Search Results

From LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus of Palm Beach County The LGBTQ+ community has been fighting discrimination for years, but now more than ever our civil rights are under attack. And we know that once the trans community is gone, the rest of the LGBTQ+ community is next, despite making up 9.3 percent of the US population, according to a new  Gallup survey . We need to add your presence and your voice to our Pride Parade contingent as a demonstration of your support for our community, which is a core constituency of the Democratic Party. Last year, we voted for Kamala Harris and Democrats by  86 percent . Marching with us, our elected officials, and Democrats from around the County behind a Democratic banner sends a message as we struggle to keep Palm Beach County blue. We will gather from 9:45-10:15 on Sunday, March 30, on Lucerne between K & L Avenues, with a step off time of 11am, and a wrap up around noon. The parade route is the same as always — in downtown Lake Worth Beach west on Lucerne Ave., a quick turn on Dixie Highway, then east on Lake Ave., wrapping up in Bryant Park. We will not know our place in the parade lineup until that morning, but we generally are midway through, with a gathering spot around Lucerne Ave. and J St. To enter the festival in Bryant Park after the parade, you may get a ticket on eventeny. We would appreciate your participation with us — and bring some of your members! This is the year for a large crowd behind our banner. We already have commitments from several elected and party officials, including FDP Vice Chair Daniel Henry and FDP Treasurer Wes Hodge. I’m happy to provide more information, and we will add updates to our website,  pbclgbtqdems.org . Stephen Gaskill President LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus of Palm Beach County 202.257.9298 stephen@stephengaskill.com

Join an event. Many groups are organizing to publicly show how we feel about issues. We encourage you to check local ordinances, remain lawful, stay safe, and enjoy the camaraderie. 50501 Know Your Rights - ACLU Rallies Everywhere

It's easy to feel overwhelmed when thinking about the state of democracy. It needs our protection. A simple way to help is to download 5 calls , an app that describes issues and lists scripts for the day. It also displays telephone numbers for your lawmakers. It's a fun and feel-good way to use your voice. Try it now. It's free. Another way to learn about your elected officials, and what the government is doing is to visit USA.gov . It offers anything you would want to know. Join NCDC to learn more and live better.

City, county officials demonstrate in solidarity with hundreds just 4 miles from Mar-a-Lago About 400 supporters of Ukraine demonstrate Sunday at West Palm Beach's Great Lawn at 100 N. Clematis St. to encourage Floridians to lobby President Trump's administration to continue U.S. support for Ukraine against its Russian invaders. Close-up view of Ukraine supporters demonstrating Sunday at West Palm Beach's Great Lawn to encourage Floridians to lobby President Trump's administration to continue U.S. support for Ukraine against its Russian invaders. By PAUL BLYTHE West Palm Beach, sitting opposite of the so-called winter White House on the Intracoastal Waterway, took a stand in solidarity with Ukraine on Sunday evening -- one of the few Sundays of this administration so far that President Donald Trump was not at Mar-a-Lago. “On behalf of Mayor Keith James, welcome to the city of West Palm Beach once again,” Assistant City Administrator Armando Fana told the crowd of about 400 Ukrainians and Ukraine supporters gathered on the city’s Great Lawn at 100 N. Clematis St. for “Stand with Ukraine,” a three-hour rally of speeches and songs delivered in both Ukrainian and English on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “We’ve been hosting this event for a few years, and it keeps growing bigger. And we’re very proud and honored that the Ukrainian people here in this country and in this state have chosen West Palm Beach as a place to gather for independence and freedom.” Sponsored by Ukrainian Association of Florida Organized by the Ukrainian Association of Florida, the event featured speakers, displays and handout literature reminding those in the crowd of the horrors that Russia continues to inflict on the people of Ukraine. Not that most of the crowd needed a reminder. Some fled their homeland in 2022 when the invasion started or after Russia’s earlier occupation of Crimea. Others had friends and relatives who had been slain in the war or whose daily life still included bombs and shelling. But faced with a new Trump administration that appears intent on reversing American foreign policy in the war, the association’s speakers and literature were clearly focused on getting the public’s help in persuading the United States government to continue its military and diplomatic support for repelling the Russian aggressors. They encouraged Floridians to come to Ukraine’s aid by calling the state’s U.S. Sens. Rick Scott and Ashley Moody daily with messages such as, “I am dismayed at President Trump’s statements about Ukraine and his repetition of false information on Ukraine. Support for Ukraine is a top priority for me. Please make it a top priority for you too.” This comes about a week after Trump accused Ukraine of starting the war and called Ukraine President Volodymr Zelenskyy a dictator. He also started so-called “peace” negotiations with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin but excluded Zelenskyy from the talks. Trump comments fed by Russian lies Juliette Dryhyublka, Ukrainian Association of Florida communications officer Saying Trump’s recent comments and actions were heartbreaking for Ukranians, Juliette Dryhyublka , the association’s communications officer, compared Ukraine’s current status to a hypothetical one where the United States would be blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center “with the world blaming the victim and saying the victim can be blamed for being attacked. This is what Ukrainians are feeling while hearing all the statements fed by Russian propaganda and lies.” While the Ukrainian handout material and speakers focused their attacks on Russia and always remained respectful of the United States, American speakers at the event were not always so polite. “It is hard to understand some of the rhetoric that comes from certain people in my country,” Fana said with a pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, contra-Trump tone that was picked up and continued by the most of the night’s American speakers. “Let me be clear: The only dictator in this war is Vladimir Putin. (Applause.) The country that started this war is Russia. (Continuing applause.) All of us here, I’m sure, want peace, but peace has to be with justice. It has to be through strength. There has never been a time in history when peace comes through weakness and through kowtowing to dictatorships. Ukraine must be free. Ukraine needs to continue to fight as long as it can fight. The United States and its allies need to continue to support Ukraine, and the city of West Palm Beach will continue to host this event as long as it takes before Ukraine is a free, independent nation and doesn’t have to suffer this disgusting war that Russia has brought upon them.” (Thunderous applause.) 'Ukraine's fight is our fight' Palm Beach County Commissioner Gregg Weiss Palm Beach County Commissioner Gregg Weiss upped the ante. “I’m flat out pissed about the whisperers in Washington trying to trade Ukraine’s lifeline for mineral rights,” Weiss said in a reference to Trump and his administration’s pressure on Ukraine for its rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. support. “Ukraine isn’t some corporate deal to haggle over. Those soldiers, they aren’t bleeding out in the mud so we can get cheaper lithium. They are fighting for the same thing that our grandparents fought for. Freedom! And they’re dying for it.” Weiss, a Democrat, continued, “Ukraine’s fight is our fight. Every Russian tank that is blown to hell by Ukranian soldiers is one less tank that is going to thunder into Poland or the Baltics tomorrow. Every warship for Russia that is sent to the bottom of the Black Sea is a loud warning to anybody thinking about Taiwan. Ukraine isn’t just defending its own soil. It is holding up the whole damn system that has kept the world from spiraling into chaos since 1945.” Without mentioning Trump or the U.S. by name, Weiss also opposed a pending U.S. resolution before the United Nations that would urge an end of the war without naming Russia as the aggressor or acknowledging Ukraine’s territorial integrity. U.S. joins Russia, opposes Ukraine in U.N. vote “Then there’s the UN proposal that won’t even call Russia the bad guy. It’s not just spineless. It’s a green light for trouble,” he said. “Picture this. Think about after Pearl Harbor if the world started saying,  ‘Oh this is just tensions in the Pacific,’ instead of pointing at Japan and saying, ‘You did this.’ History is clear. Dancing around the truth simply emboldens these bullies and dictators.” (The day after the West Palm Beach event, the U.N. General Assembly rejected the U.S. motion even after several amendments were passed to strengthen the language against Russia and affirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Because of those amendments, the U.S. abstained from the vote on its own resolution. The General Assembly then passed a Ukrainian- and European-backed resolution that condemned Russia for its “full-scale invasion of Ukraine” and called for a de-escalation of hostilities by Russia. The U.S. joined Russia to vote against that resolution.) 'It is a genocidal war' John Vsetecka, professor of Ukrainian history at Nova University Without referring to the U.N. resolutions, John Vsetecka , a professor of Ukrainian history at Nova University in Fort Lauderdale who lived and worked in Ukraine, explained why condemnation of Russia is well-deserved and why American and world support for Ukraine is so important. “This war has been awful, and it’s not just a war,” he said. “It is a genocidal war… I research and write professionally about Ukraine. I write about the Holodomor, another genocidal act by Russia that it continues to deny (a famine orchestrated by the Soviet Union that killed millions of people in 1932-33)….Right now, Ukraine faces an extreme uphill battle. We are living in a new age of dictators. I should know. I study this for a living. We have to resist. Our politicians right now are banking on apathy. They want us to forget. They want us to get tired. They want us to lose the importance of Ukraine. But living and working in Ukraine for more than 10 years, what I know is that Ukrainians won’t settle for that. Ukrainians are leading the world to resistance. They have a military that is so capable of so many things, and we have so much to learn from them. I was just in Ukraine not too many months ago. I was in places like Bucha. I saw the aftermath of what genocide looks like. I’ve seen shelled houses. I’ve talked to families who have lost their children. I’ve talked to husbands who have lost their wives, and to wives who have lost their husbands. This is a historic moment. It is a time we have to grieve. We have to feel sorrow. But we also have to have hope – nadia.  We have to keep going.” Vsetecka then offered words of advice for how to keep going that seemed to apply to the fight ahead in the U.S. as well as the one in Ukraine. “What I want to encourage all of us to do is to make sure that we’re not apathetic. Do not obey in advance. Do not appease the politicians. Keep supporting Ukraine. Keep donating to the Ukranian army. Keep supporting them in whatever ways you can. I really hope that we are here next year to celebrate the end of the war, but if we have to be here again next year to support the ongoing war and our strength for Ukraine, then so be it, we’ll be here.” *** Images from 'Stand with Ukraine' rally Ukraine's national anthem, Russia isolated, #Call4Ukraine poster Home-made, heart-felt signs

Make the call to inform voters about renewing their mail ballots to elect our Democratic Candidates. Log on to Mobilize and begin making calls today.

Contact your North County Zone Leader Today If you are interested in being a leader in the party, becoming a Precinct Leader is one of the most effective ways you can help Democrats win elections. The core function of a Precinct Leader is to maximize Democratic turnout. But the job is much more than that….candidate support, voter registration, and the organizing of Democrats to rally action for important issues. ​ Contact your North County Zone Leader Today: ​ Zone 1 (Jupiter, Tequesta, Juno Beach) Reesa Levy: 917-952-0904 ( levyreesa@gmail.com ) Zone 2 (Palm Beach Gardens, North Palm Beach) Jessica Brason: 561-815-2881 ( j brason@gmail.com ) ​ Zone 3N (Lake Park,Riviera Beach, Palm Beach Shores) Maria Cole 561-704-4543 (drmccole@gmail.com) Responsibilities of Precinct Leaders​ ​ Contact voters in your precinct to Get-Out-The-Vote Encourage voters to Vote by Mail Build your Team of block workers and volunteers Represent your precinct at the monthly DEC meeting Use the Vote builder (VAN) system to contact voters Follow the schedule in your Precinct Manual and Precinct Leader Express emails for voter contact Register Voters ​CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE AND APPLY ​ *Increased Leadership Means Increased Voter Turnout*

By PAUL BLYTHE Two events of the last week should serve as a red-flag warning of how badly out-of-touch Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration are with the people of Florida – the Republicans as much as the Democrats – and how little DeSantis cares about the will of the people. You undoubtedly have already heard about the first event because it was like a rocket blast fired across the state: Late last Wednesday, DeSantis’ Department of Environmental Protection announced  on its website that it would hold simultaneous meetings on Tuesday in locations across the state to advance plans to change the unspoiled natural areas of nine state parks by adding hardscape recreational facilities. This included a golf course or golf courses at Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County. Holding the meetings simultaneously appeared to be at DeSantis’ direction tp get the plans approved before environmental opposition could form. The resulting outcry shows how badly DeSantis and DEP underestimated the breadth of Floridians’ love for their natural areas. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions opposing the changes, hundreds attended protests, at least four new Facebook groups dedicated to the protection of one park or another were created, Democratic politicians immediately blasted the plan and Republican lawmakers first denied prior knowledge of the plans, then also spoke in opposition. Facing immediate overwhelming opposition, the DEP posted over the weekend that the meetings would be postponed to a yet undetermined date. It looks like DeSantis lost a skirmish , but the war is far from over. Sort of reminds you of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, doesn’t it? Gov's other tell-tale action The other example of DeSantis’ complete and utter disregard for the will of the people is the governor’s appointment of former Broward County School Board member Daniel Foganholi to the state Board of Education  on Friday This didn’t receive nearly as much press coverage as the parks issue, but it didn’t fly completely under the media radar either. And it is every bit as revealing about DeSantis’ autocratic nature as the parks issue is. "Why?" you ask. "Who is this Foganholi guy?" Foganholi was on the Broward School Board because DeSantis appointed him – twice. Last Tuesday he lost his first election attempt to stay on the board. And he lost big-time. He came in third in a 3-person race, receiving only 20 percent of the vote. But that wasn’t his first loss in any Broward County race. Between his first and second school board appointments by DeSantis, he ran for the Coral Springs City Commission and lost. So, here is someone clearly rejected by voters of his community not once, but twice in one year. And what does DeSantis do? Would you believe he essentially gives Foganholi a promotion? On Friday, three days after the election, DeSantis rejects the will of the people of Broward and appoints Foganholi, a man with only an associate’s degree, to the State Board of Education. Pattern of behavior Nor is this the first time DeSantis has disregarded election results by either advancing the career of the loser he backed or by removing the winner he opposed . In 2022, Jared Smith, a Hillsborough County Circuit Judge ousted by voters after his controversial ruling in an abortion case, was appointed by DeSantis to fill a vacancy on the newly created 6th District Court of Appeal, based in Lakeland. Also in 2022, DeSantis removed Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren, a Democrat, from office after Warren said he wouldn’t pursue criminal charges against seekers or providers of abortion under a recently passed abortion ban, but before Warren’s office did any such thing. A U.S. appeals court ruled DeSantis acted wrongly in removing Warren but said it didn’t have the power to return Warren to office. Warren, who was previously twice-elected, is reseeking the seat. He won the Democratic primary on Aug. 20 and will face Republican Suzy Lopez , his replacement appointed by DeSantis, in the Nov. 5 election. DeSantis removed another elected Democratic state attorney in 2023: Monique Worrell , the chief prosecutor for Orange and Osceola counties. DeSantis’ office accused Worrell of failing to hold Keith Moses accountable for drug possession crimes he allegedly committed as a juvenile before she charged him as a 19-year-old with the murder of a TV reporter and a 9-year-old girl. Worrell, who has said DeSantis’ action was purely political, also is seeking her previous office in the Nov. 5 election. She will face Andrew Bain, who is the replacement appointed by DeSantis but is not affiliated with any political party, and Seth Hyman, who won the Republican nomination in the Aug. 20 primary. Time for change These are examples not just of how little DeSantis cares about what the voters of a county or a district want, but of how it is time to pop the Republican bubble that insulates Republican administrators and lawmakers in Tallahassee and Washingtion, D.C. from what people in places like the Treasure Coast and Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Orange and Osceola counties really care about. Have no doubt that DeSantis’ DEP knew ahead of time it would face significant opposition to the JD Park golf course plan. It had to have known because the plan failed so miserably the last time Republicans tried it  – in 2011  when former state Rep. Dan Rooney, R-West Palm Beach, pushed a bill, supported by then Gov. Rick Scott, that would have required the state Division of Recreation and Parks to hire a company that would work with Jack Nicklaus to build golf courses in state parks around the state, with Jonathan Dickinson being the only park mentioned specifically. The public backlash then was so bad that the bill was quickly withdrawn. Gayle Harrell, the Republican state representative for the district containing the park, also knew about the plan a year ago – at least according to a WPBF-Channel 25 news report . The West Palm Beach TV station reported this week that a DEP source said Harrell was asked by Folds of Honor, a non-profit that provides scholarships to the children of fallen or disable veterans, to sponsor a bill last year allowing three golf courses to be built at the park. Harrell told WPBF she declined, and she thought that was the end of it, but she said nothing of it publicly last year. Why did she keep the proposal secret? To protect her party? U.S. Rep. Brian Mast also says he was surprised by the announcement of the plan. But do we believe that a Republican congressman in a state and county thoroughly controlled by Republicans had really never heard anything of this plan until last week? And if that’s so, is that what we really need from a congressman who claims he’s a protector of his district’s natural resources? Or is it more of a reflection of the fact that Republicans in Florida have controlled the governor’s office and both chambers of the Legislature for so long (since 2000) that they think they can do whatever they want -- at least until they get smacked in the face with a reminder that there are still some issues where the will of the people matters. It's time for a change in Florida. Time to end one-party rule and bring back a bi-partisan government that is more responsive to the wants and needs of the people. Time to vote blue. *** Join the effort to save Jonathan Dickinson State Park. Protest at 2 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 27 at The Flagler of Stuart, 210 SW Flagler Ave., Stuart.

By Paul Blythe Evening rush-hour commuters leaving and returning to West Palm Beach Monday got a early, vivid reminder that one issue -- the right of women to control their own bodies -- will likely bring multitudes to Florida's polls in November. About 80 supporters of women's rights lined the south side of Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard in front of Target from 5-7 p.m. chanting with bullhorns and waving signs to tell drivers that Florida's 6-week abortion ban is tyranny and they need to vote Yes on Amendment 4 to reverse that ban. And the drivers were remarkably receptive. They honked, waved and gave thumbs up. Oh, one or two made rude gestures, but no one yelled a discouraging word, much less a profane one. Yes, many drivers ignored the crowd as they focused on getting home safely, but of the drivers who responded in any fashion, 99 percent were favorable. On the other side of Palm Beach Lakes, there were representatives of the opposing view -- a whole two of them -- with anti-abortion signs. 80-2. How's that for a margin of victory to aim for in November? DOBBS ANNIVERSARY The rally was held Monday because it is the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had made abortion legal in all U.S. states for the next 49 years. But with the Dobbs v. Jackson decision of 2022, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for states not only to regulate abortion as they pleased but to also enact major restrictions on other aspects of women's reproductive rights. The fallout included the decision of Florida's Republican-controlled government to ban all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy with very few exceptions for the health of the mother. That ban prompted a citizens' initiative that put a proposal on the Nov. 5, 2024 ballot that, if passed by at least 60 percent of voters, would amend the Florida Constitution to say, " No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion." DRAWS DEMOCRATS COUNTYWIDE Monday's rally, one of numerous Women's March Nation Day of Action events around the nation, was organized by Laura Lippo, a member of the North County Democratic Club of Palm Beach County, and it drew Democrats from throughout the county. Among them were candidates, such as Thomas Witkop, the Gen Z Democrat who is waging a strong fight to unseat Rep. Brian Mast, a Trump loyalist and MAGA extremist, from Florida's Congressional District 21, and Rachelle Litt, the former Palm Beach Gardens mayor who is the Democratic candidate for the state House District 94 seat being vacated by the term-limited Republican Rick Roth. Other Democratic notables included Rolando Barrero, a West Palm Beach multi-media artist and president of the Democratic Hispanic Caucus of Florida, and several board members of the North County Democratic Club. DRAWS MEDIA TOO WPTV-Channel 5 News and a Reuters News Service photographer covered the event. In a segment that aired both on Channel 5's 11 p.m. News and WFLX FOX29's 10 p.m. News, Lippo, when asked about the importance of the rally getting out the word that the abortion issue is on the Nov. 5 ballot in Florida, looked into the camera and said, "That's the most important thing right now because a lot of people don't realize there is a strict six-week ban her in Florida and that they have the opportunity to change that by voting yes on Amendment 4." SCENES FROM THE RALLY MORE ON THE RALLY Join the June 24 "Yes on 4" rally

Join us MONDAY, JUNE 24  in the fight for reproductive rights in Florida as we supporters of women’s healthcare take to the streets in West Palm Beach to rally for the “Yes on 4” ballot initiative. WHAT’S THIS ALL ABOUT?  Florida's Amendment 4 ballot initiative. If passed by voters on Nov. 4, it will add an amendment to the state constitution that will reverse the devastating vote by Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature to ban abortions in the state after the 6th week of pregnancy.  The ban, passed in 2023 and implemented May 1, 2024, is one of the harshest in the country because it leaves very few exceptions for the health of the mother and requires a 24-hour waiting period at a time that most women do not even know that they are pregnant. WHAT’S OUR GOAL? “We have a real opportunity to make swift change here in Florida,” Laura Lippo, the organizer of the demonstration said. “The choice is now in the voters’ hands, and they have the power to reverse Florida’s antiquated law. “The main goal of the rally is to excite and inform the voters. The people of Florida don’t even know what the laws are and that they have the power to change them. This is how we reach them.” WHERE WILL THE DEMONSTRATION BE HELD?  In front of the Target at 1760 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard in West Palm Beach. WHEN:  5 p.m.-7 p.m., Monday, June 24 WHY JUNE 24? It is the 2-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling that had made the choice of abortion a constitutional right for all American women for 49 years. WHEN DOES FLORIDA VOTE ON AMENDMENT 4?  The amendment is on this year’s Nov. 4 ballot, meaning you can vote that day or earlier by vote-by-mail or at early-voting sites. WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT NEED TO PASS?  A YES vote from at least 60 percent of Florida’s voters. FOR MORE INFO: Email Laura Lippo at l.dean.vec@gmail.com . *** The overturning of Roe was big, but it's only a part of the madness being instigated in this country right now by those who want to consolidate their power, control our bodies and silence our voices . Let's show them with our signs, our voices and our votes that we are bigger. Let's make this Day of Action happen in West Palm Beach. SIGN UP HERE:  National Day of Action in West Palm Beach | Women's March (womensmarch.com)

By Paul Blythe Usually a reductio ad absurdum argument is made in an attempt to refute a claim by extending the claim to the point of absurdity. But Donald Trump’s lawyer’s claim that Trump has complete immunity from criminal prosecution for his official actions while he was president is the first time I’ve heard someone try to defend a claim all the way to point of absurdity. John Sauer, attorney for the former president, argued Thursday before the U.S. Supreme Court that Trump, or any former president, has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he is first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. That’s unclear and seems ridiculous, and it's not even the absurd part. The absurdity is that Sauer argued that the only official actions for which a president can be held criminally responsible after being impeached and convicted are for violating those laws where Congress, in writing the law, clearly and explicitly said this law applies to the President of the United States. If it’s a law like fraud, or even murder, that applies to everyone else in the nation, and yet it doesn’t mention that, hey, by the way, this law also applies to the President of the United States of America, then the president has absolute immunity from being criminally prosecuted for breaking that law, according to Sauer. Of course, isn’t that the way of the political right these days? Extremism to the point of absurdity all of the time. And of course, none of the Supreme Court justices went so far as to clearly and explicitly say that Sauer's reading of the executive powers of the president is absurd, although three or four of them -- all the women -- seriously questioned Sauer’s “novel theory,” as it was called by Sauer’s adversary, Michael Dreeben, the attorney representing U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith before the Supreme Court. Now, most legalese sounds forbidding, supercilious and confusing to us non-lawyers, but it doesn’t take a lawyer to see the difference here between Trump’s attorney and the government’s. The first is a hired gun willing to make up any nonsense to try to persuade the justices to dismantle or at least slow down Jack Smith’s election-interference case against Trump by expunging all charges based on Trump’s official acts from the indictment. He would have asked for charges based on private actions to be dropped too, except that even he had to admit there is no immunity for the illegal private acts of a president. The other lawyer, Dreeben, is a longtime civil servant who presents a logical argument based on Americans’ common understanding of our history and civics, with comments such as “The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain.” Dreeben clearly came across as the more sensible of the two on Thursday, but you don’t have to take my word for it. From the 177-page transcript of the lawyers’ oral arguments posted on the Supreme Court of the United States website , here are both attorneys’ opening statements and selected responses to the justices’ questions as well as selected comments from the justices:   JOHN SAUER, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP, PETITIONER OPENING STATEMENT MR. SAUER: “Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. The Framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president's decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the Court's decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. The original meaning of the Executive Vesting Clause, the Framers' understanding and intent, an unbroken historical tradition spanning 200 years, and policy considerations rooted in the separation of powers all counsel against it. I welcome the Court's questions.”   MICHAEL DREEBEN, ATTORNEY FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL, RESPONDENT OPENING STATEMENT MR. DREEBEN: “Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: This Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts, unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. Here, the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for Petitioner's alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. That is a compelling public interest. In response, Petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. But established legal safeguards provide layers of protections, with the Article III courts providing the ultimate check. The existing system is a carefully balanced framework. It protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. That has been the understanding of every president from the framing through Watergate and up to today. This Court should preserve it. I welcome the Court's questions.” WHAT’S AT STAKE Just from the opening statements alone, it is clear that the aim of the lawyer for Trump is to expand the imperial power of the presidency with unchecked immunity while the lawyer for the Department argues for maintaining the traditional checks and balances as they exist. Embedded in that debate is the more immediate question of what to do about Trump: A ruling for the right not only could help Trump’s election chances but could pave the way for him to become an absolute tyrant if elected. A ruling for the left simply leaves open the possibility that Trump goes to trial for his actions in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, although even that would not be guaranteed because the Supreme Court’s slowness in scheduling Thursday’s arguments could well delay the scheduling of any remaining trial until after the 2024 election. And the questions and comments of the justices Thursday not only reaffirmed the deep divide between court’s conservatives and liberals on what type of government the country should have, but they also made it clear that Democrats must win elections at all levels this year -- the presidency, Congress and state legislatures -- if democracy as we have known it, the democracy of Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and LBJ, is to persevere. THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES Most of the six justices appointed by Republican presidents appeared to accept Sauer’s premise that blanket immunity for official acts is necessary for a president to do his job and is essentially inherent in the Constitution, with their questions focusing mostly on how to apply his theory. More striking, however, was that even though the appeal seeking immunity for Trump stemmed from the insurrection and election interference case brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith, the majority of the conservative justices did not want the lawyers to address how presidential immunity would affect the Trump case. Instead, they focused their questions on how presidential immunity might affect hypothetical cases for future presidents. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were both explicit in saying they were not focused on the “here and now of this case,” with Gorsuch saying it twice: “And, again, I'm not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.” Justice Samuel Alito also said, “I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case,” but in the same breath he still asked a detailed question about the charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States that is being applied in the case against Trump. Of all the Republican-appointed justices, Alito asked the most probing questions of Dreeben about the special counsel’s position that presidents do not have blanket immunity from criminal prosecutions, and in at least one round he may have gotten more than he bargained for: ALITO: “Mr. Dreeben, you dispute the proposition that a former president has some form of immunity.” DREEBEN: “Mm-hmm.” ALITO: “But, as I understand your argument, you do recognize that a former president has a form of special protection, namely, that statutes that are applicable to everybody must be interpreted differently under some circumstances when they are applied to a former president. Isn't that true?” DREEBEN: “It is true because, Justice Alito, of the general principle that courts construe statutes to avoid serious constitutional questions. And that has been the longstanding practice of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.” ALITO: “All right. So this is more, I think, than just a quarrel about terminology, whether what the former president gets is some form of immunity or some form of special protection…. If it's just a form of special protection -- in other words, statutes will be interpreted differently as applied to a former president -- then that is something that has to be litigated at trial. The former president can make a motion to dismiss and may cite OLC opinions, and the district court may say: Well, that's fine, I'm not bound by OLC and I interpret it differently, so let's go to trial. And then there has to be a trial, and that may involve great expense and it may take up a lot of time, and during the trial, the -- the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in. And then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury and how the jury returns a verdict, and then it has to be taken up on appeal. So the protection is greatly diluted if it takes the form that you have proposed. Now why is that better?” DREEBEN: "It's better because it's more balanced. The blanket immunity that Petitioner is arguing for just means that criminal prosecution is off the table, unless he says that impeachment and conviction have occurred. Those are political remedies that are extremely difficult to achieve. In a case where the conduct, misconduct, occurs close to the end of a president's term, Congress is unlikely to crank up the machinery to do it, and if the impeachment trial has to occur after the President has left office, there's an open question about whether that can happen at all.” Dreeben responded with a similarly well-placed hit when Chief Justice John Roberts pitched him a question about his defense of the appellate court’s denial of Trump’s petition for presidential immunity, which is what led the case to being appealed to the Supreme Court in the first place. ROBERTS: “What concerns me is, as you know, the court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we're talking about or what documents we're talking about because of its adoption of what you termed, and I agreed quite correctly, is a tautological statement. Because the fact of prosecution was enough, enough to take away any official immunity…they had no need to look at what courts normally look at when you're talking about a privilege or immunity question.” DREEBEN: Well, I think I would take issue, Mr. Chief Justice, with the idea of taking away  immunity. There is no immunity that is in the Constitution, unless this Court creates it today. There certainly is no textual immunity…. But what is important is that no public official has ever had the kind of absolute criminal immunity that my friend (Sauer) speaks of, even with respect to the Speech or Debate Clause (a clause in the Constitution that prohibits the arrest of Senators and Representatives of Congress while their chamber is in session and they are in attendance) …. Nothing like that ended up in the Constitution for the presidents, and that's because one of the chief concerns of the Framers was the risk of presidential misconduct. They labored over this. They adopted an impeachment structure that separated removal from office as a political remedy from criminal prosecution. This departed from the British model. The British model was you get impeached and criminally prosecuted and convicted in the same proceeding. The Framers did not want that. They wanted a political remedy in case a president was engaging in conduct that endangered the nation. He could be removed. He can't be prosecuted while he's a sitting president. That's been the longstanding Justice Department position.” That’s four of the Republican-appointed justices. And then there is Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, participated in the effort to overthrow the 2020 election. He didn’t do much Thursday – just played his traditional role of asking the first question of the lawyers in argument – but why was he even in court? Why hasn’t he recused himself? Why hasn’t Roberts objected to his presence?   THE OTHER SIDE JUSTICE JACKSON The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents, and to some extent Justice Amy Coney Barrett, questioned all of Sauer’s premises, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a President Biden appointee, providing the most vigorous challenges by striking at the very core of Sauer’s claims. In one sequence, Jackson barraged Sauer with a series of questions casting doubt on his and the conservative justices’ assumption that a president needs absolute criminal immunity just to allow him to do his job without inhibition. “Why is it as a matter of theory … that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts? Everyone else -- everyone else, there are lots of folks who have very high-powered jobs, who make a lot of consequential decisions, and they do so against the backdrop of potential criminal prosecution if they should break the law in that capacity.” “But … if there's no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?” "You seem to be worried about the president being chilled. I think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the -- the -- the -- the seat of criminal activity in this country.” “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office? It's right now the fact that we're having this debate because OLC has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that's a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I'm envisioning. But, once we say no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I'm worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he's in office.” “I had one more question. Yeah. So what is the argument that the president of the United States, who you say is bound by the law, is not on notice that he has to do his job consistent with the law? I mean, to the extent that the clear statement rule comes in at all, it's about the person not being on notice. So I -- I guess I don't understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say ‘and the president is included.’ I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they're enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the president just like everyone else. So what is the clear statement that would have to be made in this context?” Sauer responded with a lot of “I respectfully disagrees” or by referencing previous historic decisions, such as Nixon vs. Fitzgerald, a case that found the president had absolute immunity from personal damage liability for official presidential acts, but which Jackson reminded him was all about civil liability, not criminal liability. And to the last question about the “clear statement” rule, Sauer answered, “Congress has to speak clearly before it interferes with the president’s powers, and we have here an indictment that seeks to criminalize objective conduct that falls within the heartland of core executive authority.” But Dreeben, under questioning from Alito, later disputed the idea that the charges against Trump in the election-interference case have anything to do with the president’s core executive authority. “As applied to this case, the president has no functions with respect to the certification of the winner of the presidential election,” Dreeben said. “It seems likely that the Framers designed the Constitution that way because, at the time of the founding, presidents had no two-term limit. They could run again and again and were expected, potentially, to want to do that. So the potential for self-interest would explain why the states conduct the elections. They send electors to certify who won those elections and to provide votes. And then Congress in a joint -- extraordinary joint session certifies the vote. And the president doesn't have an official role in that proceeding.” All of which is to say that Trump’s alleged use of fraud to overturn the election was not an official act, but a private act for his personal benefit, and thus is an alleged crime for which he should not have any immunity. JUSTICES KAGAN AND SOTOMAYOR   Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both appointees of President Obama, disputed another of Sauer’s principal claims -- that blanket presidential immunity was inherent in the Constitution -- by pointing out that founders nowhere explicitly said in the Constitution that the president is immune from criminal prosecution. During one of the several times Sauer was extolling the wisdom of the Framers for being more concerned about the risk of factional strife than that of a president escaping criminal prosecution, Kagan bluntly said, “The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president. And, you know, not so surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” Sauer responded weakly, “They did put an immunity clause in in a sense. They put in the Executive Vesting Clause, which was originally understood to … adopt a broad immunity principle that's set forth in the very broad language of Marbury against Madison. And also, they did discuss and consider what would be the checks on the presidency. And they did not say, oh, we need to have criminal prosecution.” Kagan then went on the offensive: “Does it strike you as odd that your understanding of immunity goes way beyond what OLC (Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel) has ever claimed for the former president?” SAUER: “I view the OLC opinions here as strongly supporting us because anytime a congressional statute basically got anywhere near touching the president's prerogatives, they've said, oh, we're going to interpret the statute narrowly to avoid that.….” KAGAN: “Well, that's a different question. I mean, what OLC has always said is that sitting presidents get immunity, but former presidents? No.” Like Kagan, Sotomayor also pointed out that the Founders did not include presidential immunity in the Constitution before she took Sauer to task for what he is trying to do.  “There are amici here who tell us that the Founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president. And, in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors. And yet they didn't take it up. Instead, they passed an impeachment clause that basically says you can't remove the president from office except by a trial in the Senate.” Then, she laid into Sauer: “This is what you're asking us to say…. A president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office -- that's what you're trying to get us to hold -- without facing criminal liability.” JUSTICE BARRETT Justice Barrett, a Trump appointee, stood out as the only conservative justice to seriously question Sauer’s key assertions, including this exchange on why he believed only a president had to be impeached for a particular action before he could be criminally tried for it: BARRETT: “So, Mr. Sauer, you've argued that the Impeachment Clause suggests or requires impeachment to be a gateway to criminal prosecution, right?” SAUER: “Yes. I think that's the plain meaning of that second phrase in the clause.” BARRETT: “Okay. So there are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment. So why is the president different when the Impeachment Clause doesn't say so?” SAUER: “Someone very important has made the opposite suggestion as to the president himself, which is Solicitor General Bork, which is reaffirmed in the OLC opinions on this, where the -- where Solicitor General Bork, in 1973, as to the issue of the vice president (Spiro Agnew), reviewed historical materials, and he said the sequence is mandatory only as to the president.”   CONCLUSIONS SAUER’S: DISMISS TRUMP'S CHARGES CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “And what is the consequence in terms of going forward (with the case) with your acknowledgment that those are private acts as opposed to official acts?”   SAUER: If you look at the -- the indictment here, there's a bunch of acts that we think are just clearly official…. The official stuff has to be expunged completely from the indictment before the case can go forward, and there has to be a determination at least on remand of what's official -- a two-stage determination of what's official and what's private. ROBERTS: “Well, if you expunge the official part from the indictment, how do you -- I mean, that's like a one-legged stool, right? I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange, and if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador to a particular country, that is official, the appointment. It's within the president's prerogative. The unofficial part is I'm going to get a million dollars for it. So, if you say you have to expunge the official part, how does that go forward?” SAUER: “In this particular indictment, where we say virtually all the overt conduct is official, we don't believe it would be able to go forward.... They haven't disputed that they are official acts.”   DREEBEN’S: REJECT TRUMP'S APPEAL Dreeben essentially argues that the Supreme Court should completely deny Trump’s petition for immunity as the appellate court has already done. “So, Justice Jackson, I think it would be a sea change to announce a sweeping rule of immunity that no president has had or has needed,” he said at the conclusion of his questioning. “I think we have also had a perfectly functioning system that has seen occasional episodes of presidential misconduct. The Nixon era is the paradigmatic one. The indictment in this case alleges another. For the most part, I believe that the legal regime and the constitutional regime that we have works. And to alter it poses more risks.” But earlier he said that even if the Supreme Court decided some of indictment’s criminal counts stemmed from official acts, thus providing Trump immunity for those charges, Trump could still be tried on the charges related to his private acts. JUSTICE BARRETT: “You say, even if the Court were inclined to recognize some immunity for a former president's official acts, it should remand for trial because the indictment alleges substantial private conduct.” DREEBEN: “Yes.” BARRETT: “And you said that the private conduct would be sufficient.” MR. DREEBEN: “Yes.” BARRETT: “The Special Counsel (Jack Smith) has expressed some concern for speed and wanting to move forward. So, you know, the normal process, what Mr. Sauer asked, would be for us to remand if we decided that there were some official acts immunity and to let that be sorted out below (by a lower court). Is another option for the Special Counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct?” DREEBEN: Well, two things on that, Justice Barrett. First of all, there's really an integrated conspiracy here that had different components as alleged in the indictment: working with private lawyers to achieve the goals of the fraud and, as I said before, the Petitioner reaching for his official powers to try to make the conspiracies more likely to succeed. We would like to present that as an integrated picture to the jury so that it sees the sequence and the gravity of the conduct and why each step occurred. That said, if the Court were to say that the fraudulent elector scheme is private, reaching out to state officials as a candidate is private, trying to exploit the violence after January 6th by calling Senators and saying please delay the certification proceeding is private campaign activity, we still think, contrary to what my friend said, that we could introduce the interactions with the Justice Department, the efforts to pressure the vice president, for their evidentiary value as showing the defendant's knowledge and intent. And we would take a jury instruction that would say you may not impose criminal culpability for the actions that he took. However, you may consider it insofar as it bears on knowledge and intent…” OURS: VOTE BLUE We know from experience that appellate judges’ questions during arguments can mislead observers and are not always predictive of how a court will rule. So we don’t pretend to have any idea how this Supreme Court will rule, but these arguments have made it ever more clear to us the necessity of re-electing President Joe Biden as the only way of keeping Trump out of office, of defending our democracy from sliding into tyranny and of possibly putting the Supreme Court back on the road to sanity with the possibility of Biden being able to appoint successors for the next one or two justices to leave the court. ALSO SEE Trump indictment simple, solemn Republicans following Trump, DeSantis on road to fascism

From the Witkop for Congress Campaign Meet the Gen Z Democrat from Florida’s Congressional District 21 who very well could become the nation’s youngest member of Congress in 2024. Thomas Witkop – age 25, the youngest age you can be to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives – officially filed Sunday, Feb. 11, to give the voters of Martin, St. Lucie and northern Palm Beach County a real alternative to Republican incumbent Brian Mast. Thomas represents civil discourse, willingness to compromise to find solutions and the proven ability to work together with diverse others to accomplish those solutions. He understands that many in the Treasure Coast, and the nation, feel disillusioned with our current system and its ability to solve problems, but he knows we cannot give up on the oldest existing democracy in the world. He understands our democracy is a central component of the American Dream – a dream that he, like people all over the world, strongly believes in. He knows that with duly elected representatives who truly believe in democratic government, the United States can once again accomplish the type of great projects that it accomplished for the American people during the 20th century – not just responding to a crisis like the Great Depression by reforming the banking industry but creating infrastructure projects to deliver jobs and electricity to the rural Tennessee River Valley; not just going to the moon, but building one of the world’s most extensive highway systems; not just one side pushing for solutions to an environmental problem but both sides accepting scientific facts and recognizing the need for urgency in finding big-government solutions as Republican President Nixon did with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Thomas knows we need the same types of things done in the 21st century – bringing affordable internet infrastructure to the rural and urban poor, creating mass transportation and other transportation alternatives to internal combustion engines, mitigating the effects of climate change on Florida’s coastline and reducing the causes -- all while creating new, good-paying jobs. And he knows we can get these things done, but only when our representatives in government compromise and work together for the good of the community – when we care about each other and see one another as equals. Making America 'nice' again You might say, Thomas Witkop wants to make America “nice” again. To solve these difficult challenges and others such as insufficient education and lack of affordable housing for all, he knows we must build trust in our democracy by voting and build our communities by productively exchanging ideas with people who have different viewpoints. He knows because he has done it. As a student at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, he worked as a Resident Assistant and in the Title IX Office to engage students in their community and reduce sexual violence. After graduating, he worked with diverse populations in a refugee community in the Canary Islands teaching English and sharing his piece of American culture. More recently, he was employed as a Volunteer Coordinator at El Sol, a Jupiter non-profit, where he helped immigrants find work, learn English, and gain self-sufficiency, and where he pioneered programs such as the Homework Club, which connected retirees to struggling students to receive one-on-one attention to improve their English and catch up in school. He has been fortunate in his young life, and he was taught to try to share those fortunate circumstances, not hoard them. His mother, an activist for environmental and public-school policy, and his father, a criminal-defense attorney, bestowed in him a drive to give voice to those most vulnerable and to listen to the other side no matter what your prejudices. They taught him that participating in our democracy is our most powerful tool to effect change and support solutions. Year of the Gen Z In an election year when the pundits are focused on octogenarian candidates, several Gen Z Democrats are striving to emulate U.S. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Orlando), who has become a Democratic superstar of sorts since 2022, when he became the first of Generation Z to ever win a seat in Congress. Teen Vogue wrote last fall about three other Democratic Gen Z candidates running for Congress this year, two of them then 26 and one 25. Now, Thomas Witkop is stepping up to become a big part of not only making 2024 the year of Gen Z candidates but making Florida the state of Gen Z congressmen. HOW TO SUPPORT WITKOP FOR CONGRESS Join Thomas Witkop for his campaign launch at 5 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 18, at the Jupiter Lighthouse Park at 500 Captain Armours Way in Jupiter. RSVP by emailing Thomas@WitkopforCongress.com Volunteer for campaign here . Donate now. Check out the campaign website. *** FOLLOW WITKOP'S RUN ON SOCIAL MEDIA Facebook: Witkop for Congress Instagram: witkopforcongress Tik Tok: witkopforcongress X: @Thomas_Witkop *** MORE STORIES ON GEN Z IN DEMOCRATIC POLITICS Young Democrats launch PAC for 2024 races in Florida Gen Z Congressman Maxwell Frost motivates Palm Beach County Dems Coverage of Witkop on Treasure Coast begins with public radio: Hit the "Listen" button to hear his interview

By PAUL BLYTHE We at the North County Democratic Club encourage and support the growing political involvement and activism of Generation Z in the Democratic Party. We think they could be a 2024 game-changer for Florida's misguided political heading of the past 20-plus years. That's why we were so pleased to read this story in The Palm Beach Post about Florida Future Leaders, a political action committee formed by Florida College Democrats and Florida High School Democrats to turn out young voters and raise funds for community outreach to support young candidates. "Youth leading youth is the most efficient thing that we can possibly do," Jayden D'Onofrio, the chair of Florida Future Leaders, told The Post . "We've lagged behind compared to other states in the last election. We have to step it up, and we're stepping up with this move to create a PAC that is led by youth, that is the youngest PAC in the state of Florida." PAC targets FAU And one of the PAC's first "steps up" is going to be at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, where voter turnout in 2022 was only 22.8 percent on campus, which may have been a factor in Republican Peggy Gossett-Seidman flipping a Florida House seat that had been Democratic for years. According to The Post, the goal for Florida Future Leaders at FAU in the 2024 general election is to turn out the vote for Democrats like Jay Shooster, a young Millennial who aims to challenge Gossett-Seidman in House District 91. Shooster first faces a primary bout with Michaelangelo Hamilton, a 24-year-old FAU grad and self-described entrepreneur who just filed on Jan. 8 for the Democratic primary for the seat. Shooster filed for the seat on June 3, 2023 and had raised $129,009 in donations and spent $11,871 on his campaign as of the Dec. 31 reporting deadline, according to the Florida Division of Elections website. Hamilton, who made headlines in 2022 as a Boca area congressional candidate even though he was too young to serve if elected , has not been a candidate long enough to have to file a campaign finance report. Gossett-Seidman had raised $40,500 in contributions and spent $3,094 as of the deadline. Shooster is a Boca Raton consumer protection lawyer who grew up in South Florida and graduated from the University of Florida before taking a law degree from the New York University School of Law. He told The Post his campaign is focusing on abortion rights and gun violence prevention, issues that rally young voters, according to national polling. Similarly, D'Onofrio told the NCDC that his PAC will get out the youth vote for Democrats in District 91 and other House districts "by hiring campus organizing directors, providing resources to the Florida High School and Florida College Democrats, and building momentum around the abortion and marijuana ballot amendments." D'Onofrio told the NCDC that because we showed some interest in the group and reached out. Please support the PAC When we say we support young people getting involved in politics, we aren't just talking about young people voting or volunteering for political campaigns. We support young people running for and winning office at local, state and federal levels, and we support the groups that support young people seeking elected office. And we're not just talking the talk. We're walking the walk. Our club president reached out to D'Onofrio about the possibility of supporting a young candidate in our club's area. I made an individual donation of $100 to the PAC after I first read about the group the other day. And we're asking you to do the same, by going to the PAC's website, www.floridafutureleaders.com . Then maybe, come November, we can make those future leaders our new and improved leaders. MORE YOUNG DEMOCRATS NEWS Click here to save yourself a spot at the Feb. 18 campaign rollout of Gen Z candidate Thomas Witkop at the Jupiter Lighthouse as he enters the race to challenge Republican Brian Mast in Congressional District 21. *** Click here to read about when the nation's first Gen Z congressman, Democratic superstar Maxwell Frost , rallied Palm Beach County Democrats .