WASHINGTON (AP) — Hunter Biden was indicted on nine tax charges in California as a special counsel investigation into the business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son intensifies against the backdrop of the 2024 election.

The new charges filed Thursday — three felonies and six misdemeanors — are in addition to federal firearms charges in Delaware alleging Hunter Biden broke laws against drug users having guns in 2018. They come after the implosion of a plea deal over the summer that would have spared him jail time, putting the case on track to a possible trial as his father campaigns for reelection.

Hunter Biden “spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills,” special counsel David Weiss said in a statement. The charges are centered on at least $1.4 million in taxes Hunter Biden owed during between 2016 and 2019, a period where he has acknowledged struggling with addiction. The back taxes have since been paid.

If convicted, Hunter Biden, 53, could a maximum of 17 years in prison. The special counsel probe remains open, Weiss said.

In a fiery response, defense attorney Abbe Lowell accused Weiss of “bowing to Republican pressure” in the case.

“Based on the facts and the law, if Hunter’s last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware, and now California, would not have been brought,” Lowell said in a statement.

The White House declined to comment on Thursday’s indictment, referring questions to the Justice Department or Hunter Biden’s personal representatives.

The charging documents filed in California, where he lives, detail spending on drugs, strippers, luxury hotels and exotic cars, “in short, everything but his taxes,” prosecutor Leo Wise wrote.

The indictment comes as congressional Republicans pursue an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, claiming he was engaged in an influence-peddling scheme with his son. The House is expected to vote next week on formally authorizing the inquiry.

No evidence has emerged so far to prove that Joe Biden, in his current or previous office, abused his role or accepted bribes, though questions have arisen about the ethics surrounding the Biden family’s international business.

The separate, long-running criminal investigation into Hunter Biden had been expected to wind down with a plea deal where he would have gotten two years’ probation after pleading guilty to misdemeanor tax charges and avoided prosecution on the gun charge if he stayed out of trouble.

The agreement was pilloried as a “sweetheart deal” by Republicans, including former President Donald Trump. Trump is facing his own criminal cases, including charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden, a Democrat.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, gave credit for the new charges Thursday to two IRS investigators who testified before Congress that the Justice Department had mishandled and “slow walked” the investigation into the president’s son. Justice officials have denied those allegations.

The two IRS employees, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, said the indictment was “a complete vindication of our thorough investigation.”

The new charges against Hunter Biden include filing a false return and tax evasion felonies, as well as misdemeanor failure to file and failure to pay.

The defense signaled that it plans to fight the new charges, likely at least in part relying on immunity provisions from the original plea deal. Defense attorneys have argued those remain in force since that part of the agreement was signed by a prosecutor before the deal was scrapped.

Prosecutors have disagreed, pointing out the documents weren’t signed by a judge and are invalid.

Lowell said he’s also planning to push for dismissal of the gun charges next week, calling them “unprecedented and unconstitutional.”

The three federal gun charges filed in Delaware allege Hunter Biden had lied about his drug use to buy a gun that he kept for 11 days in 2018. Federal law bans gun possession by “habitual drug users,” though the measure is seldom seen as a stand-alone charge and has been called into question by a federal appeals court.

Hunter Biden’s longstanding struggle with substance abuse worsened after the death of his brother Beau Biden in 2015, according to court documents and his memoir “Beautiful Things,” which ends with him getting clean in 2019.

His gross income nevertheless totaled some $7 million between 2016 and 2020, prosecutors said, pointing to his roles on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma and a Chinese private equity fund as well as his position at a law firm.

Hunter did eventually file his taxes in 2020, while facing a child support case in Arkansas, and the back taxes were paid by a “third party,” prosecutors have said in court documents.

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching, a shrinking field of Republican White House hopefuls gathered Wednesday in Alabama for the fourth presidential debate.

As usual, former President Donald Trump, who is dominating the GOP primary, didn’t appear. Instead, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie continued their effort to gain a sliver of the spotlight in the race.

Here are some takeaways from the final primary debate of 2023.

The front-runner in the Republican primary has no end of vulnerabilities. He faces 91 criminal charges and just the night before repeatedly refused to rule out abusing power if he returns to office.

But, as has been the pattern, Trump was ignored during much of the debate. There was one great exception in the second hour, when the moderators asked Christie about Trump. The onetime New Jersey governor complained that his three primary rivals have been silent about the threats Trump presents to democracy.

“You want to know why these poll numbers are where they are?” Christie asked. “Because folks like these three people on this stage want to make it seem like his conduct is acceptable.”

Christie then began jousting with DeSantis, who confined his criticism of Trump to the former president’s age and failure to achieve all of his agenda in his first term. “Is he fit to be president or isn’t he?” Christie asked. “Is he fit? Ron, Ron? He’s afraid to answer.”

Ramaswamy accused his rivals of all “licking Donald Trump’s boots,” but then proceeded to argue the Jan. 6,2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol was an “inside job” — hardly distancing himself from the former president and his penchant for lies and misinformation.

Ramaswamy has been particularly adept at pulling fire away from Trump. The 38-year-old political novice and pharmaceutical entrepreneur has specialized in grating, personal attacks that his rivals just can’t bring themselves to ignore.

On Wednesday, he challenged Haley to name three Ukrainian provinces that he claimed his 3-year-old could identify, and Christie, who had tried to launch an attack on Trump to open the debate, exploded.

“All he knows how to do is insult good people who have committed their lives to public service,” Christie said.

Minutes later, Haley took an unusual swing at Trump for failing to go further than simple trade actions against China. But DeSantis jumped in, attacking Haley for her relationship with China. The two Republicans began snapping at each other, leaving Trump unmentioned.

By the end, the moderators asked the candidates which previous president inspired them. No one named Trump.

Haley was under attack from the opening seconds of the debate. And it didn’t let up for almost 20 minutes, a clear reminder that the former United Nations ambassador’s opponents see her as a growing threat in the race.

DeSantis amped up the pressure as he answered the debate’s opening question, which was about his struggling campaign.

“You have other candidates up here, like Nikki Haley, she caves every time the left comes after her,” DeSantis said, casting himself as a fighter.

The Florida governor then seized on Haley’s recent support from Wall Street and at least one major Democratic donor. Ramaswamy soon joined in, highlighting the personal wealth Haley accumulated since leaving the public office.

“That math doesn’t add up,” Ramaswamy charged. “It adds up to the fact you’re corrupt.” Minutes later, Ramaswamy called Haley a fascist.

Haley defended herself aggressively. But as the political adage goes, if you’re explaining, you’re probably losing.

“I love all the attention, fellas, thank you,” she said.

And she drew some applause from the crowd when she pushed back against the criticism of her political donations.

“In terms of these donors that are supporting me, they’re just jealous. They wish they were supporting them,” she said.

Christie has faced questions about why he’s not dropping his struggling campaign and backing Haley, who shares many of his more moderate views. While he’s not showing any sign of leaving soon, he took the opportunity to defend Haley, particularly from Ramaswamy’s heated critiques.

“This is a smart, accomplished woman,” Christie told Ramaswamy during an animated exchange. “You should stop insulting her.”

One candidate was attacked for sitting on a corporate board and being too close to big business. Others fretted about a plot by giant firms to re-engineer the country’s politics — and then one said he wants to gut government regulations to free up business.

This wasn’t a Democratic debate, dominated by that party’s skepticism of corporate titans. The Republican party in the era of Trump is a lot more conflicted about business and industry than in its prior, free-market form.

That was obvious from the first set of questions aimed at Haley, who was asked whether her roles on corporate boards and donations from major companies would sit well with the party’s “working-class voters.”

DeSantis and Ramaswamy continued to hit Haley over that dynamic, even as Haley quipped they were just “jealous” of her donor support. DeSantis also claimed Haley wanted to let in as many immigrants as “the corporations” desired and boasted about how he withdrew $2 billion of Florida public pension money from a hedge fund over its use of environmental, social and corporate governance.

“They want to use economic power to impose a left-wing agenda in this country,” DeSantis said of some corporations’ embrace of ESG, an effort to use progressive principles in investing.

But then Ramaswamy bemoaned the way the government doesn’t fully recognize cryptocurrencies as a real financial instrument, and segued into promising to eliminate three-quarters of the government bureaucrats to cut regulations. That is a routine promise of Ramaswamy’s, and comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider a case that could sharply limit how the federal government can regulate industries, a longtime goal of conservative activists who helped assemble a six-judge majority on the high court.

Later, Ramaswamy took yet another turn, arguing there should be strict bans on the back-and-forth between staffers in business and government. “I don’t think that we should want capitalism and democracy to share the same bed anymore,” he said. “It’s time for a clean divorce.”

The GOP’s contradictions over corporations weren’t an explicit subject of the debate, but they were an undercurrent that won’t be resolved for a while.

On immigration, on the economy and on China, the candidates on stage largely agreed. One policy area where there were real differences? Transgender rights.

The issue was barely on the national radar in the last presidential election. But in 2024, it is a centerpiece of the GOP’s increasing focus on cultural issues.

Haley defended her decision, back when she was governor, to decline to support a law that would have limited bathroom use to a person’s gender assigned on their birth certificate.

DeSantis pounced. As Florida governor, he insisted he did more to crack down on transgender rights than anyone on stage.

“I stood up for little girls, you didn’t,” he chided Haley.

DeSantis also offered a fiery argument for laws that block parents from allowing their children to receive transgender-related medical treatment.

Christie pushed back. He also reminded his rivals that conservatives used to believe in less government, not more.

“These jokers in Congress, it takes them three weeks to pick a speaker… and we’re going to put my children’s health in their hands?” the former New Jersey governor said. “As a parent, this is a choice I get to make.”

For the past seven months, the political world has watched a sort of Bizarro primary unfold — a number of Republican politicians have insisted they will become the next president while the last one, Trump, leaves them in the dust.

For those not in the know, Bizarro was a Superman character who came from a world where everything was scrambled. It’s been hard to escape that upside-down feeling as, every month, there’s another debate that Trump skips where no one does anything to change the trajectory of the race.

Wednesday night was an example. The debate was on NewsNation, a little-viewed upstart cable channel. The debate also aired on CW stations — but only in the eastern and central time zones.

Indeed, one big question was whether the debate’s ratings would be surpassed by those of DeSantis’ faceoff with California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, on Fox News last week. The Republican National Committee is expected to soon announce whether it’ll allow further unsanctioned debates. At least one more debate is expected before the Jan. 15 Iowa Caucus.

Perhaps the ultimate Bizarro twist would be if these confrontations mattered in the presidential election. You can never tell when something unexpected might happen in politics. But the time for these debates to matter, if it ever existed, is rapidly running out.

The seven justices peppered both the plaintiffs in the high-profile lawsuit and Trump’s legal team with questions, including if the siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters constituted an insurrection. They also probed the legal ability of the Colorado secretary of state to keep candidates off the ballot, the language of the 14th Amendment itself — which says insurrectionists can’t run for office — as well as whether Colorado can invoke that rule on its own.

The provision at issue in the Civil War-era 14th Amendment was aimed at keeping Confederates away from federal power after the nation reunited. But its language doesn’t explicitly bar insurrectionists from the highest office in the land, prompting the Colorado justices to prod both sides about what that means.

“If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question: Why not spell it out?” Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. asked the petitioners’ lawyers. “Why not include president and vice president in the way they spell out senator or representative?”

The attorneys hoping to keep Trump off Colorado’s ballot had argued that it would be “bizarre” and “counterintuitive” to read the amendment as barring rebels from most federal offices while leaving the presidency open to them.

Trump’s legal team argued the presidency was excluded on purpose, as a unique office. But would that mean, Justice Melissa Hart asked, that Jefferson Davis, the former president of the breakaway Confederacy, could have been elected U.S. president after the Civil War?

“That would be the rule of democracy at work,” replied Scott Gessler, a lead attorney for Trump and a former Colorado secretary of state.

The justices will sift through those answers and others in the weeks to come. They have no timeline to issue their ruling, though Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in January must certify the ballots for the state’s March 5 presidential primaries.

After the hearing, Gessler said he viewed the justices’ close attention to the legal structure of Amendment 14’s Section 3 as “a positive.” That argument is what won for Trump in the lower court. He also didn’t want to read too much into their questioning and posture.

“I think the justices, in one form or another, expressed skepticism of everyone’s answers throughout the whole two hours,” Gessler said. “I don’t think you can really predict a whole lot from it.”

In a statement from the plaintiffs afterward, Lakewood attorney Mario Nicolais said: “Our oral argument today speaks for itself: Donald Trump took an oath to support our Constitution as an officer of the United States, violated that oath when he engaged in insurrection and consequently disqualified himself under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

The court’s coming ruling could open the case up to a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if the justices disqualify Trump. The Colorado ballot case is among several similar ballot-qualification lawsuits targeting Trump across the country, but so far all have failed.

As it stands, Trump will be on Colorado’s Republican ballot. A Denver District Court judge ruled last month that Trump must be included because the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to presidents — though Judge Sarah B. Wallace also declared in the findings of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection back in January 2021.

That ruling prompted an appeal from both Trump’s legal team and the group of Republican and unaffiliated voters suing to keep him off the ballot.

Trump’s team agreed with Wallace’s reading of the 14th Amendment but asked the state Supreme Court to strike the declaration that he engaged in insurrection.

The petitioners, who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sought a broader ruling, arguing that an insurrectionist can’t be allowed to seek the Oval Office.

There are similar heavy-hitting cases underway in Minnesota and Michigan, though courts in those states have halted the complaints. Minnesota’s Supreme Court did not rule on the merits but said political parties could nominate whomever they liked — leaving open the possibility of a 14th Amendment challenge before the general election there.

A Michigan court ruled it would be up to Congress to decide if the amendment bars Trump from the ballot there, and that state’s high court declined to expedite its review of the case.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

It’s the latest milestone in a lawsuit that alleges Trump engaged in insurrection surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the U.S. Capitol — and in doing so, disqualified himself from regaining the nation’s highest office under a Civil War-era amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The provision of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

In November, a district court judge in Denver found Trump did engage in insurrection while also finding that the 14th Amendment restriction did not apply to the presidency the way it would to other federal offices.

Since then, lawyers for both sides as well as outside organizations and state officials across the country have weighed in on how Colorado’s justices should decide the matter. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the early afternoon.

Here’s a guide to the case and what’s at stake.

Why is the Colorado Supreme Court involved?

Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, after a weeklong trial this fall, that Trump can appear on Colorado’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot, despite her finding that he participated in an insurrection. This prompted both the petitioners and Trump’s legal team to appeal, though from opposite directions.

The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last month.

Who is challenging Trump’s eligibility?

The lawsuit was brought by a group of unaffiliated and Republican Colorado voters who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Republican petitioners include Claudine Cmarda, a former Rhode Island congresswoman who now lives in Colorado; Norma Anderson, a former majority leader in both Colorado’s state House and state Senate; and Denver Post columnist Krista Kafer.

Republican-turned-unaffiliated voter Chris Castilian, who served as deputy chief of staff for Colorado’s last GOP governor, Bill Owens, is also involved in the suit. None of the voters involved are current Democrats.

What are the plaintiffs seeking from the higher court?

Wallace’s underlying ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection through his words and actions was seen by critics of the former president as a victory in its own right. But the plaintiffs are now asking the state’s justices to go where Wallace didn’t.

Her overall ruling that the president does not qualify as an officer of the United States — a key phrase in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — would “yield absurd results,” the petitioners argued.

“It would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office except for the highest and most powerful in the land,” their attorneys wrote in the appeal. The legal team includes former Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson.

Why did Trump appeal a ruling he won?

Trump’s legal team, which includes former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, agrees with Wallace’s ruling that the 14th Amendment shouldn’t apply to Trump. But his appeal argues she committed “multiple grave jurisdictional and legal errors” — including by finding he engaged in insurrection.

Trump’s speech near the White House on Jan. 6 didn’t call for violence, his attorneys argued, and still “the district court found that President Trump’s supposed intent, and the effect of his words upon certain listeners, sufficed to render his speech unprotected under the First Amendment.”

The appeal also questions whether the five-day trial that began in late October was a proper venue for constitutional litigation and the establishment of “new, unprecedented, and unsupported legal standards.”

How have challenges of Trump’s eligibility fared elsewhere?

Similar lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility have been filed in several states, with none succeeding so far. Among other cases with significant backing, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in November that Trump could remain on the ballot there because political parties have discretion over their primary ballots. And a Michigan judge has ruled that Congress should decide if Section 3 applies to Trump.

How will Colorado’s high court consider the case?

The Colorado Supreme Court doesn’t generally overturn a lower court’s findings of facts unless the judge made a clear error, meaning the justices likely will give some deference to Wallace’s finding that Trump did engage in insurrection. Instead, their eyes will focus more closely on how she applied the law and whether the 14th Amendment applies to Trump.

The court has no specific timeline for a ruling, but Secretary of State Jena Griswold must certify the primary ballot in January. That election is set for March 5.

What’s at stake?

In her ruling, Wallace wrote that she took the gravity of the case seriously: “To be clear, part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent” of 14th Amendment’s Section 3.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, called it “significant” that Wallace declared that Trump engaged in insurrection. He is the author of the upcoming book “The Law of Presidential Impeachment” and was the only expert called by both Republicans and Democrats in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

He said recent scholarship is supportive of the petitioners’ arguments that the 14th Amendment should apply to former presidents. But he didn’t have any predictions for the case — except that a ruling in the lawsuit plaintiffs’ favor would make it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would get involved, having the final say.

“It’s just speculation when and whether the U.S. Supreme Court will ever hear this case,” Gerhardt said. “But if somebody is being declared ineligible to run for the presidency, that could possibly make this a more pressing matter.”

What outside voices have weighed in?

The case has drawn interest from more than a dozen parties that have filed formal advisory briefs with the Colorado Supreme Court, expressing a range of opinions. Some briefs are outwardly partisan, including joint briefs submitted by more than a dozen state Republican parties; by 19 states with Republican leaders, spearheaded by the attorneys general of Indiana and West Virginia; by the Republican secretaries of state in Wyoming, Missouri and Ohio; and by the Republican National Committee.

“The Reconstruction Congress (after the Civil War) did not grant state officials sweeping authority to undermine the federal government,” attorneys for the national GOP wrote in a brief that argued the 14th Amendment provision shouldn’t be applied until after an election.

Trump’s team also has received backing from Treniss Jewell Evans III — a Texan who pleaded guilty last year to misdemeanor charges related to storming the Capitol on Jan. 6; he admitted to drinking a shot of Fireball whiskey in a conference room that other rioters told him belonged to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In his brief, Evans, who said he’d been defamed by the petitioners, disputed characterizations of that day, arguing that “there was no competent evidence … to support that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection or that there was any insurrection.”

What about on the other side?

Several law professors as well as Colorado Common Cause and the Constitutional Accountability Center, which advocates for a progressive reading of the founding document, urged the state’s justices to bar Trump from the state’s ballot.

Nine law professors countered Trump’s First Amendment defense in a joint brief, arguing it doesn’t protect speech that incites lawless action or constitutes a threat — and that disqualification wouldn’t infringe on protected speech, anyway. The filing from Common Cause, a left-leaning government watchdog group, called it “a great credit to prior generations of American political leaders” that the disqualification clause of the Constitution had so rarely been invoked — but argued this case rose to that standard.

“The fact that the Disqualification Clause is so clearly implicated at this hour, then, is a proportionally great discredit to Mr. Trump himself, who allowed a lust for power to supersede his own Oath of Office and over two centuries of American political precedent,” the filing reads.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — Four Republican presidential candidates were given several opportunities Wednesday to criticize former President Donald Trump, who was absent from the debate again. But they mostly targeted each other, with former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley taking the brunt of the attacks as she gets more interest from donors and voters.

With just over a month before the 2024 primary calendar begins, the debate demonstrated how firm Trump’s grip remains on the party.

But the focus on Haley reflected how other candidates perceive her as a threat to their chances of taking on Trump directly. Aside from former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, most the candidates have spent more time in debates going after each other than taking aim at Trump, reflecting the view of many GOP operatives that there are diminishing returns in attacking the former president given his popularity among Republicans.

The last scheduled debate before Iowa’s GOP caucuses on Jan. 15 may have limited impact on the race, airing on a lesser-known television network, NewsNation, from a state Republican presidential candidates have carried since 1980.

Trump remains dominant in national and early-state polls. And after holding counterprogramming rallies during the first three debates, he didn’t bother this time and instead went to a closed-door fundraiser. His campaign posted an ad during the debate focusing on President Joe Biden as both parties head toward a potential rematch of the 2020 election Trump lost.

Christie repeatedly tore into Trump on Wednesday and challenged Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to answer directly if he believed Trump was fit or unfit to be president again. The crowd at the University of Alabama booed him at one point as he attacked Trump.

“His conduct is unacceptable. He’s unfit. And be careful of what you’re going to get,” warned Christie, who has been alone among leading Republicans in his focus on the race’s clear front-runner.

“There is no bigger issue in this race than Donald Trump,” he said earlier.

DeSantis suggested Trump, who is 77, is too old for the job. Asked repeatedly whether Trump is fit for the presidency, DeSantis did not directly say yes or no.

“Over a four-year period, it is not a job for someone that’s pushing 80,” DeSantis said. “We need someone who’s younger.”

Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy again raised his hand as a candidate who would support Trump even if he were convicted of pending federal felonies, though he accused his other opponents of bowing to Trump for years to secure political posts or financial gain. The closest the 38-year-old ever came to criticizing Trump was to call for a new generation of leadership.

Haley stood silently during the extended discussion, and neither the moderators nor her rivals asked for her opinion.

The debate’s brief focus on Trump was a reprieve for Haley, who spent most of the debate on the defensive.

DeSantis accused Haley of backing down from media criticism and Ramaswamy suggested she was too close to corporate interests as she gets new attention from donors. He touted his own willingness to pick high-profile fights with his critics and went after Haley just moments into the debate, reflecting the rivalry between the two candidates reflected in dueling early-state television ads.

They also tussled over China, long an animating issue for conservatives worried about Beijing’s influence. Later in the debate, Haley credited Trump for taking a hard line with Beijing on trade but said he was too passive on other fronts, including allowing China to capture American technology for its own military use and purchase American farmland.

Interrupting Haley, DeSantis accused her of allowing Chinese investment in South Carolina when she was governor and suggested her corporate donors would never allow her to be tough on Beijing.

“First of all, he’s mad because those Wall Street donors used to support him and now they support me,” Haley retorted before accusing DeSantis of being soft on Chinese investment in Florida.

Ramaswamy, always the most eager to deliver personal barbs on the debate stage, turned a foreign policy discussion into another attack on Haley, seemingly trolling her to name provinces in Ukraine and suggesting she does not understand the country. As he kept piling on, Christie stepped in to declare Haley “a smart, accomplished woman” and dismiss Ramaswamy as “the most obnoxious blowhard in America.”

With Trump absent, the atmosphere around the debate lacked some of the buzz sometimes associated with such affairs, especially in ostensibly open primaries. Less than two hours to go before the opening salvo, the media room, which is normally the practice hall for the University of Alabama’s Million Dollar Band, was barely half full. The television and radio platforms around the periphery — the spin room, in debate parlance — were noticeably quiet, lacking the high-profile surrogates or campaign staffers who might normally be appearing live on cable news or talk radio to pitch on their candidates’ behalf.

Outside Moody Music Hall on campus, more buzz came from state high school football championship games being played in Bryant-Denny Stadium.

The debate may have been hard to find for many prospective viewers. It aired on NewsNation, a cable network still trying to build its audience after taking over WGN America three years ago. NewsNation’s Elizabeth Vargas moderated alongside Megyn Kelly, a former Fox News anchor who now hosts a popular podcast, and Eliana Johnson of the conservative news site Washington Free Beacon.

The field of invited candidates has shrunk in half since eight were on the stage at the first debate in Milwaukee in August, as the Republican National Committee tightened the criteria to reach the stage each time. For Tuesday, candidates had to get at least 6% in multiple polls and amass 80,000 unique donors.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum have all dropped out of the race after participating in at least one debate. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is continuing his campaign but failed to qualify.

The debate setting in Alabama was another reminder of Trump’s strong position — and how he outpaced an even larger Republican field when he first ran and won in 2016. Trump swept Southern primaries from Virginia to Arkansas and Louisiana in his first campaign. And the changes in Alabama Republican politics in many ways reflect Trump’s influence over the party.

___

Cooper reported from Phoenix.

Xylazine, also known by its street names “tranq” and “zombie drug” — for the severe, rotting wounds it can cause in humans — spurred a warning from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last spring about its potential lethality, especially when mixed with opioids such as fentanyl. The drug is not approved for human use.

The bipartisan bill, dubbed the Testing, Rapid Analysis and Narcotic Quality (TRANQ) Research Act, directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to focus its research on existing and emerging illicit drugs containing xylazine and other emerging substances. NIST researchers have been helping to improve and develop technologies to get ahead of synthetic drugs, and Caraveo’s bill directs the agency to apply those efforts to xylazine as well.

The bill was the freshman congresswoman’s first bill to pass through both chambers of Congress. Introduced in March, it was approved by the Senate in June and came back to the House with minor changes for Monday’s vote.

Last year, 1,799 Coloradans died of a drug overdose, down slightly from the 1,881 overdose deaths recorded in the state the year before. Fentanyl and methamphetamine continue to push the state’s per-capita overdose rate to alarming levels.

“New illicit drugs like tranq are fueling an epidemic that is devastating American communities, including families here in Colorado,” Caraveo said in a statement issued shortly after the House gave final passage to her bill on a voice vote. “We need to head off these alarming new threats before they spread.”

Caraveo took office in January, becoming the first representative of Colorado’s newly formed 8th Congressional District, which covers parts of Adams, Weld and Larimer counties.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s decision amounts to a sharp rejection to challenges the Trump defense team had raised to the four-count indictment in advance of a trial expected to center on the Republican’s multi-pronged efforts to undo the election won by Democrat Joe Biden.

Though the judge turned aside Trump’s expansive view of presidential power, the order might not be the final say in the legal fight. Lawyers for Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, are expected to quickly appeal to fight what they say an unsettled legal question.

In her ruling, Chutkan said the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

Chutkan also rejected Trump’s claims that the indictment violates the former president’s free speech rights. Lawyers for Trump had argued that he was within his First Amendment rights to challenge the outcome of the election and to allege that it had been tainted by fraud, and they accused prosecutors of attempting to criminalize political speech and political advocacy.

But Chutkan said “it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime.”

“Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements … but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process,” she wrote.

An attorney for Trump declined to comment Friday evening.

Her ruling comes the same day the federal appeals court in Washington ruled that lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers who have accused Trump of inciting the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, can move forward.

The appeals court in that case rejected Trump’s sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability, but left the door open for him to continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken his official capacity as president.

Trump’s legal team had argued the criminal case, which is scheduled to go to trial in March, should be dismissed because the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner is shielded from prosecution for actions he took while fulfilling his duties as president. They assert that the actions detailed in the indictment — including pressing state officials on the administration of elections — cut to the core of Trump’s responsibilities as commander in chief.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties, but the justices have never grappled with the question of whether that immunity extends to criminal prosecution.

The Justice Department has also held that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. Trump’s lawyers are trying to ensure that same protection to a former president for actions taken while in office, asserting that no prosecutor since the beginning of American democracy has had the authority to bring such charges.

“Against the weight of that history, Defendant argues in essence that because no other former Presidents have been criminally prosecuted, it would be unconstitutional to start now,” Chutkan wrote. “But while a former President’s prosecution is unprecedented, so too are the allegations that a President committed the crimes with which Defendant is charged.”

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has said there is nothing in the Constitution, or in court precedent, to support the idea that a former president cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct committed while in the White House.

“The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens,” prosecutors wrote in court papers.

It’s one of four criminal cases Trump is facing while he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024.

Smith has separately charged Trump in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. Trump is also charged in Georgia with conspiring to overturn his election loss to Biden. And he faces charges in New York related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign.

Richer reported from Boston.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

“We’re investing in America (and) investing in Americans. And it’s working,” Biden said Wednesday during a 24-minute speech from a temporary stage on the factory floor of CS Wind, the largest wind turbine tower manufacturer in the world.

The stop was part of the Democratic president’s “Investing in America” tour to tout the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act and other laws passed early in his term. The South Korea-based CS Wind cited the law as a factor in its $200 million investment in expanded capacity at the Pueblo plant, and with it, the creation of more than 800 new jobs.

Tony Salerno, a production manager for CS Wind, said during introductory remarks that “this factory found new life” when Biden signed the act into law.

The setting gave Biden a jumping-off point to cast the economy as strong — even as he acknowledged that there’s “more work to do” to slow down inflation.

Unemployment has sat below 4% for a stretch not seen since the 1950s, he said, and America’s share of manufacturing for high-tech components such as microchips is rebounding. More than 250,000 new jobs have started in Colorado alone during his administration, Biden said.

Despite that messaging and the positive data points, voters have a sour view of the economy — and they largely blame Biden for it, according to recent polls.

A Gallup poll released Tuesday showed a 37% overall approval rating for Biden as he ramps up his reelection campaign. The survey found that just 32% of adults approve of his handling of the economy.

Beyond his economic message, the Pueblo setting also gave Biden a stage to slam Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, a Republican whose sprawling district includes the blue-collar city, as “one of the leaders of this extreme MAGA movement” standing against his efforts.

Displaying a sly grin, he made the sign of the cross at his first mention of Boebert.

She voted against the Inflation Reduction Act and several other laws Biden credited with spurring more than $1 billion in private investment in Colorado. Boebert narrowly won reelection in 2022.

After rattling off investments in microchip manufacturing, solar energy and wind turbine manufacturing, Biden quoted Boebert’s past criticism of the IRA, chiding: “Folks, none of that sounds like a ‘massive failure’ to me.”

“You all know you’re part of a massive failure?” Biden said. “Tell that to the 850 Coloradans who get new jobs in Pueblo at CS Wind thanks to this law. Tell that to the local economy that’s going to benefit from these investments.”

Ahead of Biden’s speech, a statement from Boebert criticized the president and “Bidenomics” — a term emblazoned on a banner in the rafters during Biden’s event.

“On Joe Biden’s watch, credit card debt, inflation, groceries and gas prices have all reached record highs,” Boebert said. “These high prices are squeezing working-class Coloradans and rural America. Rather than cutting wasteful federal spending and unleashing American energy production, Joe Biden continues to pander to radical extremists, lock up more land, and spend his time focused on campaign stunts and vacations rather than doing the job he was elected to do.”

(View the White House’s recorded video on YouTube.)

Besides Boebert, Biden took aim at former President Donald Trump, now his potential 2024 election opponent.

Trump also was Biden’s focus during a fundraiser Tuesday night in Cherry Hills Village at the home of Tamara Totah Picache, a managing partner of the Flatiron Group. He drew contrasts with Trump and highlighted public response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade.

“Donald Trump’s about to find out the power of women in America in 2024,” Biden told attendees, according to a press pool report.

The president had planned to visit Pueblo last month but postponed the trip because of the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas. U.S. support for Israel during its war in the Gaza Strip, which was launched in response to a terrorist attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, has posed political challenges for Biden among his Democratic base.

On Tuesday night, a few dozen pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated on the street in front of the hotel where Biden stayed in downtown Denver.

Biden last visited Colorado in June, when he delivered a commencement address at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

During his Pueblo visit Wednesday, the CS Wind factory looked as though work had stopped mid-production, with metal tubes — a dozen feet or more in diameter and weighing tons — lying on the floor. On a typical day, it would be a hive of work and a cacophony of warning bells, whirring motors, welding hisses and hammering steel.

Biden went on a tour of the factory before his speech. He asked workers questions about the process for building the giant wind turbines and other work conducted on-site, according to a press pool report.

At one point, he shouted to a worker: “Corey, watch out that entire sucker starts coming back towards you.”

U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, predicted the $740 million Inflation Reduction Act’s impact on the country eventually would be likened to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Hickenlooper proved a key negotiator last year as senators recruited enough votes to pass the bill, which included record climate spending.

“Energy independence begins in places like Pueblo,” Hickenlooper said.

Biden and his allies also extolled the effects of the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, passed in 2021, and other legislation that has invested in high-tech manufacturing.

State Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, a Pueblo Democrat, said the setting Wednesday reflected the historic steel town’s “resiliency and its expertise,” while the investment in the wind tower factory represents “long-term growth and sustainability” for the community.

He sees the area as sitting at a crossroads, since it’s also home to the state’s largest coal-fired power plant, which is preparing to shut down in the next decade. CS Wind’s expansion, he said, moves the community and the state forward.

“We’ve got concerns about (the coal plant) and what replaces that,” Hinrichsen said. “But we’re also providing the energy that will power our state into the future cleanly and renewably.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The annual conference has become the latest focal point of reaction locally to Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip, which it launched in response to Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israeli soil. The conference, organized by the Jewish National Fund-USA, is set to begin Nov. 30 at the Colorado Convention Center.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who is Jewish, is scheduled to speak at the event on its opening night. The Denver Police Department said Wednesday that it was “working with the organizers to ensure a safe event.”

“As a precaution, the department will be providing additional resources to enhance security surrounding the conference,” DPD’s statement read. “We will not share specific numbers or planning strategies for safety reasons.”

The Global Conference for Israel is expected to attract around 2,500 people to downtown Denver. It is the 22nd annual gathering, according to Sam Goldberg, president of the Jewish National Fund-USA Mountain States board. Last year’s conference was in Boston.

Pro-Palestinian activists have organized recurring events in Denver, maintaining a presence that included interrupting the Colorado legislature’s special session on property taxes over the weekend.

On the Colorado Palestine Coalition’s Instagram account, the organization declares that “Zionists,” “racists” and “genocide apologists” are “not welcome” in Denver, referencing next week’s conference. In a Nov. 13 post, it called for the shutdown. But exactly what an attempted shutdown would look like is unclear.

Abdullah Elagha, an organizer with the Colorado Palestine Coalition, told The Denver Post in an interview Wednesday that he was “not sure exactly what we will be doing” during the conference.

He’s critical of the Jewish National Fund-USA, saying the organization, which describes itself on its website as “Your Voice in Israel,” has had “a direct hand in the brutalization of Palestinians” for decades. He pointed to both the war in Gaza as well as the ongoing building of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, which the United Nations has found violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, as concerns.

“The state of Israel, or any of its affiliated organizations, should not be fundraising in our state in the middle of a genocide,” Elagha said, referring to the more than 12,700 Palestinians who have been killed since the war in Gaza began in early October. That figure has been released by the Palestinian health authorities.

Israel began launching air strikes, and later ground incursions, in Gaza after Hamas terrorists brutally slaughtered more than 1,200 Israelis and took more than 200 people hostage in the Oct. 7 raid. Israel declared war on Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Israel and Hamas agreed to a temporary cease-fire agreement, announced Wednesday, that’s intended to allow for the release of dozens of hostages taken during Hamas’ raid.

The conference in Denver was planned well before the latest hostilities, but the escalations will have an unavoidable impact. Goldberg, from the Jewish National Fund-USA Mountain States board, discussed his outlook.

“Hamas will not be forgiven for its intentional murder of babies and the brutal rape and mutilation of women,” he said. “All of the hostages that remain in Gaza must be freed immediately — especially the little kids.”

At the same time, there are “certainly reasonable and thoughtful critiques of Israel” to be had, Goldberg said, and many of them will be voiced at the conference.

But those who support Israel’s destruction, he said, “are unwelcome.”

Elagha’s interest in the war is personal. He was among Palestinian-Americans who recently recounted to The Post how their families in Gaza have been affected by the war. Elagha’s family has lost more than 30 members to Israeli airstrikes since the war began last month, he said.

A spokesman for the governor, Conor Cahill, told The Post this week that he intends to deliver remarks at the conference as planned.

Polis, Cahill said, “strongly believes that Israel has a right to defend its citizens against Hamas and to respond to the brutal murder of hundreds of Israeli citizens, and to work to facilitate the return of hundreds of hostages.”

Cahill added: “Here in Colorado, he has made it clear that hate against Jews, Muslims or Christians will not be tolerated, and that includes ensuring that any effort to intimidate or prevent people from speaking to a group of Jewish Americans convening in Denver does not succeed.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

DALLAS — Just minutes after President John F. Kennedy was fatally shot as his motorcade rolled through downtown Dallas, Associated Press reporter Peggy Simpson rushed to the scene and immediately attached herself to the police officers who had converged on the building from which a sniper’s bullets had been fired.

“I was sort of under their armpit,” Simpson said, noting that every time she was able to get any information from them, she would rush to a pay phone to call her editors, and then “go back to the cops.”

Simpson, now 84, is among the last surviving witnesses who are sharing their stories as the nation marks the 60th anniversary of the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination on Wednesday.

“A tangible link to the past is going to be lost when the last voices from that time period are gone,” said Stephen Fagin, curator at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, which tells the story of the assassination from the Texas School Book Depository, where Lee Harvey Oswald’s sniper’s perch was found.

“So many of the voices that were here, even 10 years ago, to share their memories — law enforcement officials, reporters, eyewitnesses — so many of those folks have passed away,” he said.

Simpson, former U.S. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill and others are featured in “JFK: One Day in America,” a three-part series from National Geographic released this month that pairs their recollections with archival footage, some of which has been colorized for the first time. Director Ella Wright said that hearing from those who were there helps tell the “behind the scenes” story that augments archival footage.

“We wanted people to really understand what it felt like to be back there and to experience the emotional impact of those events,” Wright said.

People still flock to Dealey Plaza, which the presidential motorcade was passing through when Kennedy was killed.

“The assassination certainly defined a generation,” Fagin said. “For those people who lived through it and came of age in the 1960s, it represented a significant shift in American culture.”

President Joe Biden, who was in college when Kennedy was killed, recalled on Wednesday being “glued to the news in silence” along with his fellow students.

“On this day, we remember that he saw a nation of light, not darkness; of honor, not grievance; a place where we are unwilling to postpone the work that he began and that we all must now carry forward,” Biden said in a statement.

On the day of the assassination, Simpson had originally been assigned to attend an evening fundraising dinner for Kennedy in Austin. With time on her hands before she needed to leave Dallas, she was sent to watch the presidential motorcade, but she wasn’t near Dealey Plaza.

Simpson had no idea that anything out of the ordinary had happened until she arrived at The Dallas Times Herald’s building where the AP’s office was located. Stepping off an elevator, she heard a newspaper receptionist say, “All we know is that the president has been shot,” and then heard the paper’s editor briefing the staff.

She raced to the AP office in time to watch over the bureau chief’s shoulder as he filed the news to the world, and then ran out to the Texas School Book Depository to track down more information.

Later, at police headquarters, she said, she witnessed “just a wild, crazy chaotic, unfathomable scene.” Reporters had filled the hallways where an officer walked through with Oswald’s rifle held aloft. The suspect’s mother and wife arrived, and at one point authorities held a news conference where Oswald was asked questions by reporters.

“I was just with a great mass of other reporters, just trying to find any bit of information,” she said.

Two days later, Simpson was covering Oswald’s transfer from police headquarters to the county jail, when nightclub owner Jack Ruby burst forth from a gaggle of news reporters and shot the suspect dead.

As police officers wrestled with Ruby on the floor, Simpson rushed to a nearby bank of phones “and started dictating everything I saw to the AP editors,” she said. In that moment, she was just thinking about getting out the news.

“As an AP reporter, you just go for the phone, you can’t process anything at that point,” she said.

Simpson said she must have heard the gunshot but she can’t remember it.

“Probably Ruby was 2 or 3 feet away from me but I didn’t know him, didn’t see him, didn’t see him come out from the crowd of reporters,” she said.

Simpson’s recollections are included in an oral history collection at the Sixth Floor Museum that now includes about 2,500 recordings, according to Fagin.

The museum curator said Simpson is “a terrific example of somebody who was just where the action was that weekend and got caught up in truly historic events while simply doing her job as a professional journalist.”

Fagin said oral histories are still being recorded. Many of the more recent ones have been with people who were children in the ’60s and remembered hearing about the assassination while at school.

“It’s a race against time really to try to capture these recollections,” Fagin said.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.