Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar defended Major League Baseball’s decision to move its All-Star Game from Georgia over new voting laws by inaccurately saying that the new laws “will restrict people’s ability to vote.”
CNN host Jake Tapper asked Omar if she agreed with Democratic political activist Stacey Abrams, who expressed that while she “respected” boycotts, she did not want “to see Georgia families hurt by lost events and jobs.”
Tapper asked if Omar sided with Abrams, who thinks this decision will disproportionately hurt minorities, or if she sided with the MLB.
“We know that boycotts have allowed for justice to be delivered in many spaces,” Omar responded to Tapper. “The civil rights movement was rooted in boycotts. We know that, you know, apartheid ended in South Africa because of boycotts.”
“And so our hope is that this boycott will result in changes in the law because we understand that when you restrict people’s ability to vote, you create a democracy that isn’t fully functioning for all of us. If we are to continue to be a beacon of hope for all democracies around the world, we must stand our ground,” Omar concluded.
Tapper then noted that Georgia, even with the new voting laws, is still more open compared to other states such as New York that have fewer early voting options.
“Should every state be reexamining their voting laws?” Tapper asked.
“They certainly should be,” Omar said. “It is really important that every single state reexamine their voting laws and make sure that voting is accessible to everyone. It’s also going to be really important for us to continue to push H.R. 1, which makes it accessible nationwide and strengthens our democracy.”
Watch the interview here.
The MLB announced Friday that it would be moving the All Star Game out of Atlanta over Georgia’s new election law. Democrats have criticized the new laws, saying its comparable to Jim Crow laws. Former President Donald Trump has called for a boycott of the MLB in response.
Follow Annaliese Levy on Twitter @AnnalieseLevy
BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling
Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.
The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.
Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.
Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.
Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.
The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.
Trump vows to appeal the decision.
National Security6 days ago
Authorities catch Afghan national on terror watchlist at southern CA border
Israel5 days ago
Iran-backed Houthis recruiting ‘thousands’ of children after Oct 7 massacre
Immigration7 days ago
BREAKING: House votes to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas
China6 days ago
Hunter associate: China successfully attempted to ‘infiltrate and compromise’ Biden family and Obama White House