[ad_1]
FILE – Montenegrin police officers escort South Korean citizen, Terraform Labs founder Do Kwon, center, in Montenegro’s capital Podgorica, March 23, 2024. A Montenegrin appeals court on Thursday, Aug. 1, upheld a ruling by a lower court to hand over the South Korean mogul known as “the cryptocurrency king” to his native country, rejecting a bid to extradite him to the United States. (AP Photo/Risto Bozovic, File)
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
SALT LAKE CITY — A near-total abortion ban will remain on hold in Utah after the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the law should remain blocked until a lower court can assess its constitutionality.
With the decision, abortion remains legal up to 18 weeks under another state law that has served as a fallback as abortion rights have been thrown into limbo.
The panel wrote in its opinion that Planned Parenthood Association of Utah had legal standing to challenge the state’s abortion trigger law, and that a lower court acted within its purview when it initially blocked the ban.
Their ruling only affects whether the restrictions remain on pause amid further legal proceedings and does not decide the final outcome of abortion policy in the state. The case will now be sent back to a lower court to determine whether the law is constitutional.
The trigger law that remains on hold would prohibit abortions except in cases when the mother’s life is at risk or there is a fatal fetal abnormality. A separate state law passed this year also would allow abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy in cases of rape or incest.
Utah lawmakers passed the trigger law — one of the most restrictive in the nation — in 2020 to automatically ban most abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. When Roe fell in June 2022, abortion rights advocates in Utah immediately challenged the law, and a district court judge put it on hold a few days later.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision, most Republican-led states have implemented abortion bans or heavy restrictions. Currently, 14 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more have bans that kick in after about six weeks of pregnancy — before many women realize they’re pregnant. Besides Utah’s, the only other ban currently on hold due to a court order is in neighboring Wyoming.
When the U.S. Supreme Court determined there was no right to abortion in the federal Constitution, a key legal question became whether state constitutions have provisions that protect abortion access. State constitutions differ, and state courts have come to different conclusions. In April, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that an abortion ban adopted in 1864 could be enforced — but lawmakers quickly repealed it.
Abortion figures to be a major issue in November’s elections, with abortion-related ballot measures going before voters in at least six states. In the seven statewide measures held since Roe was overturned, voters have sided with abortion rights advocates each time.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
FILE – Investigators from Israel examine wreckage on March 12, 2019 at the scene of the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 crash near Bishoftu, or Debre Zeit, south of Addis Ababa, in Ethiopia. Families of people killed in the 737 Max crashes formally asked a federal judge in Texas to reject Boeing’s plea deal with the Justice Department. (AP Photo/Mulugeta Ayene, File)
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey’s ban on the AR-15 rifle is unconstitutional, but the state’s cap on magazines over 10 rounds passes constitutional muster, a federal judge said Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan’s 69-page opinion says he was compelled to rule as he did because of the Supreme Court’s rulings in firearms cases, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision that expanded gun rights.
Sheridan’s ruling left both 2nd Amendment advocates and the state attorney general planning appeals. The judge temporarily delayed the order for 30 days.
Pointing to the high court’s precedents, Sheridan suggested Congress and the president could do more to curb gun-related violence nationwide.
“It is hard to accept the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes,” he wrote.
Sheridan added: “Where the Supreme Court has set for the law of our Nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it. … This principle — combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation — necessitates the Court’s decision.”
Nine other states and the District of Columbia have laws similar to New Jersey’s, covering New York, Los Angeles and other major cities as well as the sites of massacres such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed by a shooter armed with an AR-15, one of the firearms commonly referred to as an assault weapon.
“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional. FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Police Coalition, one of the plaintiffs.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said in a statement the ruling undermines public safety.
“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation,” he said.
He added: “We look forward to pressing our arguments on appeal.”
Several challenges to state assault weapons bans have cited the Bruen decision.
New Jersey has among the strictest gun laws in the country, particularly under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, who has signed a number of measures into law, including the 2018 large capacity magazine ban at the center of this week’s ruling. More measures Murphy signed in 2022 include allowing the attorney general to use the state’s public nuisance law to go after gun makers in court. A message seeking comment Wednesday was left with a spokesperson for the governor.
The state’s assault weapons ban dates to 1990 and includes various other weapons, but Sheridan focused on the AR-15, citing the plaintiffs’ concentration on that weapon in their court filings. The large capacity magazine bill signed by Murphy lowered the limit from 15 rounds to 10 against the protest of 2nd Amendment advocates. The bill’s sponsors said the goal was to reduce the potential for mass casualties in shootings.
—-
Associated Press reporter Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
LONDON — Huw Edwards, the BBC’s former top news presenter, pleaded guilty Wednesday to three counts of making indecent images of children.
The offenses he pleaded guilty to at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in central London during a 26-minute hearing involved images shared on WhatsApp between December 2020 and August 2021.
Edwards has been remanded on bail until a sentencing hearing on Sept. 16. He could face up to 10 years in prison.
The court heard that Edwards, 62, was involved in an online chat with an adult man on the messaging service who sent him 377 sexual images, of which 41 were indecent images of children.
The images that were sent included seven of what are known as “category A,” which are the most indecent. Of those, the estimated age of most of the children was between 13 and 15, but one was aged between 7 and 9, the court was told.
The court also heard that the unnamed male asked Edwards on Feb. 2, 2021 whether what he was sending was too young. Edwards told him not to send any underage images. Five more, though, were sent, and the exchange of pornographic images continued until April 2022.
Speaking in Edwards’ defense, his lawyer Philip Evans said there is “no suggestion” that his client had “in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”
Edwards, he added, “did not keep any images, did not send any to anyone else and did not and has not sought similar images from anywhere else.”
Edwards was one of the BBC’s most prominent figures, as well as one of its highest-paid before he was suspended in July 2023 for separate claims made last year. He later resigned for health reasons.
His lawyer Evans told the court that Edwards had “both mental and physical” health issues, and that he is “not just of good character, but of exceptional character.”
In a four-decade career at the BBC, Edwards had become one of its trusted voices. He was the lead anchor on the BBC’s nighttime news and led BBC coverage of the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II in 2022.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
FILE – Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., speaks during the Republican National Convention Monday, July 15, 2024, in Milwaukee. An Atlanta man has pleaded guilty in federal court to making threats against U.S. Rep. Greene of Georgia. Court records show that 34-year-old Sean Patrick Cirillo pleaded guilty Tuesday, July 30, to a charge of transmitting interstate threats. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, File)
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
The $20 billion housing bond that will be on the Nov. 5 ballot is like snake oil.
Only as little as 72% of the $20 billion housing bond will be spent to actually build affordable housing for extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households. Ten percent can be spent on grants for “transportation, schools, and parks.” Notably, only 80% of the proceeds of the bond issue need to be spent in the county funding the bonds. Thus, Contra Costa County residents could end up paying for parks in San Mateo County.
The decision to place the bond on the ballot was made by the MTC, which includes unelected, unaccountable officials and is therefore like taxation without representation. We can and must do better.
Nick Waranoff
Orinda
Re: “Democrats deserved contest, not coronation” (Page A7, July 25).
In his critique of Kamala Harris, Bret Stephens mentions high staff turnover during her time as vice president and the fact that she failed the bar exam on the first try.
Regarding turnover, he should have started by looking at the mile-long list of senior and mid-level Trump people who quit or were fired.
As for the bar exam, Harris is in good company. Others who took the exam more than once include Franklin D. Roosevelt, Michele Obama, John F, Kennedy Jr., and former California Governors Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson.
He also claims she has been a bad campaigner. He’s entitled to his opinion, but her first speech in Milwaukee looked pretty impressive to me, in contrast to Donald Trump’s 93-minute meandering speech at the Republican convention.
John Walkmeyer
San Ramon
Re: “Last Sunday was hottest day on Earth in recorded history” (Page A2, July 24)
That alarming headline was corrected the next day online: “Sunday was hottest day on the planet – no, wait, it’s Monday.” Things are just starting to warm up.
It is now obvious that the cost of this heat — both in dollars and in human lives — far outstrips the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Are we going to follow Ben Franklin’s advice: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Or John Paul Jones, “I have not yet begun to fight”? We need to get serious, folks.
Cliff Gold
Fremont
Re: “Newsom orders sweeps of camps” (Page A1, July 26).
The scary truth is most Californians are only a few bad breaks away from homelessness. The unlucky blow may come from a wildfire or, worse, an unexpected medical bill. Insurers profit most off denying coverage, that is, if you were fortunate enough to have health insurance in the first place.
Capitalism turns housing into a scarce commodity and then blames people who lack it. Rather than treating the unhoused as untouchable, we should give them security and more chances. It is the Christian thing to do and a humane imperative.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order to sweep away homeless encampments is cruel. It does nothing to solve the systemic problems that cause homelessness in the first place. And by treating other people like trash, the Ggovernor has proven he’s garbage.
Alan Marling
Livermore
I was one of 50,000 Black men on a call for Kamala Harris, a day after 44,000 Black women got together. I haven’t seen this level of excitement since Barack Obama in 2008. Black women and men being this energized is how we will win the fight for a multiracial democracy.
The California Donor Table has moved over $60 million to progressive community organizations and candidates. With skyrocketing support from voters of color, we will win the presidency, retain the Senate and win eight contested California House districts to take back the House
Kamala was born at the same Oakland hospital as my son. In 2020, hundreds of us danced in front of her former Berkeley apartment to celebrate her victory. And boy will we party if, natch, when she wins the presidency.
Ludovic Blain
Berkeley
Re: “Eviscerating agencies’ power is dangerous” (Page A6, July 10).
A letter writer complained that the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimundo now prevents federal administrative agencies from “resolving statutory ambiguities.” But that is exactly how it should be. That’s what courts do.
While agencies may have certain “expertise,” they are not courts. Courts have the expertise to resolve ambiguities in the law; agencies don’t. I don’t want an agency expert to interpret a legal ambiguity; that is not the job of a federal bureaucrat. That expert might be a conservative or liberal who lets his or her worldviews influence a decision.
If an agency finds an ambiguity in the law, have them go to Congress to clarify the issue. That is the job of our representatives.
Douglas Abbott
Union City
[ad_2]
Letters To The Editor
Source link
[ad_1]
AMES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa’s law banning most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy goes into effect Monday, a drastic change that enrages — but doesn’t surprise — Sarah Traxler.
When Traxler, an OB-GYN based in Minnesota and the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood North Central States, went to high school in a conservative Louisiana town in the 1990s, she saw abortion rights losing ground even then, decades before the U.S. Supreme Court and Iowa’s high court would say there isn’t a constitutional right to abortion.
“The protections of Roe have just been chipped away at slowly through time,” she told The Associated Press.
At 8 a.m. Monday in Iowa, the state will join more than a dozen others where abortion access has been sharply curbed in the roughly two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
It’s an outcome Iowa’s abortion providers have been fighting but still prepared for, shoring up abortion access in neighboring states and drawing on the lessons learned where bans went into effect more swiftly.
States with restrictive laws are “glimpses of our future,” Traxler said. Even with the ability to prepare, she told reporters Friday, “this transition is devastating and tragic for the people of Iowa.”
Iowa’s Republican-controlled Legislature approved the law last year, but a judge blocked it from being enforced shortly after the measure went into effect because of a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Planned Parenthood and the Emma Goldman Clinic in Iowa City.
The Iowa Supreme Court reiterated in June that there is no constitutional right to an abortion in the state and ordered the hold to be lifted. The district court judge’s July 22 orders set July 29 as the first day of enforcement.
The law prohibits abortions after cardiac activity can be detected, which is roughly at six weeks of pregnancy and before many know they are pregnant. There are limited exceptions in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality or when the life of the mother is in danger. Previously, abortion in Iowa was legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 44% of the 3,761 total abortions in Iowa in 2021 occurred at or before six weeks. Only six abortions were at the 21-week mark or later.
Alex Sharp, senior health center manager who runs the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic closest to Des Moines, said staff members overbooked schedules this week, moving up appointments for people seeking abortions who likely would be past the legal limit as of Monday.
Still, that wasn’t an option for everyone. Almost a third of the people Sharp spoke to said they couldn’t get off work or find daycare before next week. Those patients could work with staff members to find appointments out of state, she said.
Across the country, the status of abortion has changed constantly since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, with trigger laws immediately going into effect, states passing new restrictions or expansions of access and court battles putting those on hold.
In states with restrictions, the main abortion options are getting pills via telehealth or underground networks and traveling, vastly driving up demand in states with more access.
The Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, projected last month that about 20,000 abortions were performed in Kansas in 2023, or 152% more than in 2020. Near Iowa, Illinois saw a 71% increase and Minnesota went up 49%. Providers there expect to see more influx after Monday.
When the first restrictive laws went into effect, like in Texas, providers had to essentially “figure it out as we went,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder of Whole Woman’s Health. And even though providers across the country have learned how to work within the limits, “I don’t ever want us to have this seem normal.”
Hagstrom Miller has been talking with leaders at the independent Emma Goldman Clinic about accepting referrals at the Whole Woman’s Health clinic in Minnesota, where 20% of abortion appointments go to out-of-state travelers, she said. That percentage is expected to increase under Iowa’s new law.
The region’s Planned Parenthood affiliate also has been making investments for over a year to prepare for Monday. A location added last year in Mankato, Minnesota, is only an hour’s drive from Iowa and recently began providing medication abortion. Just over the state line in Omaha, Nebraska, a facility is quadrupling exam rooms and adding staff.
Maggie DeWitte, who has worked for decades to advocate against abortion access in Iowa, said it’s to be expected after Dobbs that while some states work to regulate or even eliminate abortion, others are going to be less restrictive.
“We certainly hope that women would not travel out of state, but we know that that is going to happen,” she said. “So that just has to continue our education efforts to those women to let them know that there are other options out there.”
Many people don’t know the law was passed or is going into effect, making those conservations even more sensitive. Staff members have had to tell patients they are too far along and it’s too late unless they travel and miss more work, Planned Parenthood’s Sharp said.
It’s been difficult, she said, even though clinics are as ready as they can be for Monday.
“We are prepared operationally for it,” Sharp said, “but not emotionally or mentally for it, at all.”
Mark Vancleave in Bloomington, Minnesota, and Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday misrepresented in a social media post what the U.S. Supreme Court’s Monday ruling on presidential immunity means for his civil and criminal cases.
“TOTAL EXONERATION!” he wrote in the post on his Truth Social platform. “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s Brilliantly Written and Historic Decision ENDS all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the WHITE HOUSE AND DOJ INSPIRED CIVIL HOAXES in New York.”
But none of Trump’s pending cases have been dismissed as a result of the ruling, nor have the verdicts already reached against him been overturned. The ruling does amount to a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying court proceedings until after the 2024 election.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
CLAIM: The Supreme Court’s ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution means “total exoneration” for former President Donald Trump.
THE FACTS: Although the historic 6-3 ruling is a win for Trump, he has not been exonerated and his legal troubles are far from over. A delay of his Washington trial on charges of election interference has been indefinitely extended as a result. Also, he still faces charges in two other criminal cases, and the verdicts already reached against him in a criminal and a civil case have not been overturned.
Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former U.S. attorney for the state’s Eastern District, told The Associated Press that Trump’s claim is “inaccurate for a number of reasons.”
“The court found immunity from prosecution, not exoneration,” she wrote in an email. “The court did not say that Trump’s conduct did not amount to criminal behavior. Just that prosecutors are not allowed to prosecute him for it because of the special role of a president and the need to permit him to make ‘bold’ and ‘fearless’ decisions without concern for criminal consequences.”
McQuade wrote that Trump’s case over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate won’t be affected, as it arose from conduct committed after he left the White House. She added that any impact on his New York hush money trial “seems unlikely” since the crimes were committed in a personal capacity.
“In addition, the Court’s opinion is solely focused on immunity for criminal conduct,” McQuade continued, explaining that it will not protect him from civil liability in his cases regarding defamatory statements about advice columnist E. Jean Carroll or fraudulent business practices conducted at the Trump Organization.
Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority said former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. Unofficial, or private, actions are exempt from such immunity.
This means that special counsel Jack Smith cannot proceed with significant allegations in his indictment accusing Trump of plotting to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss, or he must at least defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.
The case has not been dismissed. It was instead sent back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which the president would be immune from prosecution. The trial was supposed to have begun in March, but has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his Supreme Court appeal.
However, the justices did knock out one aspect of the indictment, finding that Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department.
The opinion also stated that Trump is “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, to reject certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s electoral vote win. But prosecutors can try to make the case that Trump’s pressure on Pence can still be part of the case against him, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
It is all but certain that the ruling means Trump will not face trial in Washington ahead of the 2024 election, as the need for further analysis is expected to tie up the case for months with legal wrangling over whether actions in the indictment were official or unofficial, the AP has reported.
Trump is facing charges in two other criminal cases, one over his alleged interference in Georgia’s 2020 election and the other over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. Trump’s lawyers have asserted presidential immunity in both cases, but a ruling on the matter has not been made in either.
The former president was convicted in May of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in New York. After Monday’s ruling, the New York judge who presided over that trial postponed Trump’s sentencing until at least September and agreed to weigh the impact of the presidential immunity decision.
Trump was ordered in February to pay a $454 million penalty as part of a civil fraud lawsuit, for lying about his wealth for years as he built the real estate empire that vaulted him to stardom and the White House. It is still under appeal.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996 and for defaming her over the allegations, awarding her $5 million. Carroll was awarded an additional $83.3 million in January by a separate jury for Trump’s continued social media attacks against her. An appeal of the former decision was rejected in April. The latter case is still being appealed.
Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Justin Timberlake ’s lawyer said Friday that the pop singer wasn’t intoxicated during a traffic stop last month, as he seeks to get his drunken driving charge in New York’s Hamptons dismissed, citing errors in documents submitted by police.
But Sag Harbor Village Justice Justice Carl Irace ordered Timberlake to be re-arraigned Aug. 2 with the corrected paperwork.
He also agreed the former NSYNC member, who is currently on tour in Europe, could appear virtually for the proceeding. Timberlake didn’t attend Friday’s hearing as his appearance was waived in advance.
Timberlake’s lawyer, Edward Burke, said after the hearing that police made “very significant errors” and expects the charge to be dismissed. He also maintained that Timberlake didn’t drive drunk.
“He was not intoxicated,” Burke told reporters outside court. “I’ll say it again. Justin Timberlake was not intoxicated.”
Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, described the paperwork issue as a “ministerial error” and that an amended charging document was filed July 2.
“The facts and circumstance of the case have not been changed or amended,” spokesperson Emily O’Neil said in an email.
Burke, in a follow-up statement, suggested there were other problems with the arrest documents but didn’t elaborate.
“The police made a number of very significant errors in this case,” he said. “In court today, you heard the district attorney try to fix one of those errors. But that’s just one and there are many others. Sometimes the police make mistakes and this is just one of those instances.”
Timberlake respects law enforcement and the judicial process and cooperated with officers and treated them with respect throughout his arrest last month, Burke added.
Tierney’s office declined to respond to Burke’s comments.
“We stand ready to litigate the underlying facts of this case in court, rather than in the press,” O’Neil said.
Timberlake was charged with the misdemeanor on June 18 after police said he ran a stop sign and veered out of his lane in Sag Harbor, a onetime whaling village mentioned in Herman Melville’s classic novel “Moby-Dick” that’s nestled amid the Hamptons, around 100 miles (160 kilometers) east of New York City.
The boy band singer-turned-solo star and actor was driving a 2025 BMW around 12:30 a.m. when an officer stopped him and determined he was intoxicated, according to a court document.
“His eyes were bloodshot and glassy, a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage was emanating from his breath, he was unable to divide attention, he had slowed speech, he was unsteady afoot and he performed poorly on all standardized field sobriety tests,” the court papers said.
Timberlake, 43, told the officer at the time that he had one martini and was following some friends home, according to the documents. After being arrested and taken to a police station in nearby East Hampton, he refused a breath test.
The 10-time Grammy winner began performing as a young Disney Mouseketeer, rose to fame as part of the boy band NSYNC and embarked on a solo recording career in the early 2000s.
Associated Press reporter Karen Matthews in New York contributed to this story.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — In a fresh broadside against one of the world’s most popular technology companies, the Justice Department late Friday accused TikTok of harnessing the capability to gather bulk information on users based on views on divisive social issues like gun control, abortion and religion.
Government lawyers wrote in documents filed to the federal appeals court in Washington that TikTok and its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance used an internal web-suite system called Lark to enable TikTok employees to speak directly with ByteDance engineers in China.
TikTok employees used Lark to send sensitive data about U.S. users, information that has wound up being stored on Chinese servers and accessible to ByteDance employees in China, federal officials said.
One of Lark’s internal search tools, the filing states, permits ByteDance and TikTok employees in the U.S. and China to gather information on users’ content or expressions, including views on sensitive topics, such as abortion or religion. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported TikTok had tracked users who watched LGBTQ content through a dashboard the company said it had since deleted.
The new court documents represent the government’s first major defense in a consequential legal battle over the future of the popular social media platform, which is used by more than 170 million Americans. Under a law signed by President Joe Biden in April, the company could face a ban in a few months if it doesn’t break ties with ByteDance.
The measure was passed with bipartisan support after lawmakers and administration officials expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion towards Beijing’s interests by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds.
The Justice Department warned, in stark terms, of the potential for what it called “covert content manipulation” by the Chinese government, saying the algorithm could be designed to shape content that users receive.
“By directing ByteDance or TikTok to covertly manipulate that algorithm, China could for example further its existing malign influence operations and amplify its efforts to undermine trust in our democracy and exacerbate social divisions,” the brief states.
The concern, the Justice Department said, is more than theoretical, alleging that TikTok and ByteDance employees are known to engage in a practice called “heating” in which certain videos are promoted in order to receive a certain number of views. While this capability enables TikTok to curate popular content and disseminate it more widely, U.S. officials posit it can also be used for nefarious purposes.
Federal officials are asking the court to allow a classified version of its legal brief, which won’t be accessible to the two companies.
Nothing in the redacted brief “changes the fact that the Constitution is on our side,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement.
“The TikTok ban would silence 170 million Americans’ voices, violating the 1st Amendment,” Haurek said. “As we’ve said before, the government has never put forth proof of its claims, including when Congress passed this unconstitutional law. Today, once again, the government is taking this unprecedented step while hiding behind secret information. We remain confident we will prevail in court.”
In the redacted version of the court documents, the Justice Department said another tool triggered the suppression of content based on the use of certain words. Certain policies of the tool applied to ByteDance users in China, where the company operates a similar app called Douyin that follows Beijing’s strict censorship rules.
But Justice Department officials said other policies may have been applied to TikTok users outside of China. TikTok was investigating the existence of these policies and whether they had ever been used in the U.S. in, or around, 2022, officials said.
The government points to the Lark data transfers to explain why federal officials do not believe that Project Texas, TikTok’s $1.5 billion mitigation plan to store U.S. user data on servers owned and maintained by the tech giant Oracle, is sufficient to guard against national security concerns.
In its legal challenge against the law, TikTok has heavily leaned on arguments that the potential ban violates the First Amendment because it bars the app from continued speech unless it attracts a new owner through a complex divestment process. It has also argued divestment would change the speech on the platform because a new social platform would lack the algorithm that has driven its success.
In its response, the Justice Department argued TikTok has not raised any valid free speech claims, saying the law addresses national security concerns without targeting protected speech, and argues that China and ByteDance, as foreign entities, aren’t shielded by the First Amendment.
TikTok has also argued the U.S. law discriminates on viewpoints, citing statements from some lawmakers critical of what they viewed as an anti-Israel tilt on the platform during its war in Gaza.
Justice Department officials disputes that argument, saying the law at issue reflects their ongoing concern that China could weaponize technology against U.S. national security, a fear they say is made worse by demands that companies under Beijing’s control turn over sensitive data to the government. They say TikTok, under its current operating structure, is required to be responsive to those demands.
Oral arguments in the case is scheduled for September.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a fresh broadside against one of the world’s most popular technology companies, the Justice Department is accusing TikTok of harnessing the capability to gather bulk information on users based on views on divisive social issues like gun control, abortion and religion.
Government lawyers wrote in documents filed late Friday to the federal appeals court in Washington that TikTok and its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance used an internal web-suite system called Lark to enable TikTok employees to speak directly with ByteDance engineers in China.
TikTok employees used Lark to send sensitive data about U.S. users, information that has wound up being stored on Chinese servers and accessible to ByteDance employees in China, federal officials said.
One of Lark’s internal search tools, the filing states, permits ByteDance and TikTok employees in the U.S. and China to gather information on users’ content or expressions, including views on sensitive topics, such as abortion or religion. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported TikTok had tracked users who watched LGBTQ content through a dashboard the company said it had since deleted.
The new court documents represent the government’s first major defense in a consequential legal battle over the future of the popular social media platform, which is used by more than 170 million Americans. Under a law signed by President Joe Biden in April, the company could face a ban in a few months if it doesn’t break ties with ByteDance.
The measure was passed with bipartisan support after lawmakers and administration officials expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion towards Beijing’s interests by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds.
”’Intelligence reporting further demonstrates that ByteDance and TikTok Global have taken action in response to (Chinese government) demands to censor content outside of China,” Casey Blackburn, a senior U.S. intelligence official, wrote in a filing that supported the government’s arguments.
The Justice Department warned, in stark terms, of the potential for what it called “covert content manipulation” by the Chinese government, saying the algorithm could be designed to shape content that users receive.
“By directing ByteDance or TikTok to covertly manipulate that algorithm, China could for example further its existing malign influence operations and amplify its efforts to undermine trust in our democracy and exacerbate social divisions,” the brief states.
The concern, the Justice Department said, is more than theoretical, alleging that TikTok and ByteDance employees are known to engage in a practice called “heating” in which certain videos are promoted in order to receive a certain number of views. While this capability enables TikTok to curate popular content and disseminate it more widely, U.S. officials posit it can also be used for nefarious purposes.
Federal officials are asking the court to allow a classified version of the legal brief, which would not be accessible to the two companies.
Nothing in the redacted brief “changes the fact that the Constitution is on our side,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement.
“The TikTok ban would silence 170 million Americans’ voices, violating the 1st Amendment,” Haurek said. “As we’ve said before, the government has never put forth proof of its claims, including when Congress passed this unconstitutional law. Today, once again, the government is taking this unprecedented step while hiding behind secret information. We remain confident we will prevail in court.”
In the redacted version of the court documents, the Justice Department said another tool triggered the suppression of content based on the use of certain words. Certain policies of the tool applied to ByteDance users in China, where the company operates a similar app called Douyin that follows Beijing’s strict censorship rules.
But Justice Department officials said other policies may have been applied to TikTok users outside of China. TikTok was investigating the existence of these policies and whether they had ever been used in the U.S. in, or around, 2022, officials said.
The government points to the Lark data transfers to explain why federal officials do not believe that Project Texas, TikTok’s $1.5 billion mitigation plan to store U.S. user data on servers owned and maintained by the tech giant Oracle, is sufficient to guard against national security concerns.
In its legal challenge against the law, TikTok has heavily leaned on arguments that the potential ban violates the First Amendment because it bars the app from continued speech unless it attracts a new owner through a complex divestment process. It has also argued divestment would change the speech on the platform because it would create a version of TikTok lacking the algorithm that has driven its success.
In its response, the Justice Department argued TikTok has not raised any valid free speech claims, saying the law addresses national security concerns without targeting protected speech, and argues that China and ByteDance, as foreign entities, aren’t shielded by the First Amendment.
TikTok has also argued the U.S. law discriminates on viewpoints, citing statements from some lawmakers critical of what they viewed as an anti-Israel tilt on the platform during the war in Gaza.
Justice Department officials disputes that argument, saying the law at issue reflects their ongoing concern that China could weaponize technology against U.S. national security, a fear they say is made worse by demands that companies under Beijing’s control turn over sensitive data to the government. They say TikTok, under its current operating structure, is required to be responsive to those demands.
Oral arguments in the case is scheduled for September.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — In a fresh broadside against one of the world’s most popular technology companies, the Justice Department late Friday accused TikTok of harnessing the capability to gather bulk information on users based on views on divisive social issues like gun control, abortion and religion.
Government lawyers wrote in a brief filed to the federal appeals court in Washington that TikTok and its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance used an internal web-suite system called Lark to enable TikTok employees to speak directly with ByteDance engineers in China.
TikTok employees used Lark to send sensitive data about U.S. users, information that has wound up being stored on Chinese servers and accessible to ByteDance employees in China, federal officials said.
One of Lark’s internal search tools, the filing states, permits ByteDance and TikTok employees in the U.S. and China to gather information on users’ content or expressions, including views on sensitive topics, such as abortion or religion. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported TikTok had tracked users who watched LGBTQ content through a dashboard the company said it had since deleted.
The new court documents represent the government’s first major defense in a consequential legal battle over the future of the popular social media platform, which is used by more than 170 million Americans. Under a law signed by President Joe Biden in April, the company could face a ban in a few months if it doesn’t break ties with ByteDance.
The measure was passed with bipartisan support after lawmakers and administration officials expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion towards Beijing’s interests by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds.
The Justice Department warned, in stark terms, of the potential for what it called “covert content manipulation” by the Chinese government, saying the algorithm could be designed to shape content that users receive.
“By directing ByteDance or TikTok to covertly manipulate that algorithm; China could for example further its existing malign influence operations and amplify its efforts to undermine trust in our democracy and exacerbate social divisions,” the brief states.
The concern, they said, is more than theoretical, alleging that TikTok and ByteDance employees are known to engage in a practice called “heating” in which certain videos are promoted in order to receive a certain number of views. While this capability enables TikTok to curate popular content and disseminate it more widely, U.S. officials posit it can also be used for nefarious purposes.
Justice Department officials are asking the court to allow a classified version of its legal brief, which won’t be accessible to the two companies.
Nothing in the redacted brief “changes the fact that the Constitution is on our side,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement.
“The TikTok ban would silence 170 million Americans’ voices, violating the 1st Amendment,” Haurek said. “As we’ve said before, the government has never put forth proof of its claims, including when Congress passed this unconstitutional law. Today, once again, the government is taking this unprecedented step while hiding behind secret information. We remain confident we will prevail in court.”
In the redacted version of the court documents, the Justice Department said another tool triggered the suppression of content based on the use of certain words. Certain policies of the tool applied to ByteDance users in China, where the company operates a similar app called Douyin that follows Beijing’s strict censorship rules.
But Justice Department officials said other policies may have been applied to TikTok users outside of China. TikTok was investigating the existence of these policies and whether they had ever been used in the U.S. in, or around, 2022, officials said.
The government points to the Lark data transfers to explain why federal officials do not believe that Project Texas, TikTok’s $1.5 billion mitigation plan to store U.S. user data on servers owned and maintained by the tech giant Oracle, is sufficient to guard against national security concerns.
In its legal challenge against the law, TikTok has heavily leaned on arguments that the potential ban violates the First Amendment because it bars the app from continued speech unless it attracts a new owner through a complex divestment process. It has also argued divestment would change the speech on the platform because a new social platform would lack the algorithm that has driven its success.
In its response, the Justice Department argued TikTok has not raised any valid free speech claims, saying the law addresses national security concerns without targeting protected speech, and argues that China and ByteDance, as foreign entities, aren’t shielded by the First Amendment.
TikTok has also argued the U.S. law discriminates on viewpoints, citing statements from some lawmakers critical of what they viewed as an anti-Israel tilt on the platform during its war in Gaza.
Justice Department officials disputes that argument, saying the law at issue reflects their ongoing concern that China could weaponize technology against U.S. national security, a fear they say is made worse by demands that companies under Beijing’s control turn over sensitive data to the government. They say TikTok, under its current operating structure, is required to be responsive to those demands.
Oral arguments in the case is scheduled for September.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — In a fresh broadside against one of the world’s most popular technology companies, the Justice Department late Friday accused TikTok of harnessing the capability to gather bulk information on users based on views on divisive social issues like gun control, abortion and religion.
Government lawyers wrote in a brief filed to the federal appeals court in Washington that TikTok and its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance used an internal web-suite system called Lark to enable TikTok employees to speak directly with ByteDance engineers in China.
TikTok employees used Lark to send sensitive data about U.S. users, information that has wound up being stored on Chinese servers and accessible to ByteDance employees in China, federal officials said.
One of Lark’s internal search tools, the filing states, permits ByteDance and TikTok employees in the U.S. and China to gather information on users’ content or expressions, including views on sensitive topics, such as abortion or religion. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported TikTok had tracked users who watched LGBTQ content through a dashboard the company said it had since deleted.
The new court documents represent the government’s first major defense in a consequential legal battle over the future of the popular social media platform, which is used by more than 170 million Americans. Under a law signed by President Joe Biden in April, the company could face a ban in a few months if it doesn’t break ties with ByteDance.
The measure was passed with bipartisan support after lawmakers and administration officials expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion towards Beijing’s interests by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds.
The Justice Department warned, in stark terms, of the potential for what it called “covert content manipulation” by the Chinese government, saying the algorithm could be designed to shape content that users receive.
“By directing ByteDance or TikTok to covertly manipulate that algorithm; China could for example further its existing malign influence operations and amplify its efforts to undermine trust in our democracy and exacerbate social divisions,” the brief states.
The concern, they said, is more than theoretical, alleging that TikTok and ByteDance employees are known to engage in a practice called “heating” in which certain videos are promoted in order to receive a certain number of views. While this capability enables TikTok to curate popular content and disseminate it more widely, U.S. officials posit it can also be used for nefarious purposes.
Justice Department officials are asking the court to allow a classified version of its legal brief, which won’t be accessible to the two companies.
Nothing in the redacted brief “changes the fact that the Constitution is on our side,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement.
“The TikTok ban would silence 170 million Americans’ voices, violating the 1st Amendment,” Haurek said. “As we’ve said before, the government has never put forth proof of its claims, including when Congress passed this unconstitutional law. Today, once again, the government is taking this unprecedented step while hiding behind secret information. We remain confident we will prevail in court.”
In the redacted version of the court documents, the Justice Department said another tool triggered the suppression of content based on the use of certain words. Certain policies of the tool applied to ByteDance users in China, where the company operates a similar app called Douyin that follows Beijing’s strict censorship rules.
But Justice Department officials said other policies may have been applied to TikTok users outside of China. TikTok was investigating the existence of these policies and whether they had ever been used in the U.S. in, or around, 2022, officials said.
The government points to the Lark data transfers to explain why federal officials do not believe that Project Texas, TikTok’s $1.5 billion mitigation plan to store U.S. user data on servers owned and maintained by the tech giant Oracle, is sufficient to guard against national security concerns.
In its legal challenge against the law, TikTok has heavily leaned on arguments that the potential ban violates the First Amendment because it bars the app from continued speech unless it attracts a new owner through a complex divestment process. It has also argued divestment would change the speech on the platform because a new social platform would lack the algorithm that has driven its success.
In its response, the Justice Department argued TikTok has not raised any valid free speech claims, saying the law addresses national security concerns without targeting protected speech, and argues that China and ByteDance, as foreign entities, aren’t shielded by the First Amendment.
TikTok has also argued the U.S. law discriminates on viewpoints, citing statements from some lawmakers critical of what they viewed as an anti-Israel tilt on the platform during its war in Gaza.
Justice Department officials disputes that argument, saying the law at issue reflects their ongoing concern that China could weaponize technology against U.S. national security, a fear they say is made worse by demands that companies under Beijing’s control turn over sensitive data to the government. They say TikTok, under its current operating structure, is required to be responsive to those demands.
Oral arguments in the case is scheduled for September.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
If you haven’t seen it, you might want to read the synopsis of Project 2025. Essentially it’s a manifesto for Donald Trump to take over every aspect of American lives, but only to benefit him and his loyalists.
They plan to remove government employees and agencies. They have no regard for non-Whites, LGBTQ, abortions, women, foreigners and non-Trumpists. There will be no need for Congress or the Supreme Court because all decisions will come from the demagogue himself and his self-designed army.
Was “1984” a primer for Trump? How much surveillance will there be? How many jails and holding camps will they build for all those in opposition? Will they restore a vigorous execution system?
They want to end American democracy as we know it. If you’re not concerned about this, then study Germany in 1939.
Stuart Shicoff
Martinez
Presidents Biden and Obama are the two best presidents I have experienced in my lifetime. I applaud, admire and respect President Biden so much for sacrificing for our good and not focusing on himself. He and his team, including Vice President Harris, pulled us out of an extremely dark time.
In November, we have two choices: democracy vs. dictatorship. It’s time to finally put aside gender and race and focus on the issues that matter to us all.
If you haven’t yet read Project 2025, please read it. There’s a summary on Wikipedia so you don’t have to read 900 pages. It’s Donald Trump’s blueprint for a dictatorship and police state and covers all of the issues that are important to Americans. Kamala Harris is the most qualified and experienced individual who can beat Trump at the ballot box. It’s a no-brainer.
Ramona Krausnick
Dublin
According to Martha Raddatz, ABC News, senior White House sources recently said that Joe Biden was lashing out at any suggestion of dropping out.
But with a political tidal wave of Democratic elites knocking over his determination to continue running on the basis that he could not win, and after the final assault by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Biden was finally forced to resign from the race. A New York Times opinion piece calls this “a noble patriotic move; a selfless American giving up power willingly for the good of the country.” Coercion is more like it.
This narrative is a Democratic Party line whitewashing reality which we will see repeated ad nauseum.
Stephan Pinto
Walnut Creek
Re: “Left is stoking outrage and anger” (Page A9, July 21).
Shaun McCutcheon, chairman of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, advocates for the shooting of protesters: “Rioters don’t riot where they will be shot.” He says that leftist leaders who were soft on protesters were the causes of the Donald Trump assassination attempt.
This scary kind of thinking confirms the wisdom of voting for the best Democratic candidate in November.
Steve Turnwall
Lafayette
The case against the Uhuru 3 — Omali Yeshitela, Penny Hess, and Jesse Nevel — is a troubling challenge of our most important constitutional right.
Under the guise of bogus conspiracy charges and failing to register as “foreign agents” after criticizing the U.S. role in the war in Ukraine, these three have been indicted for using their right to free speech to openly criticize the U.S. government. The outcome of their upcoming trial will be an important moment in history, setting a precedent on whether or not our government can attack its own citizens for exercising their right to free speech.
Progress in this country has come from its citizens speaking their mind and advocating for change, knowing they are protected by their First Amendment right. The outcome in this trial will be extremely important in securing our right to keep speaking freely and pushing for progress.
Eric Swanson
Emeryville
[ad_2]
Letters To The Editor
Source link
[ad_1]
NEW ORLEANS — Calling it a “misbegotten tax,” a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled Wednesday that a method the Federal Communications Commission uses to fund telephone service for rural and low-income people and broadband services for schools and libraries is unconstitutional.
The immediate implications of the 9-7 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were unclear. Dissenting judges said it conflicts with three other circuit courts around the nation. The ruling by the full 5th Circuit reverses an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the same court and sends the matter back to the FCC for further consideration. A Supreme Court appeal was likely by advocates for media access.
“The majority’s hostility to the policies underlying the Universal Service Fund is palpable. That, plus the bipartisan group of seven dissenters, makes it almost certain that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the issue,” said Andrew Schwartzman, an attorney representing advocacy groups including the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.
At issue in the case is the Universal Service Fund, which the FCC collects from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers. A conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research, challenged the practice.
Programs funded through the USF provide phone service to low-income users and rural healthcare providers and broadband service to schools and libraries. “Each program has a laudable objective,” Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated to the 5th Circuit by former President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority.
The 17-member court is dominated by members nominated by Republican presidents. Two Republican nominees joined five nominees of Democratic administrations in dissent.
Oldham said the USF funding method unconstitutionally delegates congressional taxing authority to the FCC and a private entity tapped by the agency, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to determine how much to charge telecommunications companies. Oldham wrote that “the combination of Congress’s broad delegation to FCC and FCC’s subdelegation to private entities certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.”
Judge Carl Stewart, nominated to the court by former President Bill Clinton, was among 5th Circuit judges writing strong dissents, saying the opinion conflicts with three other circuit courts, rejects precedents, “blurs the distinction between taxes and fees,” and creates new doctrine.
The Universal Service Administrative Company referred a request for comment to the FCC, which did not immediately respond to phone and emailed queries.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Drugs dominated the world of little Winter Rayo’s parents and their housemates.
That came through in text messages they sent one another, read in Santa Clara County Superior Court this week where a preliminary hearing was underway to determine whether her father Derek Rayo and two housemates must stand trial on murder charges for Winter’s August 2023 fentanyl overdose death.
Winter’s mother, 29-year-old Kelly Gene Richardson, texted “do you have clear” to housemate Paige Vitale one June evening last year, referring to the street slang for methamphetamine, a potent illegal stimulant.
“I can take a little for you but it won’t be much,” Vitale responded.
“yeah, derek’s cousin is here now with the clear but before we didn’t have any,” Richardson replied. “So no worries about the clear we got some now.”
The preliminary hearing will continue August 26, and Judge Deborah Ryan later that week is expected to decide whether Rayo, Vitale and another housemate, Phillip Ortega, will proceed to trial, and if so, whether they are tried for murder or lesser charges.
Richardson is not part of the preliminary examination. Her attorney declared a doubt of her competence to participate in her defense. Over the objection of prosecutors, a judge suspended her case pending the results of a court-ordered psychological evaluation.
Winter died last August at 18 months old in the bed she shared with her parents at her San Jose home. When police arrived at the home, Winter had been dead for hours and was covered by a rug. A toxicology report revealed 24 times the lethal dose of fentanyl for a child her size in her blood.
Rayo, 27, and Richardson, were charged with murder for Winter’s death on the premise that the extent of their drug use around the child exceeded criminal negligence. Though other parents have previously been charged in the fentanyl-related deaths of their children, the murder charge was a first for the county. Their housemates, Ortega and Vitale, also were charged for supplying narcotics to Winter’s parents and contributing to her dangerous home environment.
The preliminary examination for the case began in June and continued for two days this week. Rayo, Ortega and Vitale were present in court, accompanied by their attorneys.
On Thursday, Sheena Woodland, an investigator for the District Attorney’s Office, testified at length about photos, text messages and interviews with police that portrayed the defendants’ enduring efforts to purchase, use and sell narcotics.
Messages retrieved from the defendants’ cell phones, compiled into a slide show by Deputy District Attorney Gabriella Jarvis, contained frequent mentions to slang terms for fentanyl and methamphetamine. Several messages discuss how much the defendants can buy with their available funds.
One set of exchanges between Richardson and Vitale on June 10 and 11, 2023, included lines like “Get a little bit off someone to get us thru the night,” and “You’re gonna get some clean, right?”
“Clean” is street slang for fentanyl, Woodland said.
According to Woodland, Vitale and Ortega said in interviews with police that they assumed Winter’s parents used drugs in the bedroom they shared with Winter while the child was inside. Though the couple’s door was closed, Vitale and Ortega had heard the sound of a torch coming from the room. Police also found drugs near the bed where baby Winter slept with her parents, Woodland testified.
One set of photos shown in court showed adults using drugs while holding Winter, her bright blonde hair tied into a tiny ponytail, in the home’s garage.
The defense attorneys’ cross-examination of Woodland will continue when the proceedings resume in August.
Originally Published:
[ad_2]
Cameron Duran
Source link
[ad_1]
YEKATERINBURG, Russia — Russian prosecutors sought a prison sentence of 18 years on Friday for Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who is on trial on espionage charges that his employer and the U.S. have denounced as fabricated.
Gershkovich, 32, was arrested March 29, 2023, while on a reporting trip to the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg. Authorities claimed, without offering any evidence, that he was gathering secret information for the U.S. He pleaded not guilty, according to the court, and The Wall Street Journal and the U.S. government have called the trial a sham.
Gershkovich appeared in court for a second straight day Friday as the closed-door proceedings in Russia’s highly politicized legal system picked up speed. A verdict is expected later in the day, according to court officials.
Unlike previous sessions in which reporters were allowed to see Gershkovich briefly before sessions began, there was no access to the courtroom this week and he was not seen, with no explanation given. Espionage and treason cases are typically shrouded in secrecy.
Court officials said the prosecutors requested an 18-year sentence in a high-security prison during closing arguments. Russian courts convict more than 99% of defendants, and prosecutors can appeal sentences that they regard as too lenient. They even can appeal acquittals.
“Evan’s wrongful detention has been an outrage since his unjust arrest 477 days ago, and it must end now,” the Journal said Thursday in a statement. “Even as Russia orchestrates its shameful sham trial, we continue to do everything we can to push for Evan’s immediate release and to state unequivocally: Evan was doing his job as a journalist, and journalism is not a crime. Bring him home now.”
The U.S. State Department has declared Gershkovich “wrongfully detained,” committing the government to assertively seek his release.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday at the United Nations that Moscow and Washington’s “special services” are discussing an exchange involving Gershkovich. Russia has previously signaled the possibility of a swap, but it says a verdict would have to come first. Even after a verdict, any such deal could take months or years.
State Department deputy spokesman Vedant Patel on Thursday declined to discuss negotiations about a possible exchange, but said: “We have been clear from the get-go that Evan did nothing wrong and should not have been detained. To date, Russia has provided no evidence of a crime and has failed to justify Evan’s continued detention.”
Gershkovich’s trial began June 26 in Yekaterinburg after he spent about 15 months in in Moscow’s notorious Lefortovo Prison.
The Russian Prosecutor General’s office said last month the journalist is accused of “gathering secret information” on orders from the CIA about Uralvagonzavod, a plant about 150 kilometers (90 miles) north of Yekaterinburg that produces and repairs tanks and other military equipment.
Lavrov on Wednesday reaffirmed the Kremlin claim that the government has “irrefutable evidence” against Gershkovich, although neither he nor any other Russian official has ever disclosed it.
Gershkovich’s employer and U.S. officials have dismissed the charges as phony.
“Evan has never been employed by the United States government. Evan is not a spy. Journalism is not a crime. And Evan should never have been detained in the first place,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said last month.
Russia’s interpretation of what constitutes high crimes like espionage and treason is broad, with authorities often going after people who share publicly available information with foreigners and accusing them of divulging state secrets.
Earlier this month, U.N. human rights experts said Russia violated international law by jailing Gershkovich and should release him “immediately.”
Arrests of Americans are increasingly common in Russia, with nine U.S. citizens known to be detained there as tensions between the two countries have escalated over fighting in Ukraine.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield accused Moscow of treating “human beings as bargaining chips.” She singled out Gershkovich and ex-Marine Paul Whelan, 53, a corporate security director from Michigan, who is serving a 16-year sentence after being convicted on spying charges that he and the U.S. denied.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
YEKATERINBURG, Russia — Russian prosecutors sought a prison sentence of 18 years on Friday for Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who is on trial on espionage charges that his employer and the U.S. have denounced as fabricated.
Gershkovich, 32, was arrested March 29, 2023, while on a reporting trip to the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg. Authorities claimed, without offering any evidence, that he was gathering secret information for the U.S. He pleaded not guilty, according to the court, and The Wall Street Journal and the U.S. government have called the trial a sham.
Gershkovich appeared in court for a second straight day Friday as the closed-door proceedings in Russia’s highly politicized legal system picked up speed. A verdict is expected later in the day, according to court officials.
Unlike previous sessions in which reporters were allowed to see Gershkovich briefly before sessions began, there was no access to the courtroom this week and he was not seen, with no explanation given. Espionage and treason cases are typically shrouded in secrecy.
Court officials said the prosecutors requested an 18-year sentence in a high-security prison during closing arguments. Russian courts convict more than 99% of defendants, and prosecutors can appeal sentences that they regard as too lenient. They even can appeal acquittals.
“Evan’s wrongful detention has been an outrage since his unjust arrest 477 days ago, and it must end now,” the Journal said Thursday in a statement. “Even as Russia orchestrates its shameful sham trial, we continue to do everything we can to push for Evan’s immediate release and to state unequivocally: Evan was doing his job as a journalist, and journalism is not a crime. Bring him home now.”
The U.S. State Department has declared Gershkovich “wrongfully detained,” committing the government to assertively seek his release.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday at the United Nations that Moscow and Washington’s “special services” are discussing an exchange involving Gershkovich. Russia has previously signaled the possibility of a swap, but it says a verdict would have to come first. Even after a verdict, any such deal could take months or years.
State Department deputy spokesman Vedant Patel on Thursday declined to discuss negotiations about a possible exchange, but said: “We have been clear from the get-go that Evan did nothing wrong and should not have been detained. To date, Russia has provided no evidence of a crime and has failed to justify Evan’s continued detention.”
Gershkovich’s trial began June 26 in Yekaterinburg after he spent about 15 months in in Moscow’s notorious Lefortovo Prison.
The Russian Prosecutor General’s office said last month the journalist is accused of “gathering secret information” on orders from the CIA about Uralvagonzavod, a plant about 150 kilometers (90 miles) north of Yekaterinburg that produces and repairs tanks and other military equipment.
Lavrov on Wednesday reaffirmed the Kremlin claim that the government has “irrefutable evidence” against Gershkovich, although neither he nor any other Russian official has ever disclosed it.
Gershkovich’s employer and U.S. officials have dismissed the charges as phony.
“Evan has never been employed by the United States government. Evan is not a spy. Journalism is not a crime. And Evan should never have been detained in the first place,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said last month.
Russia’s interpretation of what constitutes high crimes like espionage and treason is broad, with authorities often going after people who share publicly available information with foreigners and accusing them of divulging state secrets.
Earlier this month, U.N. human rights experts said Russia violated international law by jailing Gershkovich and should release him “immediately.”
Arrests of Americans are increasingly common in Russia, with nine U.S. citizens known to be detained there as tensions between the two countries have escalated over fighting in Ukraine.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield accused Moscow of treating “human beings as bargaining chips.” She singled out Gershkovich and ex-Marine Paul Whelan, 53, a corporate security director from Michigan, who is serving a 16-year sentence after being convicted on spying charges that he and the U.S. denied.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
ATLANTA (AP) — The judge overseeing the long-running racketeering and gang prosecution against rapper Young Thug and others has been removed from the case after two defendants sought his recusal, citing a meeting the judge held with prosecutors and a state witness.
Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Ural Glanville had put the case in Atlanta on hold two weeks ago to give another judge a chance to review the defendants’ motions for recusal. Judge Rachel Krause on Monday granted those motions and ordered the clerk of court to assign the case to a different judge.
While not faulting Glanville for holding the meeting and saying she has “no doubt that Judge Glanville can and would continue presiding fairly over this matter,” Krause wrote that “the ‘necessity of preserving the public’s confidence in the judicial system’ weighs in favor of excusing Judge Glanville” from the case.
This ruling will surely cause more delays in a trial that has already dragged on for over a year. Jury selection began in January 2023 and took nearly 10 months. Opening statements were in November and the prosecution has been presenting its case since then, calling dozens of witnesses.
Young Thug, a Grammy winner whose given name is Jeffery Williams, was charged two years ago in a sprawling indictment accusing him and more than two dozen others of conspiring to violate Georgia’s anti-racketeering law. He also is charged with gang, drug and gun crimes and is standing trial with five of the others indicted with him.
Lawyers for Young Thug and co-defendant Deamonte Kendrick had filed motions seeking Glanville’s recusal. They said the judge held a meeting with prosecutors and prosecution witness Kenneth Copeland at which defendants and defense attorneys were not present. The defense attorneys argued the meeting was “improper” and that the judge and prosecutors had tried to pressure the witness to testify.
Glanville maintained that the meeting was proper and argued that no one gained a tactical advantage as a result.
The office of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, which is prosecuting the case, had argued there was no need for Glanville to be recused.
Brian Steel, a lawyer for Young Thug, said in an emailed statement that his client is innocent and sought to clear his name through a fair trial.
“Sadly, Judge Glanville and the prosecutors have run afoul of their duties under the law,” Steel said, adding that he is grateful for the recusal order and looks forward “to proceeding with a trial judge who will fairly and faithfully follow the law.”
Kendrick’s lawyer, Doug Weinstein, also applauded Monday’s ruling.
“While I respect Chief Judge Glanville and his service to this community and the country, he simply became biased over the course of this case,” he wrote in an email. He added that he looks forward to trying the case “before an unbiased judge,” but said the only just outcome at this point is “a mistrial and bond” for Kendrick, who has been jailed for more than two years.
A spokesperson for Willis’ office declined to comment. The Associated Press has also reached out to Glanville for comment.
Krause wrote in her order that she “agrees generally” with Glanville’s assessment of the propriety of the meeting, that nothing about the meeting or what was discussed was inherently improper. She did write that the meeting “could have — and perhaps should have” been held in open court.
But when Glanville denied Kendrick’s recusal motion in court, he “provided context, questioned the veracity of allegations, and otherwise explained his decisions and actions and argued why those actions were proper.” Quoting case law, Krause wrote that when a judge discloses information relevant to his potential recusal, he must do so “in a way that is as objective, dispassionate, and non-argumentative as possible, so that the judge is not reasonably perceived as a hostile witness or advocate.”
Young Thug has been wildly successful since he began rapping as a teenager and he serves as CEO of his own record label, Young Stoner Life, or YSL. Artists on his label are considered part of the “Slime Family,” and a compilation album, “Slime Language 2,” rose to No. 1 on the charts in April 2021.
But prosecutors say YSL also stands for Young Slime Life, which they allege is an Atlanta-based violent street gang affiliated with the national Bloods gang and founded by Young Thug and two others in 2012. Prosecutors say people named in the indictment are responsible for violent crimes — including killings, shootings and carjackings — to collect money for the gang, burnish its reputation and expand its power and territory.
Steel acknowledged during his opening statement that his client’s songs mention violent acts, including killings, but he said those are just artistic expressions drawn from his rough childhood and not a chronicle of his own activities.
[ad_2]