The Senate was set to vote Thursday on whether to confirm Kash Patel as FBI director, a decision that could place him atop the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency despite concerns from Democrats over his qualifications and the prospect that he would do President Donald Trump’s bidding.

Patel cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee last week by a 12-10, party-line vote and is set for consideration by the Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday afternoon.

He is expected to be confirmed unless more than three Republican senators defy Trump’s will and vote against him, which is seen as unlikely. Trump has already secured approval for most of his nominees despite initial Republican skepticism to several of his choices.

Patel, a Trump loyalist who has fiercely criticized the agency that he is poised to lead, would inherit an FBI gripped by turmoil. The Justice Department in the last month has forced out a group of senior FBI officials and made a highly unusual demand for the names of thousands of agents who particip

Trump has said that he expects some of those agents will be fired.

Republicans angry over what they see as law enforcement bias against conservatives during the Biden administration, as well as criminal investigations into Trump, have rallied behind Patel as the right person for the job. Democrats, meanwhile, have complained about his lack of management experience compared to others who have held the director’s job and highlighted incendiary past statements that they say call his judgment into question.

“My prediction is if you vote for Kash Patel, more than any other confirmation vote you make, you will come to regret this one to your grave,” Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said this week.

Patel’s eyebrow-raising remarks on hundreds of podcasts over the last four years include referring to law enforcement officials who investigated Trump as “criminal gangsters,” referring to some Jan. 6 rioters as “political prisoners” and pledging to “come after” anti-Trump “conspirators” in the government and media.

At his confirmation hearing last month, Patel said Democrats were taking some of his comments out of context or misunderstanding the broader point that he was trying to make, such as when he proposed shutting down the FBI headquarters in Washington and turning it into a museum for the so-called deep state. And Patel denied the idea that a list in his book of government officials who he said were part of a “deep state” amounted to an “enemies list,” calling that a “total mischaracterization.”

FBI directors are given 10-year terms as a way to insulate them from political influence and keep them from becoming beholden to a particular president or administration. Patel was selected in November to replace Christopher Wray, who was picked by Trump in 2017 and served for more than seven years but who repeatedly angered the president and was seen by him as insufficiently loyal. He resigned before Trump took office.

A former federal defender and Justice Department counterterrorism prosecutor, Patel attracted Trump’s attention during his first term when, as a staffer on the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, he helped author a memo with pointed criticism of the FBI’s investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.

by breakinglegalnews.com

In a bold move, top officials within the Trump administration are openly challenging the judiciary’s role in overseeing executive power. In the last 24 hours, prominent figures like Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance have not only criticized a judge’s recent decision to block Musk’s team from accessing Treasury records, but have also questioned the legitimacy of judicial checks and balances.

Vance took to social media, comparing judicial interference with executive power to a hypothetical situation where a judge would dictate military or prosecutorial decisions. Musk, meanwhile, echoed Vance’s sentiments, calling for the impeachment of the judge involved and even shared a controversial post suggesting the administration might defy the court order altogether.

The case centers around Musk’s efforts to uncover government waste through the Department of Government Efficiency. However, the court temporarily halted his team’s access to sensitive Treasury Department data, citing potential legal violations. The ruling is a setback to the administration’s broader goal of dismantling government agencies and reducing the federal workforce.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller added fuel to the fire, calling the ruling an “assault on democracy” while decrying the influence of unelected bureaucrats within the government.

This legal pushback comes amid growing resistance to Trump’s sweeping agenda, including efforts to stop mass buyouts and federal leave mandates. With a February 14 hearing looming, the administration faces a tough road ahead as it battles to implement its ambitious reforms.

In the meantime, critics, including Democratic attorneys general, warn that Musk’s access to sensitive financial systems could undermine public trust and legal boundaries. The dispute is far from over, and the future of the administration’s plans rests on the outcome of this heated legal fight.

A state appeals court on Thursday removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others, the latest legal victory for the president-elect in criminal cases that once threatened his career and freedom.

The case against Trump and more than a dozen others had already been stalled for months over an appeal related to a romantic relationship Willis had with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the case.

Citing an “appearance of impropriety” that might not typically warrant such a removal, a Georgia Court of Appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling that “this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Willis’ office immediately filed a notice of intent to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision.

But pursuing a criminal case against a sitting president is a virtual impossibility. And Trump will return to the White House having overcome efforts to prosecute him and empowered by a Supreme Court ruling granting him presumptive immunity for any “official acts” he takes in office.

The development comes weeks after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned two federal prosecutions against the incoming president, and as sentencing in a separate hush money case in New York is indefinitely on hold as a result of Trump’s victory in November over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty.

Trump told Fox News Digital that the case “should not be allowed to go any further.” The president-elect added: “Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years.”

Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said the ruling was “well-reasoned and just.” He said the appeals court “highlighted that Willis’ misconduct created an ‘odor of mendacity’ and an appearance of impropriety that could only be cured by the disqualification of her and her entire office.”

“This decision puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States,” Sadow wrote in an emailed statement.

Representatives for Willis did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment on the ruling.

Who gets to keep an engagement ring if a romance turns sour and the wedding is called off?

That’s what the highest court in Massachusetts was asked to decide with a $70,000 ring at the center of the dispute.

The court ultimately ruled Friday that an engagement ring must be returned to the person who purchased it, ending a six-decade state rule that required judges to try to identify who was to blame for the end of the relationship.

The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who started dating in the summer of 2016, according to court filings. Over the next year, they traveled together, visiting New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, the Virgin Islands and Italy. Johnson paid for the vacations and also gave Settino jewelry, clothing, shoes and handbags.

Eventually, Johnson bought a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and in August 2017 asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her. Two months later, he also bought two wedding bands for about $3,700.

Johnson said he felt like after that Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court filings.

At some point Johnson looked at Settino’s cell phone and discovered a message from her to a man he didn’t know.

“My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” the message read. He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as “cupcake” and said they didn’t see enough of each other. Settino has said the man was just a friend.

Johnson ended the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained up in the air.

A trial judge initially concluded Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement.” An appeals court found Johnson should get the ring.

In September, the case landed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately ruled that Johnson should keep the ring.

In their ruling the justices said the case raised the question of whether the issue of “who is at fault” should continue to govern the rights to engagement rings when the wedding doesn’t happen.

More than six decades ago, the court found that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift and determined that the person who gives it can get it back after a failed engagement, but only if that person was “without fault.”

“We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context,” the justices wrote in Friday’s ruling. “Where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.”

Johnson’s lawyer, Stephanie Taverna Siden, welcomed the ruling.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision today. It is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Siden said. A lawyer for Settino said they were disappointed, but respected the court’s decision to follow the majority rule among the states.

“We firmly believe that the notion of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated notions and should no longer be a legal loophole in our otherwise well-established rule that a breach of a promise to marry is not an injury recognized by law,” Nicholas Rosenberg said.

Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who studies engagement ring law, said she wasn’t surprised that the court rejected the fault standard, saying it really doesn’t fit with modern family law.

“I’m a bit disappointed that they didn’t give more consideration to the other no-fault option. That would be that the gift stays with the person who received it, as is standard for most gifts,” she said. “The court calls an engagement ring a conditional gift, but the rule for engagement rings is not the same as the rule for every other kind of conditional gift.”

Native Americans living on a remote Montana reservation filed a lawsuit against state and county officials Monday saying they don’t have enough places to vote in person — the latest chapter in a decades-long struggle by tribes in the United States over equal voting opportunities.

The six members of the Fort Peck Reservation want satellite voting offices in their communities for late registration and to vote before Election Day without making long drives to a county courthouse.

The legal challenge, filed in state court, comes five weeks before the presidential election in a state with a a pivotal U.S. Senate race where the Republican candidate has made derogatory comments about Native Americans.

Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship a century ago. Advocates say the right still doesn’t always bring equal access to the ballot.

Many tribal members in rural western states live in far-flung communities with limited resources and transportation. That can make it hard to reach election offices, which in some cases are located off-reservation.

The plaintiffs in the Montana lawsuit reside in two small communities near the Canada border on the Fort Peck Reservation, home to the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. Plaintiffs’ attorney Cher Old Elk grew up in one of those communities, Frazer, Montana, where more than a third of people live below the poverty line and the per capita income is about $12,000, according to census data.

It’s a 60-mile round trip from Frazer to the election office at the courthouse in Glasgow. Old Elk says that can force prospective voters into difficult choices.

“It’s not just the gas money; it’s actually having a vehicle that runs,” she said. “Is it food on my table, or is it the gas money to find a vehicle, to find a ride, to go to Glasgow to vote?”

The lawsuit asks a state judge for an order forcing Valley and Roosevelt counties and Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen to create satellite election offices in Frazer and Poplar, Montana. The offices would be open during the same hours and on the same days as the county courthouses.

The plaintiffs requested satellite election offices from the counties earlier this year, the lawsuit says. Roosevelt County officials allegedly refused, while Valley County officials said budget constraints limited them to opening a satellite voting center for just one day.

Valley County Attorney Dylan Jensen said there were only two full-time employees in the Clerk and Recorder’s Office that oversees elections, so staffing a satellite office would be problematic.

“To do that for an extended period of time and still keep regular business going, it would be difficult,” he said.

A spokesperson said Jacobsen’s office had encouraged tribes and counties to work together to establish satellite offices as needed by Jan. 31, under a 2015 state elections directive.

Two journalists who led a now-closed Hong Kong online news outlet will hear a verdict in their sedition case on Thursday, in a trial that’s seen as an indicator of press freedom in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

The trial of Stand News ' former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam began almost two years ago. It’s Hong Kong’s first sedition case involving media since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

The journalists were charged with conspiracy to publish seditious materials under a colonial-era law that’s been increasingly used to target dissent as part of a crackdown that followed huge anti-government protests in 2019.

Here is what you need to know:

What was Stand News?

Stand News was one of the last remaining openly critical media outlets in Hong Kong following the closing of the Apple Daily newspaper in June 2021.

It was founded as a nonprofit by businessman Tony Tsoi and media veterans Yee Ka-fai and Chung in December 2014, promising to uphold independent editorial standards and writing in a founding message that the responsibility of media is to keep power in check.

During the 2019 anti-government protests, Stand News gained prominence for its live-streaming coverage from the front lines and attracted many democracy supporters for its critical reporting of the authorities.

The city’s secretary for security Chris Tang and its police criticized the outlet, saying some of its reports were “misleading,” while Hong Kong residents surveyed by the researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong rated it among the most credible outlets in the city in 2019.
How did the journalists wind up on trial?

In 2021, Hong Kong witnessed the shutdown of dozens of civil society groups under the shadow of a Beijing-imposed national security law, with many prominent activists arrested. In June that year, authorities arrested members of Apple Daily’s top management and froze its assets. The newspaper’s founder Jimmy Lai is now fighting collusion charges and faces up to life in prison if convicted.

On Dec. 29, 2021, police raided the Stand News office. The same day, they arrested Chung and Lam along with four former board members and Chung’s wife Chan Pui-Man, a former Apple Daily editor. Assets worth about 61 million Hong Kong dollars ($7.8 million) were frozen, forcing Stand News to close.

Of the seven people arrested, only Chung and Lam were later charged in connection to Stand News. Chan was charged in the Apple Daily case and later pleaded guilty.
What’s the bigger picture for civil liberties in Hong Kong?

Days after Stand News shut down, independent news outlet Citizen News announced it would cease operations, citing the deteriorating media environment and the potential risks to its staff.

The closing of Apple Daily, Stand News and Citizen News within months dealt a blow to the city’s once vibrant press scene.

The shutdowns were widely seen as casualties during the political crackdown on civil society. Many activists were prosecuted, silenced or forced into self-exile after the 2020 security law took effect. The Hong Kong government in March enacted a new, homegrown security law that critics fear will further curtail civil liberties.

The delivery of the verdict for the Stand News editors has been delayed several times, including once while awaiting the appeal outcome of another landmark sedition case.

Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the case is significant because it was the first sedition case the Hong Kong government brought against news editors and a media outlet since the 1997 handover. Lai said the British colonial government had stopped using the sedition law in its final decades.

The Hong Kong government insists the city still enjoys civil liberties, as guaranteed by its mini-constitution, and the exercise of them may be subject to restrictions that are provided by law.

George Santos, the former New York congressman who spun lies into a brief political career, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, acknowledging that he allowed his ambitions to cloud his judgment.

Santos, 36, is likely to spend at least six years in prison and owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution. His federal fraud case, which led to his expulsion from Congress, was just weeks away from going to trial.

“I betrayed the trust of my constituents and supporters. I deeply regret my conduct,” the New York Republican said, his voice trembling as he entered the plea in a Long Island courtroom.

Santos, 36, said he accepted responsibility for his crimes and intends to make amends. He faces more than six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines and owes at least $370,000 in restitution.

Senior Federal Judge Joanna Seybert scheduled sentencing for Feb. 7.

Santos was indicted on felony charges that he stole from political donors, used campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses, lied to Congress about his wealth and collected unemployment benefits while actually working.

Santos was expelled from the U.S. House after an ethics investigation found “overwhelming evidence” that he had broken the law and exploited his public position for his own profit.

The case has been set to go to trial in early September. If that had happened, federal prosecutors said Monday that they were prepared to call some 40 witnesses, including members of Santos’ campaign, employers and family members.

Santos was once touted as a rising political star after he flipped the suburban district that covers the affluent North Shore of Long Island and a slice of the New York City borough of Queens in 2022.

But his life story began unraveling even before he was sworn into office. At the time, reports emerged that he had lied about having a career at top Wall Street firms and a college degree along with other questions swirling about his biography.

New questions then emerged about his campaign funds.

He was first indicted on federal charges in May 2023, but refused to resign from office.

Santos had previously maintained his innocence, though he said in an interview in December that a plea deal with prosecutors was “not off the table.”

Asked if he was afraid of going to prison, he told CBS 2 at the time: “I think everybody should be afraid of going to jail, it’s not a pretty place and uh, I definitely want to work very hard to avoid that as best as possible.”

Separately Monday, in Manhattan federal court, Judge Denise Cote tossed out a lawsuit in which Santos claimed that late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, ABC and Disney committed copyright infringement and unjustly enriched themselves at his expense by using videos he made on the Cameo app for a “Jimmy Kimmel Live” segment. The judge said it was clear that Kimmel used the clips, which were also posted to YouTube, for the purposes of criticism and commentary, which is fair use.

Santos had begun selling personalized videos on Cameo in December shortly after his ouster from Congress. He subsequently launched, then quickly abandoned, a longshot bid to return to Congress as an independent earlier this year.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to publicly disclose additional travel on GOP megadonor Harlan Crow’s private jet, a top Democratic senator who is backing an election-year push to tighten the high court’s ethics rules said Monday.

Thomas and his wife, Virginia, took a round-trip flight between Hawaii and New Zealand in November 2010, according to international flight records maintained by Customs and Border Protection, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote.

The letter to Crow’s lawyer is part of an inquiry that Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened after several reports that Thomas had for years received undisclosed luxury travel from Crow.

Wyden’s letter demands additional information about private jet and superyacht trips. “I am deeply concerned that Mr. Crow may have been showering a public official with extravagant gifts, then writing off those gifts to lower his tax bill,” he wrote. The letter was first reported by The New York Times.

A spokesman for Crow said he has always followed tax law and Wyden’s inquiries have “no legal basis.” “It’s concerning that Senator Wyden is abusing his committee’s powers as part of a politically motivated campaign against the Supreme Court,” said spokesman Michael Zona in a statement.

The Senate Judiciary Committee previously uncovered at least three additional trips in its own investigation, including to Indonesia and California.

Democrats, including President Joe Biden, are separately pushing for changes to the high court, and seeking to capture voter attention in an election year after ethical revelations about some justices, including trips by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.

In recent days, Justice Elena Kagan has voiced support for an enforceable ethics code for her and her colleagues. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in an interview with The Associated Press last week, declined to comment on proposals on ethics and term limits for the high court.

A court in the United Arab Emirates sentenced dozens of Bangladeshi nationals to prison, including three for life imprisonment, over protests against their home government in the Gulf country, state media reported Monday.

The Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal on Sunday handed 10-year prison sentences to 53 Bangladeshi nationals and an 11-year term to another Bangladeshi national, in addition to the three life imprisonments, according to the state-owned Emirates News Agency, WAM. The court ordered the deportation of the Bangladeshis from the UAE following their prison terms.

“The court heard a witness who confirmed that the defendants gathered and organised large-scale marches in several streets of the UAE in protest against decisions made by the Bangladeshi government,” WAM reported.

On Saturday, authorities in the United Arab Emirates ordered an investigation and an expedited trial of the arrested Bangladeshi nationals. The protests in the UAE followed weeks of demonstrations in Bangladesh by people upset about a quota system that reserved up to 30% of government jobs for relatives of veterans who fought in Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971. The country’s top court on Sunday scaled back the controversial system, in a partial victory for the mostly student protesters.

The UAE’s attorney general’s office on Saturday indicted the Bangladeshis on several charges, including “gathering in a public place and protesting against their home government with the intent to incite unrest,” obstructing law enforcement, causing harm to others and damaging property, according to WAM.

Bangladeshi nationals make up the UAE’s third-largest expatriate community. Many of them are low-paid laborers seeking to send money back home to their families. The Emirates’ overall population of more than 9.2 million is only 10% Emirati.

Political parties and labor unions are banned in the UAE, a federation of seven sheikhdoms. Broad laws severely restrict freedom of speech and almost all major local media are either state-owned or state-affiliated outlets.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for a Texas man 20 minutes before he was to receive a lethal injection Tuesday evening. The inmate has long maintained DNA testing would help prove he wasn’t responsible for the fatal stabbing of an 85-year-old woman during a home robbery decades ago.

The nation’s high court issued the indefinite stay shortly before inmate Ruben Gutierrez was to have been taken to the death chamber of a Huntsville prison.

Gutierrez was condemned for the 1998 killing of Escolastica Harrison at her home in Brownsville in Texas’ southern tip. Prosecutors said the killing of the mobile home park manager and retired teacher was part of an attempt to steal more than $600,000 she had hidden in her home because of her mistrust of banks.

Gutierrez has sought DNA testing that he claims would help prove he had no role in her death. His attorneys have said there’s no physical or forensic evidence connecting him to the killing. Two others also were charged in the case.

The high court’s brief order, released about 5:40 p.m. CDT, said its stay of execution would remain in effect until the justices decide whether they should review his appeal request. If the court denies the request, the execution reprieve would automatically be lifted.

Gutierrez, who had been set to die after 6 p.m. CDT, was in a holding cell near the death chamber when prison warden Kelly Strong advised him of the court’s intervention.

“He was visibly emotional,” prison spokeswoman Amanda Hernandez said, adding he was not expecting the court stay. “We asked him if he wanted to make a statement but he needed a minute.”

“He turned around to the back of the cell, covered his mouth. He was tearing up, speechless. He was shocked.”

She said Gutierrez then prayed with a prison chaplain and added: “God is great!”

Gutierrez has had several previous execution dates in recent years that have been delayed, including over issues related to having a spiritual adviser in the death chamber. In June 2020, Gutierrez was about an hour away from execution when he got a stay from the Supreme Court.

In the most recent appeal, Gutierrez’s attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing Texas has denied his right under state law to post-conviction DNA testing that would show he would not have been eligible for the death penalty.

Donald Trump’s lawyers are asking a New York judge to lift the gag order that barred the former president from commenting about witnesses, jurors and others tied to the criminal case that led to his conviction for falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal.

In a letter Tuesday, Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove asked Judge Juan M. Merchan to end the gag order, arguing there is nothing to justify “continued restrictions on the First Amendment rights of President Trump” now that the trial is over.

Among other reasons, the lawyers said Trump is entitled to “unrestrained campaign advocacy” in light of President Joe Biden’s public comments about the verdict last Friday, and continued public criticism of him by his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen and porn actor Stormy Daniels, both key prosecution witnesses.

Trump’s lawyers also contend the gag order must go away so he’s free to fully address the case and his conviction with the first presidential debate scheduled for June 27.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment.

Merchan issued Trump’s gag order on March 26, a few weeks before the start of the trial, after prosecutors raised concerns about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s propensity to attack people involved in his cases.

Merchan later expanded it to prohibit comments about his own family after Trump made social media posts attacking the judge’s daughter, a Democratic political consultant. Comments about Merchan and District Attorney Alvin Bragg are allowed, but the gag order bars statements about court staff and members of Bragg’s prosecution team.

Trump was convicted Thursday of 34 counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush money payment to Daniels just before the 2016 election. She claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier, which he denies. He is scheduled to be sentenced July 11.

Prosecutors had said they wanted the gag order to “protect the integrity of this criminal proceeding and avoid prejudice to the jury.” In the order, Merchan noted prosecutors had sought the restrictions “for the duration of the trial.” He did not specify when they would be lifted.

Blanche told the Associated Press last Friday that it was his understanding the gag order would expire when the trial ended and that he would seek clarity from Merchan, which he did on Tuesday.

In his bid to become North Carolina’s first Black governor, Republican Mark Robinson assails government safety net spending as a “plantation of welfare and victimhood” that has mired generations of Black people in “dependency” and poverty.

But the lieutenant governor’s political rise wouldn’t have been possible without it.

Over the past decade, Robinson’s household has relied on income from Balanced Nutrition Inc., a nonprofit founded by his wife, Yolanda Hill, that administered a free lunch program for North Carolina children. The organization, funded entirely by taxpayers, has collected roughly $7 million in government funding since 2017, while paying out at least $830,000 in salaries to Hill, Robinson and other members of their family, tax filings and state documents show.

The income offered the Robinsons a degree of stability after decades of struggle that included multiple bankruptcies, home foreclosure and misdemeanor charges — later dropped — for writing bad checks. In Robinson’s telling, the financial turnaround provided by the organization also allowed for his ascent into the North Carolina government.

“Yolanda’s nonprofit was providing a salary for her that was enough to support us,” Robinson wrote in his 2022 memoir, noting its growth gave him the freedom to quit his furniture manufacturing job in 2018 and begin a career in populist conservative politics.

“I either was making speeches or was downtown at my wife’s office, helping her with her work,” he wrote of juggling his early political activity with Balanced Nutrition, which records indicate paid him about $40,000 in 2018. “When I ran for office, I stopped doing that. ... Now my son does it.”

Yet now in the closing months of a swing state campaign, the nonprofit that provided the family a vital lifeline has become a political liability. In March, state regulators launched a probe of the organization’s finances after flagging years of financial irregularities, including over $100,000 in unaccounted spending.

The scrutiny adds to Robinson’s challenges. He already has drawn negative attention for his history of inflammatory comments that include calling former first lady Michelle Obama a man and using the word “filth” when discussing gay and transgender people.

Robinson, who would oversee a state budget of more than $30 billion if elected governor, has denied any wrongdoing and blasted the inquiry as politically motivated. His campaign declined to make him or any of his family members available for an interview. But campaign spokesman Michael Lonergan defended Balance Nutrition’s work, citing a routine audit that didn’t find any “material weaknesses” in the organization’s 2021 finances.