A St. Louis judge issued an arrest warrant for three-time Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein after she failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing involving allegations that she assaulted a police officer during a 2024 protest at Washington University.

The warrant was withdrawn later the same day after Stein’s attorney appeared in court, but the judge made clear that another missed appearance could have immediate consequences.

Stein, 76, faces one count of first-degree trespassing and one count of fourth-degree assault stemming from the April 27, 2024 demonstration.

The protest unfolded on Washington University’s Danforth Campus, where demonstrators protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza entered the campus, erected tents and locked arms while chanting “Hold the line” after police issued orders to disperse.

More than 100 people were arrested as officers moved to clear the encampment.

Stein was among them.

According to court documents and police accounts, Stein allegedly grabbed the bicycle of an approaching police officer, causing the bike to strike another officer—identified as Officer Moore—in the forearm.

Authorities further allege that while Moore held the bicycle up, Stein kicked him multiple times in the right leg near the groin.

The officer later sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with a strained left forearm and leg as well as testicular contusions, according to the account of the case.

Stein’s campaign manager and deputy were also arrested during the demonstration.

The case returned to the spotlight when St. Louis Associate Circuit Judge Karma Johnson issued a failure-to-appear warrant after neither Stein nor her attorney, Joseph Welch, appeared for a scheduled 9 a.m. hearing.

The court had ordered the parties and their attorneys to appear in person.

Prosecutors were present and reportedly told the court they were not requesting an arrest warrant.

Judge Johnson issued one anyway.

“There will be a failure to appear warrant for Ms. Stein,” the judge stated from the bench.

The order called for Stein to be arrested and held without bond.

Hours later, Welch appeared in court and asked the judge to quash the warrant.

Johnson granted the request, withdrawing the warrant and continuing Stein’s case to Sept. 14.

But the new court filing included an unmistakable warning:

“Warrant to issue if Defendant fails to appear.”

Stein has been ordered to appear in person at the next hearing.

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Melissa Price Smith previously stressed that the criminal case concerns Stein’s alleged conduct during the demonstration—not her political views or right to protest.

“These misdemeanor criminal charges are not a statement about the freedoms of speech or assembly, which we honor and uphold as part of our Constitution,” Smith said when the charges were announced.

“They are not a statement about the subject of the protest… These charges merely reflect our professional judgment that we have the evidence to prove these particular criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” she added.

Despite more than 100 arrests during the demonstration, Stein and one other individual ultimately faced formal criminal charges, according to the original account.

Stein has been one of the country’s most recognizable Green Party political figures for more than a decade.

She was the party’s presidential nominee in 2012, 2016 and again in 2024.

Her 2016 candidacy became particularly controversial after some Democrats argued that votes cast for Stein in closely contested states contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.

During the 2024 election cycle, Stein made opposition to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza a prominent part of her candidacy and repeatedly described Israel’s actions as “genocide.”

The criminal case, however, is not about those political positions.

It centers on what prosecutors allege Stein personally did when police attempted to clear the Washington University encampment.

Stein has not been convicted of either charge, and the allegations against her remain to be adjudicated.

The brief arrest warrant added another complication to the case—but it ultimately lasted only hours.

What happens if Stein misses court again is considerably less ambiguous.

Her next hearing is scheduled for Sept. 14, and Judge Johnson’s order explicitly warns:

“Warrant to issue if Defendant fails to appear.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris unleashed an expletive while attacking President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom plans in a video that has resurfaced and is once again drawing attention online.

“Are you f***ing kidding me?” Harris said as she criticized the project during an October 2025 interview with comedian Jon Stewart.

The exchange came during an appearance on Stewart’s “The Weekly Show” podcast and centered on a broader argument over Washington’s priorities amid a federal funding dispute.

The footage is not new.

Harris made the remarks in October 2025, although an article published Sept. 18, 2026, highlighted the clip after it began circulating again on X.

At the time of the original interview, Harris was discussing uncertainty surrounding funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides food assistance to millions of Americans.

She used Trump’s proposed White House ballroom as a stark contrast to the possibility that families could temporarily lose access to food benefits.

“Are you f***ing kidding me?” she said as she turned her attention to the construction project.

Harris argued that Washington was discussing a ballroom that could host wealthy and powerful guests while families dependent on federal food assistance faced uncertainty.

She warned that babies could go hungry if benefits stopped in the hours following the 2025 conversation.

That warning was tied to the funding situation existing when Harris gave the interview. It was not a new announcement about SNAP benefits ending in October 2026.

Harris’s language grew increasingly pointed as she questioned whether a major White House construction project offered any meaningful help to Americans struggling with everyday expenses.

The broader discussion began when Stewart asked whether Democrats could learn anything from Trump’s willingness to disrupt the federal government and political establishment.

Harris responded that disruption itself could have value but argued that disruption should not become destruction.

She then used the ballroom controversy to illustrate her point.

Her argument was that Democrats should concentrate on tangible solutions to problems affecting Americans’ daily lives rather than political spectacle.

Trump and supporters of the ballroom project have presented a different rationale, including the need for a controlled venue capable of accommodating major White House events and addressing security concerns surrounding large gatherings.

The resurfaced exchange therefore captured two very different arguments being made about the project.

Harris portrayed the ballroom as a symbol of misplaced priorities at a moment when food-assistance funding was uncertain.

Trump has cited the need for an appropriate venue for major White House functions, including the security considerations involved in hosting large numbers of officials and guests.

The SNAP fight itself was also considerably broader than Harris’s viral remark.

According to the original report, Republicans accused Democrats of blocking funding efforts during the larger negotiations, while Democrats opposed immigration-enforcement provisions they considered unacceptable.

Ultimately, Congress—not either side’s political messaging—controlled the legislative terms of the funding dispute.

The resurfacing of Harris’s comments nearly a year later also creates an important distinction.

The clip documents what Harris said during the October 2025 funding fight. It does not represent a new October 2026 warning that SNAP benefits are about to disappear.

Nor does Harris’s profane reaction by itself establish the ballroom’s ultimate cost, financing structure or effect on federal spending.

What the footage does capture unmistakably is how aggressively the former vice president chose to frame the controversy.

Harris presented the choice in stark terms: families potentially struggling to obtain food on one side and a new White House ballroom on the other.

That framing immediately generated reaction from critics online.

One commenter challenged Harris’s suggestion that people could go hungry during an interruption in benefits, pointing to food banks, churches and soup kitchens as alternative sources of assistance.

Those programs can provide food assistance, although their existence alone does not establish whether they could replace federal SNAP benefits for affected recipients.

Another commenter responded by attacking Harris over abortion rather than addressing the SNAP funding or White House construction disputes themselves.

The reaction demonstrated why the clip has proved so easy to revive.

A complicated congressional funding battle can involve appropriations, negotiations and competing legislative provisions.

But four words from a former vice president travel considerably faster.

“Are you f***ing kidding me?”

Nearly a year after Harris said them, those words have put an old political fight back into the spotlight.

For generations of football fans, especially those in Chicago, he represented far more than wins, championships and Sundays at Soldier Field. He was part of the identity of a franchise—a larger-than-life personality whose toughness, passion and unmistakable presence helped define an era of American football.

That legend was Mike Ditka.

The Hall of Fame tight end and iconic former Chicago Bears head coach has died at 86, according to Jarrett Payton of 104.3 The Score.

For Bears fans, the loss closes a remarkable chapter in franchise history.

Ditka didn’t simply coach one of football’s most memorable teams. His connection to Chicago stretched across decades, first as a groundbreaking player and later as the fiery head coach who led the Bears to the pinnacle of the sport.

His crowning moment came with the unforgettable 1985 Bears.

Behind a punishing defense and an offense led by Hall of Fame running back Walter Payton, Chicago tore through its competition on the way to Super Bowl XX.

The Bears finished that extraordinary season by overwhelming the New England Patriots 46-10, delivering Chicago a championship and creating a team that would be remembered long after the final whistle.

For Ditka, that championship carried an even deeper meaning.

His return to Chicago was something he had personally pursued.

While working as an assistant under legendary Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry, Ditka wrote to Bears owner George Halas asking for an opportunity to come home and lead the franchise for which he had once played.

Halas gave him that opportunity in 1982.

What followed was an 11-season run as Bears head coach and a place in Chicago sports history that would never be forgotten.

Ditka was named NFL Coach of the Year in both 1985 and 1988. The Super Bowl XX victory also gave him his second championship as a coach after he had been part of the Dallas staff that won Super Bowl XII.

But before millions knew Ditka as the intense figure pacing the Chicago sideline, he had already changed the game on the field.

The Bears selected him fifth overall in the 1961 NFL Draft.

At a time when tight ends were still viewed largely as blockers, Ditka helped redefine what the position could become.

During six seasons and 84 games with Chicago, he caught 316 passes for 4,503 yards and 34 touchdowns, establishing himself as one of football’s most dangerous receiving threats at the position.

Chicago traded Ditka to the Philadelphia Eagles in 1967. He spent two seasons there before joining the Dallas Cowboys, where he played the final four seasons of his career from 1969 through 1972.

By the time his playing days were over, Ditka’s résumé included two NFL championships, five Pro Bowl selections, two first-team All-Pro honors and three second-team selections.

His impact endured long after he stopped playing.

Ditka was eventually named to both the NFL’s 75th and 100th Anniversary All-Time Teams—recognition reserved for players whose influence extended far beyond their own generation.

After retiring following the 1972 season, he spent nine seasons learning under Landry in Dallas before returning to the city with which his name would forever be linked.

Then came another historic honor.

In 1988, while still coaching the Bears, Ditka became the first tight end ever inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

By then, his legacy had already been secured twice over—as a player who helped transform his position and as the coach who brought Chicago one of the most celebrated championships in NFL history.

But statistics and trophies only tell part of the story.

For generations of Bears fans, Mike Ditka was simply “Da Coach”—a symbol of Chicago football whose personality seemed perfectly matched to the city and the teams he represented.

Players retire. Seasons end. Even championship celebrations eventually fade into history.

Some figures, however, become inseparable from the teams they helped build.

For Chicago, Mike Ditka was one of them.

He was 86.