Gonzalez/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption> The University of Nebraska announced Tuesday that the university will soon offer Google Career Certificates in a variety of fields. (Cindy Gonzalez/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/04/16/nu-partners-with-google-to-offer-career-certificates-to-students-alumni-and-all-nebraskans/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN —&nbsp;The University of Nebraska and Google are entering a new partnership designed to further Nebraskans’ education and support state workforce needs.Interim NU President Chris Kabourek announced Tuesday that the university will soon offer&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://grow.google/certificates/">Google Career Certificates</a>&nbsp;in a variety of fields.&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&amp;q=https://unomaha.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_37QYcgFNHNXVf8O&amp;ust=1713357180000000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3veBMEv1c7VLur2WtVc-eq&amp;hl=en&amp;source=gmail">Pre-registration for the programs</a>&nbsp;is open now on a first-come, first-served basis and will begin with the 2024-25 academic year. Three cycles will be offered — in August, December and April —&nbsp;with 2,500 seats available in each.Kabourek said “it’s a win” when more education is brought directly to Nebraskans and students.“As a native of rural Nebraska myself, I believe strongly that every Nebraskan should have access to quality, affordable educational opportunities no matter where they live or what their personal circumstances are,” Kabourek said in a statement.The goal of the partnership is to provide opportunity, not make money, Kabourek added in a text. NU will retain all revenue raised through enrollment in the certificates, which will cover administrative costs and any associated technological needs.<h2>Learn at their own pace</h2>Google experts teach the programs, which are vetted by leading employers. NU students, alumni and Nebraska residents can get a special first-year rate of $20 per enrollment.&nbsp;Students learn at their own pace over three to six months of part-time study in multiple courses:<ul>
 <li>Cybersecurity.</li><li>IT support.</li><li>Data analytics.</li><li>Digital marketing and e-commerce.</li><li>Project management.</li><li>User experience (UX) design.</li>
 </ul>Advanced certifications are also available, tailored for learners with multiple years of experience or as a next step after completing an entry-level certificate:<ul>
 <li>IT automation with python.</li><li>Advanced data analytics.</li><li>Business intelligence.</li>
 </ul>U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., endorsed the partnership as providing affordable access to education and as “yet another pathway for Nebraskans to pursue their dreams and expand their career horizons.” He said he looks forward to seeing the positive impact it will have.“Developing Nebraskans to take the jobs of the future is one of the cornerstones of growing Nebraska’s economy,” Flood said in a statement.A 2023 report from the American Association of Colleges and Universities found that employers are generally in strong support of these “microcredentials.” In the report, two-thirds said they would prefer college graduates with microcredentials for entry-level positions.More than 250,000 people in the United States have earned a Google certificate, 75% of whom had a positive career impact, such as a new job, promotion or raise, according to Google.“We’re committed to investing in Nebraskans to ensure that they have the tech and other job ready skills to enter the workforce and reach their full economic potential,” said Lisa Gevelber, founder of Grow with Google.<h2>More postsecondary credentials</h2>Kabourek said the new partnership advances a 2022 legislative goal, which NU supported, to increase the percentage of Nebraskans with postsecondary credentials by 2030 to 70%.&nbsp;State Sen. Lynne Walz of Fremont, who was then chair of the Legislature’s Education Committee, shepherded the 2022&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=47210">resolution&nbsp;</a><a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/107/PDF/CS/LR335.pdf">unanimously through her committee</a>&nbsp;and through the Legislature&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=8358">32-1</a>.Tim Jares, dean of the University of Nebraska at Kearney’s College of Business and Technology, described the new partnership as “terrific” and said it adds to the work faculty are doing to support students and alumni “amplify their marketability.”“From our perspective, the more opportunities for education we provide, the better,” Jares said. “I’m proud that the University of Nebraska is playing a leadership role in creating access for Nebraskans and growing a skilled workforce for our state.”Other leading U.S. institutions already offer career certificates, including Syracuse University, the University of Texas system and two fellow Big Ten members —&nbsp;the University of California-Los Angeles and Rutgers.

NU partners with Google to offer career certificates to students, alumni and all Nebraskans

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A two-week search for two missing Kansas women came to a fatal end last weekend when Oklahoma authorities confirmed the two were dead and announced the arrests of four people who allegedly belonged to an anti-government group that called themselves “God's Misfits.”

Veronica Butler, 27, and Jilian Kelley, 39, of Hugoton, Kansas, disappeared on March 30 while driving to pick up Butler's two children for a birthday party. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation confirmed on Tuesday that the bodies found in Texas County were those of the two women.

One of the suspects charged in the case is the children's grandmother, who authorities say was in a bitter custody dispute with Butler. The four face charges including murder and are expected to make their first court appearance Wednesday in Guymon, in the rural Oklahoma panhandle.

Here are some things to know about the case.

WHAT DO AUTHORITIES SAY HAPPENED ?

Investigators have been tight-lipped about the case since the car Kelley and Butler were riding in was found in a rural area of Texas County, which is along the border with Kansas. But arrest affidavits unsealed Monday painted a gruesome picture of the scene.

According to court records, blood was left on the road and Butler’s glasses were found near a broken hammer. A magazine for a pistol was inside Kelley’s purse but authorities disclosed they did not find any firearm.

Evidence suggests the killings were planned, according to the arrest affidavit, which states that Tifany Adams, the grandmother of Butler's children, had bought pre-paid “burner” cellphones and five stun guns. Her internet searches included inquiring about pain levels using the weapons, according to the affidavits.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation announced over the weekend that they had found two bodies, more than two weeks after the women disappeared. The state medical examiner's office has not yet released a report revealing how they were killed.

Investigators say Butler was involved in a custody fight with Adams and her son and was only allowed supervised visits with the children on Saturday. Kelley was authorized to supervise the visits, according to the affidavits.

Kelley was a pastor’s wife and mother of four. Her husband, Heath Kelley, was the pastor of First Christian Church in Hugoton. In recent months, he had accepted a new job with Willow Christian Church in Indianola, Nebraska, but hadn’t started there yet.

At Willow’s sister congregation, McCook Christian Church, Sunday’s service opened with news of the killings. “We had longed for a different outcome,” a pastor told the congregation during the service, which was posted on Facebook.

Messages left with several members of Butler’s family have not been returned

All four suspects are charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder. They are being held without bond at the Texas County Jail in Guymon.

In addition to Adams, 54, the others charged are Tad Cullum, 43; Cora Twombly, 44; and her husband Cole Twombly, 50, both of Texhoma, Oklahoma.

Court records on Tuesday did not indicate if any had attorneys who could speak on their behalf. Relatives of Tad Cullum and the Twomblys have not returned phone messages seeking comment. Tifany Adams’ stepmother, Elise Adams, said she had no information on the case.

According to a witness who spoke to OSBI investigators, all four suspects were part of “an anti-government group that had a religious affiliation,” according to the affidavit. OSBI investigators learned the group called themselves “God's Misfits” and held regular meetings at the home of the Twomblys and another couple.

Tifany Adams, who was involved in the custody dispute with Butler, is the current chair of the Cimarron County Republican Party, according to Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Nathan Dahm. Cimarron County is the westernmost county at the tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle with a population of fewer than 2,300 people.

Dahm said officials at the state party did not know Adams. He said given how rural the county is, “it could have been three people who showed up at the county convention and elected her.”

All four suspects were scheduled for an initial appearance Wednesday in Texas County District Court.

During an initial appearance in Oklahoma, a judge will typically review the formal charges and enter a not guilty plea on behalf of the defendant. The judge also will determine if the defendants have hired an attorney or will have a state-appointed attorney represent them and will schedule another court date for the defendants to appear.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713359723848.jpeg" alt="This combination photo shows Veronica Butler, left, and Jilian Kelley, right. On Saturday, April 13, 2024, Oklahoma authorities said they arrested and charged four people with murder and kidnapping over the weekend in connection with the disappearances of the two Oklahoma women. (Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation via AP, File)" />
 <figcaption>This combination photo shows Veronica Butler, left, and Jilian Kelley, right. On Saturday, April 13, 2024, Oklahoma authorities said they arrested and charged four people with murder and kidnapping over the weekend in connection with the disappearances of the two Oklahoma women. (Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation via AP, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A two-week search for two missing Kansas women came to a fatal end last weekend when Oklahoma authorities confirmed the two were dead and announced the arrests of four people who allegedly belonged to an anti-government group that called themselves “God's Misfits.”Veronica Butler, 27, and Jilian Kelley, 39, of Hugoton, Kansas, disappeared on March 30 while driving to pick up Butler's two children for a birthday party. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation confirmed on Tuesday that the bodies found in Texas County were those of the two women.One of the suspects charged in the case is the children's grandmother, who authorities say was in a bitter custody dispute with Butler. The four face charges including murder and are expected to make their first court appearance Wednesday in Guymon, in the rural Oklahoma panhandle.Here are some things to know about the case.WHAT DO AUTHORITIES SAY HAPPENED ?Investigators have been tight-lipped about the case since the car Kelley and Butler were riding in was found in a rural area of Texas County, which is along the border with Kansas. But arrest affidavits unsealed Monday painted a gruesome picture of the scene.According to court records, blood was left on the road and Butler’s glasses were found near a broken hammer. A magazine for a pistol was inside Kelley’s purse but authorities disclosed they did not find any firearm.Evidence suggests the killings were planned, according to the arrest affidavit, which states that Tifany Adams, the grandmother of Butler's children, had bought pre-paid “burner” cellphones and five stun guns. Her internet searches included inquiring about pain levels using the weapons, according to the affidavits.The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation announced over the weekend that they had found two bodies, more than two weeks after the women disappeared. The state medical examiner's office has not yet released a report revealing how they were killed.WHO WERE THE VICTIMS?Investigators say Butler was involved in a custody fight with Adams and her son and was only allowed supervised visits with the children on Saturday. Kelley was authorized to supervise the visits, according to the affidavits.Kelley was a pastor’s wife and mother of four. Her husband, Heath Kelley, was the pastor of First Christian Church in Hugoton. In recent months, he had accepted a new job with Willow Christian Church in Indianola, Nebraska, but hadn’t started there yet.At Willow’s sister congregation, McCook Christian Church, Sunday’s service opened with news of the killings. “We had longed for a different outcome,” a pastor told the congregation during the service, which was posted on Facebook.Messages left with several members of Butler’s family have not been returnedWHO ARE THE SUSPECTS?All four suspects are charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder. They are being held without bond at the Texas County Jail in Guymon.In addition to Adams, 54, the others charged are Tad Cullum, 43; Cora Twombly, 44; and her husband Cole Twombly, 50, both of Texhoma, Oklahoma.Court records on Tuesday did not indicate if any had attorneys who could speak on their behalf. Relatives of Tad Cullum and the Twomblys have not returned phone messages seeking comment. Tifany Adams’ stepmother, Elise Adams, said she had no information on the case.According to a witness who spoke to OSBI investigators, all four suspects were part of “an anti-government group that had a religious affiliation,” according to the affidavit. OSBI investigators learned the group called themselves “God's Misfits” and held regular meetings at the home of the Twomblys and another couple.Tifany Adams, who was involved in the custody dispute with Butler, is the current chair of the Cimarron County Republican Party, according to Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Nathan Dahm. Cimarron County is the westernmost county at the tip of the Oklahoma Panhandle with a population of fewer than 2,300 people.Dahm said officials at the state party did not know Adams. He said given how rural the county is, “it could have been three people who showed up at the county convention and elected her.”WHAT'S NEXT?All four suspects were scheduled for an initial appearance Wednesday in Texas County District Court.During an initial appearance in Oklahoma, a judge will typically review the formal charges and enter a not guilty plea on behalf of the defendant. The judge also will determine if the defendants have hired an attorney or will have a state-appointed attorney represent them and will schedule another court date for the defendants to appear.

How Kansas women's disappearance on a drive to pick up kids led to 4 arrests in Oklahoma

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether federal prosecutors went too far in bringing obstruction charges against hundreds of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/search?q=trump#nt=navsearch">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;faces the same charge for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-5572">Click here to listen</a> to the oral arguments

The justices heard arguments over the charge of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-jan-6-obstruction-charges-challenge-2c6205622672c65a4ce81b2ba4c8303c">obstruction of an official proceeding</a>&nbsp;in the case of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory</a>&nbsp;over Trump. Fischer is one of 330 people facing that charge, which stems from a law passed in the aftermath of the Enron financial scandal more than two decades ago.

It was not clear after more than 90 minutes of arguments precisely where the court would land, although conservative justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appeared most likely to side with Fischer, while liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor seemed more favorable to the Justice Department's position.

The former president and presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination is facing two charges in a separate case brought by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc">special counsel Jack Smith</a>&nbsp;in Washington that could be knocked out with a favorable ruling from the nation’s highest court. Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has “absolute immunity” from prosecution in that case, a proposition that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.

Smith has argued separately in the immunity case that the obstruction charges against Trump are valid no matter how the court decides Fischer's case. The first former U.S. president under indictment, Trump is on trial on hush money charges in New York and also has been charged with election interference in Georgia and with mishandling classified documents in Florida.

On Tuesday, some of the conservative justices said the law was so broad that it could be used against even peaceful protests and also questioned why the Justice Department has not brought charges under the provision in other violent protests.

Gorsuch appeared to be drawing on actual events when he asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether people could be charged with obstructing an official proceeding if they rose in protest inside the courtroom, heckled the president at the State of the Union or pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol complex to delay a vote in Congress.

Alito, suggesting the government's reading of the law is too broad, asked whether the charge could be applied to people who disrupted the day's court session by shouting “Keep the January 6 insurrectionists in jail or ”Free the January 6 patriots."

He hastened to add, “What happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious and I'm not equating this with that.”

The high court case focuses on whether the anti-obstruction provision of a law that was enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp. can be used against Jan. 6 defendants.

Lawyers for Fischer, the former North Cornwall Township police officer, argue that the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation. Until the Capitol riot, lawyer Jeffrey Green told the court on Fischer's behalf, the provision “had never been used to prosecute anything other than evidence tampering.”

But Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the other side is reading the law too narrowly, arguing it serves as a “classic catchall” designed to deal with the obstruction of an official proceeding. She said Fischer joined a “violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent the peaceful transition of power.”

The obstruction charge is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the violent insurrection. It carries a maximum prison term of 20 years, but Prelogar said the average term imposed so far is about two years.

Roughly 170 Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal is pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court rules against the Justice Department. They include&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-states-government-delaware-prisons-6057e74630701e1f77cf84aacbb3caaf">Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer</a>&nbsp;with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

While it’s not important to the Supreme Court case, the two sides present starkly differing accounts of Fischer’s actions on Jan. 6. Fischer's lawyers say he “was not part of the mob” that forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate chambers, noting that he entered the Capitol after Congress had recessed. The weight of the crowd pushed Fischer into a line of police inside, they said in a court filing.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia are among 23 Republican members of Congress who say the administration's use of the obstruction charge “presents an intolerable risk of politicized prosecutions. Only a clear rebuke from this Court will stop the madness.”

The Justice Department says Fischer can be heard on a video yelling “Charge!” before he pushed through a crowd and “crashed into the police line.” Prosecutors also cite text messages Fischer sent before Jan. 6 saying things might turn violent and social media posts after the riot in which he wrote, “we pushed police back about 25 feet.”

More than 1,350 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Approximately 1,000 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday is taking up the first of two cases that could affect the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. Hundreds of charges stemming from the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">Capitol riot</a>&nbsp;also are at stake.

The justices are hearing arguments over the charge of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-jan-6-obstruction-charges-challenge-2c6205622672c65a4ce81b2ba4c8303c">obstruction of an official proceeding</a>. That charge, stemming from a law passed in the aftermath of the Enron financial scandal more than two decades ago, has been brought against 330 people, according to the Justice Department. The court will consider whether it can be used against those who disrupted Congress’ certification of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory</a>&nbsp;over Trump.

The former president and presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination is facing two charges in the case brought by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc">special counsel Jack Smith</a>&nbsp;in Washington that could be knocked out with a favorable ruling from the nation's highest court. Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has “absolute immunity” from prosecution in the case, a proposition that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1614042711157.png" alt="Photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether federal prosecutors went too far in bringing obstruction charges against hundreds of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/search?q=trump#nt=navsearch">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;faces the same charge for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-5572">Click here to listen</a> to the oral argumentsThe justices heard arguments over the charge of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-jan-6-obstruction-charges-challenge-2c6205622672c65a4ce81b2ba4c8303c">obstruction of an official proceeding</a>&nbsp;in the case of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory</a>&nbsp;over Trump. Fischer is one of 330 people facing that charge, which stems from a law passed in the aftermath of the Enron financial scandal more than two decades ago.It was not clear after more than 90 minutes of arguments precisely where the court would land, although conservative justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appeared most likely to side with Fischer, while liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor seemed more favorable to the Justice Department's position.The former president and presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination is facing two charges in a separate case brought by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc">special counsel Jack Smith</a>&nbsp;in Washington that could be knocked out with a favorable ruling from the nation’s highest court. Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has “absolute immunity” from prosecution in that case, a proposition that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.Smith has argued separately in the immunity case that the obstruction charges against Trump are valid no matter how the court decides Fischer's case. The first former U.S. president under indictment, Trump is on trial on hush money charges in New York and also has been charged with election interference in Georgia and with mishandling classified documents in Florida.On Tuesday, some of the conservative justices said the law was so broad that it could be used against even peaceful protests and also questioned why the Justice Department has not brought charges under the provision in other violent protests.Gorsuch appeared to be drawing on actual events when he asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether people could be charged with obstructing an official proceeding if they rose in protest inside the courtroom, heckled the president at the State of the Union or pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol complex to delay a vote in Congress.Alito, suggesting the government's reading of the law is too broad, asked whether the charge could be applied to people who disrupted the day's court session by shouting “Keep the January 6 insurrectionists in jail or ”Free the January 6 patriots."He hastened to add, “What happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious and I'm not equating this with that.”The high court case focuses on whether the anti-obstruction provision of a law that was enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp. can be used against Jan. 6 defendants.Lawyers for Fischer, the former North Cornwall Township police officer, argue that the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation. Until the Capitol riot, lawyer Jeffrey Green told the court on Fischer's behalf, the provision “had never been used to prosecute anything other than evidence tampering.”But Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the other side is reading the law too narrowly, arguing it serves as a “classic catchall” designed to deal with the obstruction of an official proceeding. She said Fischer joined a “violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent the peaceful transition of power.”The obstruction charge is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the violent insurrection. It carries a maximum prison term of 20 years, but Prelogar said the average term imposed so far is about two years.Roughly 170 Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal is pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court rules against the Justice Department. They include&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-states-government-delaware-prisons-6057e74630701e1f77cf84aacbb3caaf">Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer</a>&nbsp;with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.While it’s not important to the Supreme Court case, the two sides present starkly differing accounts of Fischer’s actions on Jan. 6. Fischer's lawyers say he “was not part of the mob” that forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate chambers, noting that he entered the Capitol after Congress had recessed. The weight of the crowd pushed Fischer into a line of police inside, they said in a court filing.Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia are among 23 Republican members of Congress who say the administration's use of the obstruction charge “presents an intolerable risk of politicized prosecutions. Only a clear rebuke from this Court will stop the madness.”The Justice Department says Fischer can be heard on a video yelling “Charge!” before he pushed through a crowd and “crashed into the police line.” Prosecutors also cite text messages Fischer sent before Jan. 6 saying things might turn violent and social media posts after the riot in which he wrote, “we pushed police back about 25 feet.”More than 1,350 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Approximately 1,000 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial.-----------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday is taking up the first of two cases that could affect the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. Hundreds of charges stemming from the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">Capitol riot</a>&nbsp;also are at stake.The justices are hearing arguments over the charge of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-jan-6-obstruction-charges-challenge-2c6205622672c65a4ce81b2ba4c8303c">obstruction of an official proceeding</a>. That charge, stemming from a law passed in the aftermath of the Enron financial scandal more than two decades ago, has been brought against 330 people, according to the Justice Department. The court will consider whether it can be used against those who disrupted Congress’ certification of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory</a>&nbsp;over Trump.The former president and presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination is facing two charges in the case brought by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-indicted-jan-6-investigation-special-counsel-debb59bb7a4d9f93f7e2dace01feccdc">special counsel Jack Smith</a>&nbsp;in Washington that could be knocked out with a favorable ruling from the nation's highest court. Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has “absolute immunity” from prosecution in the case, a proposition that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.The first former U.S. president under indictment, Trump is on trial on hush money charges in New York and also has been charged with election interference in Georgia and with mishandling classified documents in Florida.In Tuesday's case, the court is hearing an appeal from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-siege-pennsylvania-lebanon-elections-6d2ee8d62956fbefb167e0c079192d9b">Joseph Fischer</a>, a former Pennsylvania police officer who has been indicted on seven counts, including obstruction, for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">a mob of Trump supporters</a>&nbsp;stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House. Lawyers for Fischer argue that the charge doesn't cover his conduct.The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection.Roughly 170 Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal is pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court rules against the Justice Department. That includes&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-states-government-delaware-prisons-6057e74630701e1f77cf84aacbb3caaf">Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer</a>&nbsp;with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.The high court case focuses on whether the anti-obstruction provision of a law that was enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp. can be used against Jan. 6 defendants.Fischer's lawyers argue that the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation. Until the Capitol riot, they told the court, every criminal case using the provision had involved allegations of destroying or otherwise manipulating records.But the administration says the other side is reading the law too narrowly, arguing it serves “as a catchall offense designed to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding,” including Fischer's “alleged conduct in joining a violent riot to disrupt the joint session of Congress certifying the presidential election results.”Smith has argued separately in the immunity case that the obstruction charges against Trump are valid, no matter the outcome of Fischer's case.Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.While it’s not important to the Supreme Court case, the two sides present starkly differing accounts of Fischer’s actions on Jan. 6. Fischer's lawyers say he “was not part of the mob” that forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate chambers, noting that he entered the Capitol after Congress had recessed. The weight of the crowd pushed Fischer into a line of police inside, they said in a court filing.Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia are among 23 Republican members of Congress who say the administration's use of the obstruction charge “presents an intolerable risk of politicized prosecutions. Only a clear rebuke from this Court will stop the madness.”The Justice Department says Fischer can be heard on a video yelling “Charge!” before he pushed through a crowd and “crashed into the police line.” Prosecutors also cite text messages Fischer sent before Jan. 6 saying things might turn violent and social media posts after the riot in which he wrote, “we pushed police back about 25 feet.”More than 1,350 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Approximately 1,000 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial.