ReportWire

Tag: gavin newsom

  • California town grapples with toll of quake on homes, water

    California town grapples with toll of quake on homes, water

    [ad_1]

    RIO DELL, Calif. — Outside the Dollar General, the store manager ticked off the items she had to share with families trying to jumpstart their lives after an earthquake jolted them from their beds and cut off the town’s water and power.

    “Batteries or candles?” a worker asked a woman toting a toddler on her hip, and handed the child a plastic candy cane filled with sweets.

    Just days before Christmas in Rio Dell, the former lumber town grappled with the aftermath of early Tuesday’s magnitude 6.4 earthquake that injured at least 17 people, shook homes off foundations, damaged water systems and left tens of thousands without electricity, some for more than a day.

    By Wednesday afternoon, power was restored to the homes of tens of thousands of residents, and Christmas lights wrapped around trees on the community’s main street came back on. However, most of the town’s 3,500 residents lacked safe drinking water, according to local officials.

    Twenty-six homes were deemed unsafe, leaving an estimated 65 people displaced, most of whom were expected to be staying with family and friends, said Rio Dell City Manager Kyle Knopp. Another 37 homes were damaged, and even those that suffered no physical cracks required intense cleanup inside, where the floors were cluttered by knocked down shelves and broken dishware.

    By Wednesday night, Pacific Gas & Electric announced that it had restored electric power to essentially all of the approximately 70,000 customers who had quake-related outages.

    Along this stretch of Northern California’s coast, earthquakes are common, and people talk about them much like the weather. But the one that shook people from their homes was different to many who found themselves tossed violently from their beds and stumbling around in the dark of night in search of safety.

    When his house began to shake, Chad Sovereign ran into his 10-year-old son Jaxon’s room, grabbed him, and dove under a door frame. The brick chimney collapsed, pulling the wall with it and leaving a gaping hole in their home.

    “It felt like the end of the world,” Sovereign said. “I was telling him I love him. I didn’t say goodbye to him, (but) in my head I was. I was just telling him, ‘I love you, I love you, I love you,’ over and over.”

    Sovereign said the family lost water and power after the quake, but luckily they could remain in their home. They filled up their bathtub with whatever water was left before the shutoff and used it to flush the toilets.

    The quake was centered in nearby Ferndale, about 210 miles (345 kilometers) northwest of San Francisco and near the Pacific coast. The area is known for its redwood forests, scenic mountains and the three-county Emerald Triangle’s legendary marijuana crop — as well as the Mendocino Triple Junction, a geologic region where three tectonic plates meet.

    On Wednesday, the community fire station was turned into a drive-thru hub. Residents pulled up their cars and had water loaded into their trunks, while a local food truck handed out tacos and burritos courtesy of World Central Kitchen. Other volunteers propped up folding tables and gave out apples, peaches, bagels and canned food.

    What was once a bustling lumber town with shops in the 1970s is today a small, humble community made up of retirees, commuters and renters. When a nearby mill went bankrupt and a major thoroughfare moved, Rio Dell became a shadow of its former self, residents said. But it remains a place where people know each other and when reeling from disaster they can go to City Hall and seek advice on who can replace their broken windows — and get it, too.

    Outside Dollar General, store manager Cassondra Stoner said she was told she could distribute water, batteries and candles but to hold off on other items until they could be inspected — something she couldn’t always do.

    “I couldn’t help myself, and I gave somebody one ibuprofen and some baby diapers because I am not going to let a kid go without diapers,” she said.

    The Dollar General is the main grocery in Rio Dell, replacing an Old West-themed mini golf course. There’s also a hardware store and a pizza place in a town used to quakes knocking things off shelves and causing damage to business inventory, locals said, but rarely so much to people’s homes and spirits.

    “If you complain about one less than a 4-point-something or other, you’re a weenie,” said Sharon Wolff, editor of the Rio Dell Times local news website. ”We see news reports that this place had a 3.6, and it’s like, ‘Oh, please.’”

    Nearby Ferndale, which draws tourists to its picturesque Victorian Village, also lost power and a key bridge to the community was shut down, but shopkeepers hoped to bounce back quickly once the lights came back on, said Marc Daniels, owner of Mind’s Eye Manufactory and Coffee Lounge.

    “We know how bad it could have been,” said Daniels, whose shop occupies a two-story Victorian. “We feel like we sort of dodged a bullet this time.”

    About 17 people were reported as suffering injuries. Two people died — an 83-year-old and a 72-year-old — because they couldn’t get timely care for medical emergencies during or just after the quake.

    While more than half of the 72,000 Humboldt County customers who lost electricity when the quake struck had power restored by Tuesday evening, some went without it — and water — throughout the night. Boil water advisories were issued for Rio Dell and parts of Fortuna because of damaged water systems. In Rio Dell, portable toilets were set up downtown.

    Celia Magdaleno, 67, said she hauled a container of water from her neighbor’s swimming pool back to her home in order to flush the toilet. She said she took rainwater she had captured in a barrel outside and heated it so her husband could bathe before his dialysis appointment.

    Having access to water “means a lot,” she said. “It’s a very big blessing for me.”

    Nathan Scheinman, 24, said he hunkered down under four blankets but could barely sleep through the cold with the shock of the quake repeating in his mind. He lost gas, water and power, and had to drive to find a usable bathroom. Right now, Scheinman said rather than thinking about the holiday, he is trying to help people who come into the hardware store where he works with whatever he can in their time of need.

    “I think in the Christmas spirit I want to be there for people the best way I can,” he said.

    ——

    Taxin reported from Orange County, Calif. Associated Press writer John Antczak in Los Angeles and photographer Godofredo Vásquez in Rio Dell contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After convicting Harvey Weinstein of rape, a Los Angeles jury deadlocks on factors that could have increased his sentence | CNN

    After convicting Harvey Weinstein of rape, a Los Angeles jury deadlocks on factors that could have increased his sentence | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    After convicting former film producer Harvey Weinstein of rape and sexual assault, a Los Angeles jury could not reach a unanimous verdict Tuesday on alleged aggravating factors that could have increased his sentence.

    The three charges Weinstein was convicted of – rape, sexual penetration by foreign object and forcible oral copulation – were all tied to one of his accusers, Jane Doe 1, a model and actress who testified the movie mogul assaulted her in a Beverly Hills hotel room in February 2013.

    Jurors were asked to determine if Jane Doe 1 was harmed and particularly vulnerable, and if Weinstein committed the crimes with planning, professionalism, or sophistication.

    Ten members of the jury found the aggravating factors had been met, but two jurors could not be swayed, one of the jurors told CNN.

    “The jury has said they are not able to reach a unanimous verdict on these issues,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Lench said, according to a pool report. “I am going to declare a mistrial with respect to the allegations.”

    Had the jury found Weinstein guilty of the aggravating factors, a new California law would have then allowed the judge to enact a harsher sentence.

    Jurors had deliberated for several hours Tuesday. After the jury indicated further deliberations would not sway them, neither the prosecution or the defense pushed to have the jurors deliberate further.

    When Lench asked prosecutor Paul Thompson if Weinstein will be retried on the deadlock counts, the pool report said he responded: “We need to consult the victims first and foremost.”

    Weinstein’s sentencing was tentatively set for January 9, with Lench allowing only Jane Doe 1 to offer a victim impact statement. He is expected to serve 18 years.

    The disgraced movie mogul was found guilty Monday of three of seven charges against him in his second sexual assault trial. The jury acquitted Weinstein of one count of sexual battery by restraint against a massage therapist in a hotel room in 2010. They were a hung jury on one count of sexual battery by restraint, one count of forcible oral copulation and one count of rape related to two other women – including Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and first partner to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Weinstein had pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. His spokesman said he was “disappointed” with the outcome of the trial but “he is prepared to continue fighting for his innocence.”

    The verdict was reached as jurors entered their third week of deliberations, meeting for a total of 41 hours over a period of 10 days following weeks of oftentimes emotional testimony.

    “Harvey Weinstein forever destroyed a part of me that night in 2013. I will never get that back,” said Jane Doe 1 in a statement released through her attorney. “The criminal trial was brutal. Weinstein’s lawyers put me through hell on the witness stand. But I knew I had to see this through the end, and I did … I hope Harvey Weinstein never sees the outside of a prison cell during his lifetime.”

    Elizabeth Fegan, an attorney representing Siebel Newsom, who was identified in court as Jane Doe 4, said they were disappointed the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charges related to her client.

    “My client, Jane Doe 4, shared her story not with an expectation to testify but to support all the survivors who bravely came forward,” Fegan said in a statement to CNN. “While we are heartened that the jury found Weinstein guilty on some of the counts, we are disappointed that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on Jane Doe 4. She will continue to fight for all women and all survivors of abuse against a system that permits the victim to be shamed and re-traumatized in the name of justice.”

    Weinstein is two years into a 23-year sentence for a 2020 New York conviction, which his attorneys have appealed, putting more attention on the outcome of the trial in Los Angeles.

    The weekslong Los Angeles trial saw emotional testimony from Weinstein’s accusers – a model, a dancer, a massage therapist and Siebel Newsom – all of whom were asked to recount the details of their allegations against him, provide details of meetings with the producer from years ago, and explain their reactions to the alleged assaults.

    Additionally, four women testified they were subjected to similar behavior by Weinstein in other jurisdictions.

    Weinstein initially faced 11 charges, but four counts connected to an unnamed woman were dropped without explanation. She did not testify in the trial.

    In closing arguments, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Weinstein a “titan” who used his power in Hollywood to prey on and silence women.

    Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys maintained the allegations are either fabricated or occurred consensually as part of a “transactional relationship” with the movie producer, repeatedly saying there is no evidence of assault.

    Defense attorney Alan Jackson called the accusers “fame and fortune seekers.”

    Jane Doe 2, who was identified as Lauren Young, told her attorney Gloria Allred by phone that she was happy Weinstein was convicted on some counts despite there being a mistrial on her count, Allred said in a news conference after the verdict.

    “I am relieved that Harvey Weinstein has been convicted because he deserves to be punished for the crimes that he committed, and he can no longer use his power to intimidate and sexually assault more women,” Young said in a statement read by Allred.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harvey Weinstein is convicted of 3 of 7 charges, including rape, in his Los Angeles sexual assault trial | CNN

    Harvey Weinstein is convicted of 3 of 7 charges, including rape, in his Los Angeles sexual assault trial | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was found guilty Monday of rape and sexual assault against one of four women he was accused of assaulting in Los Angeles – a significant conviction in the second trial of a man at the center of allegations that fueled the global #MeToo movement.

    Weinstein, who prosecutors said used his Hollywood influence to lure women into private meetings and assault them, was found guilty of three of seven charges against him.

    After weeks of emotional testimony and 10 days of deliberations, jurors in Los Angeles also acquitted Weinstein of one count of sexual battery by restraint against a massage therapist in a hotel room in 2010. They were a hung jury on one count of sexual battery by restraint, one count of forcible oral copulation and one count of rape related to two other women – including Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and first partner to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    The three charges Weinstein was convicted of – rape, sexual penetration by foreign object and forcible oral copulation – were all tied to one of his accusers, a model and actress who testified the movie mogul assaulted her in a Beverly Hills hotel room in February 2013.

    The woman, identified as Jane Doe 1 in court, was the first to testify in the trial.

    “Harvey Weinstein forever destroyed a part of me that night in 2013. I will never get that back. The criminal trial was brutal. Weinstein’s lawyers put me through hell on the witness stand. But I knew I had to see this through the end, and I did… I hope Harvey Weinstein never sees the outside of a prison cell during his lifetime,” Jane Doe 1 said in a statement released through her attorney.

    Weinstein had pleaded not guilty to all seven charges against him.

    “Harvey is obviously disappointed, however hopefully because with this particular accuser there are good ground to appeal based on time and location of alleged events,” Weinstein’s spokesperson Juda Engelmayer said in a statement. “He is grateful the jury took their time to deliberate on the other counts and he is prepared to continue fighting for his innocence.”

    Weinstein faces a possible sentence of 24 years in prison for the Los Angeles conviction, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. The once-powerful film producer is already serving a 23-year sentence for a 2020 New York rape conviction.

    Jurors will return to court Tuesday to consider aggravating factors to help determine the outcome of Weinstein’s sentencing hearing, according to the DA’s office.

    The District Attorney’s office will meet to determine whether to retry the counts on which the jury could not agree, officials said.

    Elizabeth Fegan, an attorney representing Siebel Newsom, who was identified in court as Jane Doe 4, said they were disappointed the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charges related to her client.

    “Harvey Weinstein will never be able to rape another woman. He will spend the rest of his life behind bars where he belongs. Harvey Weinstein is a serial predator and what he did was rape,” Siebel Newsom said in a statement. “Throughout the trial, Weinstein’s lawyers used sexism, misogyny, and bullying tactics to intimidate, demean, and ridicule us survivors. This trial was a stark reminder that we as a society have work to do. To all survivors out there – I see you, I hear you, and I stand with you.”

    Gov. Newsom also released a statement, saying, “I am so incredibly proud of my wife and all the brave women who came forward to share their truth and uplift countless survivors who cannot. Their strength, courage and conviction is a powerful example and inspiration to all of us. We must keep fighting to ensure that survivors are supported and that their voices are heard.”

    The Los Angeles jury reached its verdict after deliberating for a total of 41 hours – longer than the New York jury in Weinstein’s first criminal trial, in which he was convicted of criminal sex act and third-degree rape after 26 hours of deliberations. His attorneys have appealed that conviction, which put more attention on the outcome of the trial in Los Angeles.

    Jane Doe 2, who was identified as Lauren Young, told her attorney Gloria Allred by phone she was happy Weinstein was convicted on some counts despite there being a mistrial on her count, Allred said in a news conference after the verdict.

    “I am relieved that Harvey Weinstein has been convicted because he deserves to be punished for the crimes that he committed, and he can no longer use his power to intimidate and sexually assault more women,” Young said in a statement read by Allred.

    The weekslong trial saw emotional testimony from Weinstein’s accusers – a model, a dancer, a massage therapist and Siebel Newsom – all of whom were asked to recount the details of their allegations against him, provide details of meetings with the producer from years ago, and explain their reactions to the alleged assaults.

    Weinstein initially faced 11 charges, but four counts connected to an unnamed woman were dropped without explanation. She did not testify in the trial.

    In closing arguments, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Weinstein a “titan” who used his power in Hollywood to prey on and silence women.

    “Rapists rape. You can look at the pattern,” fellow prosecutor Paul Thompson told jurors.

    Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys maintained the allegations were either fabricated or occurred consensually as part of a “transactional relationship” with the movie producer, repeatedly saying there is no evidence of assault.

    Defense attorney Alan Jackson called the accusers “fame and fortune seekers.”

    The trial in Los Angeles also included testimony from other witnesses, including experts, law enforcement, friends of accusers and former aides to Weinstein.

    Additionally, four women testified they were subjected to similar behavior by Weinstein in other jurisdictions.

    Each morning at trial, Weinstein was brought from a correctional facility and wheeled into the Los Angeles courtroom wearing a suit and tie and holding a composition notebook.

    His accusers all began their oftentimes emotional testimonies by identifying him in the courtroom as he looked on.

    “He’s wearing a suit, and a blue tie and he’s staring at me,” Siebel Newsom said last month, before what was one of the most emotional moments of the trial. She testified Weinstein raped her in a hotel room in 2005.

    During the trial, defense attorney Jackson asked jurors if they could “accept what (the Jane Does) say as gospel,” arguing what they said was a lack of forensic evidence supporting their claim.

    “Five words that sum up the entirety of the prosecution’s case: ‘Take my word for it,’” Jackson said. “‘Take my word for it that he showed up at my hotel room unannounced. Take my word for it that I showed up at his hotel room. Take my word for it that I didn’t consent. Take my word for it, that I said no.’ “

    Siebel Newsom described an hourslong “cat-and-mouse period,” which preceded her alleged assault. She, like other accusers, described feeling “frozen” that day.

    Attorneys for Weinstein do not deny the incident occurred, but said he believed it was consensual.

    Jackson called the incident “consensual, transactional sex,” adding: “Regret is not the same thing as rape. And it’s important we make that distinction in this courtroom.”

    In her closing arguments, Martinez highlighted the women who testified chose to do so despite knowing they would face tough conditions in court.

    “The truth is that, as you sit here, we know the despicable behavior the defendant engaged in. He thought he was so powerful that people would … excuse his behavior,” Martinez said. “That’s just Harvey being Harvey. That’s just Hollywood. And for so long that’s what everyone did. Everyone just turned their heads.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California approves roadmap for carbon neutrality by 2045

    California approves roadmap for carbon neutrality by 2045

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California air regulators voted unanimously Thursday to approve an ambitious plan to drastically cut reliance on fossil fuels by changing practices in the energy, transportation and agriculture sectors, but critics say it doesn’t go far enough to combat climate change.

    The plan sets out to achieve so-called carbon neutrality by 2045, meaning the state will remove as many carbon emissions from the atmosphere as it emits. It aims to do so in part by reducing fossil fuel demand by 86% within that time frame.

    California had previously set this carbon neutrality target, but Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation making it a mandate earlier this year. The Democrat has said drastic changes are needed to position California as a global climate leader.

    “We are making history here in California,” Newsom said in a statement Thursday.

    But the plan’s road to approval by the California Air Resources Board was not without criticism. Capturing large amounts of carbon and storing it underground is one of the most controversial elements of the proposal. Critics say it gives the state’s biggest emitters reason to not do enough on their part to mitigate climate change.

    In a meeting that lasted several hours, activists, residents and experts used their last chance to weigh in on the plan ahead of the board’s vote. Many said the latest version, while not perfect, was an improvement from earlier drafts, committing the state to do more to curb planet-warming emissions.

    Davina Hurt, a board member, said she was proud California is moving closer to its carbon neutrality goal.

    “I’m glad that this plan is bold and aggressive,” Hurt said.

    The plan does not commit the state to taking any particular actions but sets out a broad roadmap for how California can achieve its goals. Here are the highlights:

    RENEWABLE POWER

    The implementation of the plan hinges on the state’s ability to transition away from fossil fuels and rely more on renewable resources for energy. It calls for the state to cut liquid petroleum fuel demand by 94% by 2045, and quadruple solar and wind capacity along that same timeframe.

    Another goal would mean new residential and commercial buildings will be powered by electric appliances before the next decade.

    The calls for dramatically lowering reliance on oil and gas come as public officials continue to grapple with how to avoid blackouts when record-breaking heat waves push Californians to crank up their air conditioning.

    And the Western States Petroleum Association took issue with the plan’s timeline.

    “CARB’s latest draft of the Scoping Plan has acknowledged what dozens of studies have confirmed — that a complete phase-out of oil and gas is unrealistic,” said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the group’s president, in a statement. “A plan that isn’t realistic isn’t really a plan at all.”

    At the beginning of Thursday’s meeting, California Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph touted the latest version of the plan as the most ambitious to date. It underwent changes after public comments earlier this year.

    “Ultimately, achieving carbon neutrality requires deploying all tools available to us to reduce emissions and store carbon,” Randolph said.

    TRANSPORTATION

    Officials hope a move away from gas-powered cars and trucks reduces greenhouse gas emissions while limiting the public health impact of chemicals these vehicles release.

    In a July letter to the air board, Newsom requested that the agency approve aggressive cuts to emissions from planes. This would accompany other reductions in the transportation sector as the state transitions to all zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035.

    The plan’s targets include having 20% of aviation fuel demand come from electric or hydrogen sources by 2045 and ensuring all medium-duty vehicles sold are zero-emission by 2040. The board has already passed a policy to ban the sale of new cars powered solely by gasoline in the state starting in 2035.

    CARBON CAPTURE

    The plan refers to carbon capture as a “necessary tool” to implement in the state alongside other strategies to mitigate climate change. It calls for the state to capture 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and store it underground by 2045.

    Connie Cho, an attorney for environmental justice group Communities for a Better Environment, called the plan “a huge step forward” to mitigate climate change and protect public health.

    “Our communities have been suffering from chronic disease and dying at disproportionate rates for far too long because of the legacy of environmental racism in this country,” Cho said.

    But Cho criticized its carbon capture targets, arguing they give a pathway for refineries to continue polluting as the state cuts emissions in other areas.

    AGRICULTURE

    One of the goals is to achieve a 66% reduction in methane emissions from the agriculture sector by 2045. Cattle are a significant source for releasing methane — a potent, planet-warming gas.

    The plan’s implementation would also mean less reliance by the agriculture sector on fossil fuels as an energy source.

    ___

    This story has been updated to correct the plan’s target for aviation fuel demand from electric or hydrogen sources. It is 20%, not 10%.

    ___

    Sophie Austin is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on Twitter: @sophieadanna

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • So long, California: Major county votes to study secession

    So long, California: Major county votes to study secession

    [ad_1]

    RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. — The November elections saw Californians continue to embrace progressive leadership, but voters in one of the state’s most populous counties are so frustrated with this political direction that they voted to consider seceding and forming their own state.

    An advisory ballot proposal approved in San Bernardino County — home to 2.2 million people — directs local officials to study the possibility of secession. The razor-thin margin of victory is the latest sign of political unrest and economic distress in California.

    This attempt to create a new state — which would be the first since Hawaii in 1959 — is a longshot proposition for the county just east of Los Angeles that has suffered from sharp increases in cost of living. It would hinge on approval by the California Legislature and Congress, both of which are highly unlikely.

    Still, it’s significant that the vote came from a racially and ethnically diverse county that is politically mixed, as well as the fifth-most populous in the state and the largest in the nation by area. San Bernardino’s 20,000 square miles (51,800 square kilometers) is comprised of more land than nine states.

    The votes speaks to the alienation that some voters feel from a statehouse long dominated by Democrats who have made little progress on the growing homeless crisis, soaring housing costs and rising crime rates while residents pay among the highest taxes in the country.

    There is “a lot of frustration overall” with state government and how public dollars are spent — with far too little coming to the county, said Curt Hagman, chairman of the Board of Supervisors that placed the proposal on the ballot. The county will look at whether billions of dollars in state and federal funds was fairly shared with local governments in the Inland Empire.

    From record inflation to friction over long-running state pandemic policies, “it’s been a rough few years” for residents, Hagman said.

    Kristin Washington, chair of the San Bernardino County Democratic Party, dismissed the measure as a political maneuver to turn out conservative voters, rather than a barometer of public sentiment.

    “Putting it on a ballot was a waste of time for the voters,” she said. “The option of actually seceding from the state is not even something that is realistic because of all the steps that actually go into it.” In San Bernardino County, Democratic voters now outnumber Republicans by 12 points. Still, in November Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom lost in the county by 5 points. He easily defeated a recall last year driven by opposition to pandemic health orders that shuttered schools and businesses. California was among the first states to close schools and turn to online learning, and also among the last for students to return to in-person teaching.

    Democrats dominate the California Legislature and congressional delegation, and the state is known as an incubator of liberal policy on climate, health care, labor issues and immigration, and the vote could be seen as partly a reaction to the state’s priorities. Once solidly Republican terrain, with recent population growth San Bernardino County has become more diverse and Democratic, similar to changes in neighboring San Diego and Orange counties.

    Throughout its 172-year history, California has weathered more than 220 failed attempts to dismantle the state into as many as six smaller states, according to the California State Library. Earlier breakaway efforts sought to carve out a new “State of Jefferson” from nearly two dozen Northern California counties, though they were largely rural, conservative-leaning and sparsely populated.

    Competition between mining and agricultural interests, as well as opposition to taxation, have driven some of these secession efforts. There have been proposals to divide the sprawling state into north and south sections, as well as splitting in lengthwise to create separate coastal and inland regions.

    “Everybody outside this county thinks we are the wild, wild West,” Mayor Paul Leon said, who backed the measure. Despite the county’s size, he said it “gets a pittance” when it comes to state and federal aid for roads, courthouses and transit.

    The city of San Bernardino, population about 220,000, anchors the third largest metropolitan area in the state, behind L.A. and San Francisco. Beyond the urban centers, its communities range from placid suburbs crisscrossed by freeways, mountain towns framed by towering pines and isolated desert havens like hippie Joshua Tree. Inflation and economic stress are challenging many communities. Before the pandemic, the county’s unemployment rate was already 9.5% in 2019, with 12.2% of households living below the poverty line.

    “I tend to be very skeptical of these secession maneuvers,” said William Deverell, director of the Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West.

    “The state’s problems are not likely to be addressed by the jurisdictional chopping block,” Deverell said in an email. He’s wary of the “hubris” of: “If only this part of the state could go its own way, as we aren’t the root of the problem.”

    Since the proposal passed, the county’s next step is to form a committee — likely comprised of public and private sector members — that will conduct an analysis of funding that will compare San Bernardino to other counties.

    Many Inland Empire communities are struggling financially even though California’s economy — by itself — may soon become the fourth largest economy in the world, up from fifth. The state announced last month it had recovered all of the 2.7 million jobs it lost at the start of the pandemic. However, there are projections for a $25 billion budget deficit next year and signs of an unsteady economy, as even the historically powerful tech industry has seen layoffs.

    From 2018 to 2021, 352 companies moved their headquarters from California to other states from California, according to a Hoover Institution study. After decades of growth, the state population of 39 million has been shrinking, partly because residents are leaving for states that offer affordable housing and lower taxes.

    Because of decreased population, the state is even losing a congressional seat in 2023, dropping from 53 to 52.

    Housing prices in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other metropolitan hubs frequently top $1 million and are sharply increasing. Billions of dollars in spending statewide has made no visible difference in the homeless crisis in many cities. This has all fueled a reckoning with the direction of the state, which has long been mythologized as a land of opportunity.

    “A lot of Californians are unhappy in many ways,” said Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney, citing record gas prices, the rising cost of living, and real estate prices that make home ownership unattainable for many working-class families.

    “The vote on secession was like smashing the china. It’s a way of getting attention but in the end it doesn’t accomplish much,” Pitney said.

    Even Hagman said he doesn’t want to see his home state broken apart, though he sees approval of the measure as an important statement on frustration with Sacramento.

    “I want to remain part of California right now,” he said. “I’m proud to be a Californian.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge orders accused Paul Pelosi attacker to stand trial

    Judge orders accused Paul Pelosi attacker to stand trial

    [ad_1]

    Judge orders accused Paul Pelosi attacker to stand trial – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The man accused of attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi with a hammer is ordered to stand trial. This comes as investigators reveal he had a list of future targets that included Hollywood superstar Tom Hanks and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Scott MacFarlane reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein’s 2nd sexual assault trial enter 6th day in Los Angeles | CNN

    Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein’s 2nd sexual assault trial enter 6th day in Los Angeles | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The second sexual assault trial of Harvey Weinstein, the former movie producer accused of using his Hollywood influence to lure women into private meetings and assault them, entered its sixth day Friday in the hands of a Los Angeles jury.

    Weinstein, behind bars in a medical unit, awaits a verdict on two counts of forcible rape and five counts of sexual assault involving four women – a model, a dancer, a massage therapist and a producer. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him.

    Jurors began deliberating Friday after hearing weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses. As of Thursday evening, jurors have been in deliberation for about 20 hours.

    At trial, four of the original 11 charges against Weinstein tied to one of the Jane Does were dropped without explanation.

    Weinstein could face 60 years to life in prison, plus an additional five years, if the jury finds him guilty.

    Weinstein is already serving a 23-year sentence after being convicted of a criminal sex act and third-degree rape during a 2020 trial in New York. His attorneys have appealed the conviction.

    Weinstein’s publicist, Juda Engelmayer, told CNN the former producer is in a detention facility’s medical unit, and is anxious but “hoping for the best.”

    The trial in Los Angeles included testimony from the four accusers identified as Jane Does in court, and other witnesses, including experts, law enforcement, friends of accusers and former aides to Weinstein.

    Additionally, four women testified they were subjected to similar incidents by Weinstein in other jurisdictions.

    All the accusers were asked in court to recount the details of their allegations against Weinstein, provide details of meetings with the producer from years ago and explain their reactions to the alleged assaults.

    Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and the wife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom – identified by her attorneys as Jane Doe 4 – alleged Weinstein raped her in a hotel room in 2005.

    In closing arguments Wednesday, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez called Weinstein a “titan” who used his power in Hollywood to prey on and silence women.

    “Rapists rape. You can look at the pattern,” fellow prosecutor Paul Thompson told jurors.

    “You have irrefutable, overwhelming evidence about the nature of this man and what he did to these women,” Thompson said.

    Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys have maintained the allegations are either fabricated or occurred consensually as part of a “transactional relationship” with the movie producer, repeatedly saying there is no evidence of assault.

    Defense attorney Alan Jackson called the accusers “fame and fortune seekers.”

    Each morning at trial, Weinstein was brought from a correctional facility and wheeled into the Los Angeles courtroom wearing a suit and tie and holding a composition notebook.

    His accusers all began their oftentimes emotional testimonies by identifying him in the courtroom as he looked on.

    “He’s wearing a suit, and a blue tie and he’s staring at me,” Siebel Newsom said last month, before what was one of the most emotional moments of the trial.

    On Thursday of last week, defense attorney Jackson asked jurors if they could “accept what (the Jane Does) say as gospel,” arguing what they said was a lack of forensic evidence supporting their claim.

    “Five words that sum up the entirety of the prosecution’s case: ‘Take my word for it,’” Jackson said. “‘Take my word for it that he showed up at my hotel room unannounced. Take my word for it that I showed up at his hotel room. Take my word for it that I didn’t consent. Take my word for it, that I said no.’”

    Siebel Newsom described an hourslong “cat-and-mouse period,” which preceded her alleged assault. She, like other accusers, described feeling “frozen” that day.

    Attorneys for Weinstein do not deny the incident occurred, but said he believed it was consensual.

    Jackson called the incident “consensual, transactional sex,” adding: “Regret is not the same thing as rape. And it’s important we make that distinction in this courtroom.”

    Women’s rights lawyer Gloria Allred, who is representing Jane Doe 2 in the case, told CNN she hopes the jury sees her client “has no motive at all to do anything but tell the truth.”

    “She never sought or received any compensation … She doesn’t live in California anymore. But she is testifying because she’s been asked to testify and I hope that they see her as the young woman that she was when she met Harvey Weinstein, and the woman that she is today approximately nine to 10 years later. Her life has changed,” Allred said.

    “To be willing to subject yourself to what could be a very brutal cross-examination. That takes a very special person to do that. And she is a special person. I’m very proud,” Allred said.

    In her closing arguments, Martinez also highlighted that the women who testified chose to do so despite knowing they would face tough conditions in court.

    “The truth is that, as you sit here, we know the despicable behavior the defendant engaged in. He thought he was so powerful that people would … excuse his behavior,” Martinez said. “That’s just Harvey being Harvey. That’s just Hollywood. And for so long that’s what everyone did. Everyone just turned their heads.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California proposal seeks to penalize oil refiners for

    California proposal seeks to penalize oil refiners for

    [ad_1]

    California could become the first state to fine big oil companies for making too much money, a reaction to the industry’s supersized profits following a summer of record-high gas prices in the nation’s most populous state.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom and his Democratic allies in the state Legislature introduced the proposal Monday as lawmakers returned to the state Capitol in Sacramento for the start of a special legislative session focused solely on the oil industry.

    But the proposal was missing key details, including how much profit is too much for oil companies and what fine they would have to pay for exceeding it. Newsom’s office said those details would be sorted out later after negotiations with lawmakers. Any money from the fines would be returned to the public.

    Gas prices are always higher in California because of taxes, fees and environmental regulations that other states don’t have. But in October, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in California was more than $2.60 higher than the national average — the biggest gap ever.


    California’s AG investigating oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil

    01:48

    Newsom: No good way to justify high prices

    Speaking to reporters, Newsom compared the actions of oil companies to price gougers charging more for hand sanitizer during the pandemic. He said the goal of the penalty is to prevent gas prices from shooting up similarly in the future, calling it “a proactive effort in order to change behavior.”

    “We’re burning up. We’re choking up. We’re heating up because of these folks,” Newsom said, referring to the oil industry and its impact on the environment. “And people are barely able to pay their bills because of these folks.”

    It could be a popular proposal with voters, who have been paying more than $6 per gallon of gasoline on average for much of the year. But that doesn’t mean it will be easy to get it through the state Legislature, where the oil industry is one of the top spenders on both lobbyists and campaign contributions.

    “Civil penalty” not tax

    Crucially, the proposal classifies the fine as a “civil penalty” and not a tax. That means only a simple majority would be needed for passage, instead of the two-thirds majority that is required to raise taxes.

    “Whatever Gov. Newsom wants to call it, this is a tax and it’s going to have the same impact that all taxes do on consumers, and that is to raises costs, not bring them down,” said Kevin Slagle, spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association. “We think the governor should be honest about what this is and let the legislators vote on a tax and sell it to the California public as a tax and see how people feel about it.”

    The California Legislature is in session most of the year, typically considering hundreds of bills. The governor can call lawmakers into a special session limited to discussing issues he specifies. Newsom said he called the special session on gas prices because it would help lawmakers focus on the issue.


    Debate rages in California over how to fund renewable energy

    02:30

    Mixed reaction from Senate

    But legislative leaders don’t appear in any hurry to pass the bill. Lawmakers convened in a special session for mere minutes Monday, long enough to adopt rules and appoint leaders. They won’t reconvene again until January.

    Many lawmakers said they had no idea what Newsom was proposing. A few senators joined reporters at Newsom’s news conference outside Senate chambers just to hear what he had to say.

    “I don’t think anybody objects to (oil companies) having a business model that makes a profit, but the extent to which they’re taking advantage of people really does appear to be unfair,” said state Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from Santa Monica, expressing general support for Newsom’s concept.

    Republicans, who don’t have enough votes to influence legislation, denounced the proposal.

    “The last thing that we need to do is increase the cost on Californians who are already paying far too much,” Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher said.


    Local Matters: Some experts concerned about aging oil pipelines in California

    04:16

    Adding to the uncertainty is an unusually high number of newly elected lawmakers about to take seats for the first time. Roughly a quarter of the Legislature’s 120 members are new, with two close races still unresolved.

    Among the new state senators is Angelique Ashby, a Democrat who narrowly won election after an intense campaign. The oil industry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on radio and TV ads supporting Ashby’s campaign, a trend noticed by critics who tried to use it against her.

    Ashby said she hasn’t been approached by lobbyists or others from the oil industry asking how she would vote on a potential penalty. She noted the oil industry spent the money as “independent expenditures,” meaning she had no control over that spending during the campaign.

    “Campaign slogans and strategies of my opponent are a thing of the past,” said Ashby, whose district includes Sacramento. “I’m fixated on the people of Senate District 8 and I will make my decision based on what is in their best interest.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Things We Saw Today: The Nightmare Fuel That Is the 1930 “Miss Lovely Eyes” Competition

    Things We Saw Today: The Nightmare Fuel That Is the 1930 “Miss Lovely Eyes” Competition

    [ad_1]

    a black and white photo of a row of ladies in horrifying masks that leave only their eyes uncovered

    Move over Black Friday it’s time for Scary Saturday! And that means really taking in and absorbing the unsettling horror that is the “Miss Lovely Eyes” beauty competition held in Florida in 1930. Shared to Twitter from the Vintage Everyday blog, we can now behold these women as they glare at us from behind their Hannibal Lecter meets a Dixie paper plate masks. The woman in the center, much like all of us, is deeply regretting her life choices.

    Meanwhile, Politico has revealed that California Governor Gavin Newsom had a phone call with the White House immediately after his reelection in the 2022 midterms in which he assured them that he would not attempt to primary President Biden in 2024. People have really been pushing this narrative because Newsom has been vocally critical of the Democrats soft stances since taking power, and I think Newsom definitely has eventual designs on the White House, but please let’s just wait for Biden to declare he’s even running again before we all jump on Politico’s rumor mill. – Politico

    The pop-star Irene Cara passed away in her home this morning at the age of 63. She burst onto the scene in the 1980 musical Fame, as Coco Hernandez one of the students of New York’s famous High School for the Performing Arts. She released a hit record that included the title theme of the film as well as the ballad “Out Here on My Own” which led her to be nominated for two Grammys and a Golden Globe. She also co-wrote and sang “Flashdance… What a Feeling” for the film Flashdance. This became another huge hit and won her the Oscar for Best Original Song and a Grammy for Best Pop Vocal Performance. Dance one out for this iconic diva. – CNN

    Twitter continues its descent into 4chan territory after an extremely unserious list was leaked from right-wing/fascist trolls that they were intending to target for mass reporting and suspension. They claimed everyone on the list was an “antifa” activist/left-wing terrorist but list included everyone from actual organizers and social justice-oriented accounts to Britney Spears, the “weirdlilguys” cat account, Best of Next Door, and comedy writers. Basically just anyone they decided was too popular or well-liked? Many of the accounts were forced to go on private mode as a result.

    (Image: Vintage Everyday)

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    Brittany Knupper

    Source link

  • Wife of California Gov. Newsom testifies in Harvey Weinstein trial

    Wife of California Gov. Newsom testifies in Harvey Weinstein trial

    [ad_1]

    Wife of California Gov. Newsom testifies in Harvey Weinstein trial – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom took the stand Monday at Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault trial in Los Angeles. Filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom is now the fourth woman to testify against the movie mogul. CBS News correspondent Carter Evans joins CBS News to discuss.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Massachusetts Voters Approve ‘Millionaires Tax’ As Californians Reject An Income Tax Hike On High Earners

    Massachusetts Voters Approve ‘Millionaires Tax’ As Californians Reject An Income Tax Hike On High Earners

    [ad_1]

    In the 2022 midterm elections, residents of California, like those of Massachusetts, voted to put Democrats in commanding control of their state government. Yet these two left-leaning electorates rendered opposing verdicts on similar tax measures seeking to raise state income tax rates on upper income households.

    With 57% voting No, California voters resoundingly defeated Proposition 30, a ballot measure that would’ve added a new, 15.05% top marginal state income tax rate applying to income above $2 million. At 13.3%, California already levies the highest top personal state income tax rate in the country.

    With the defeat of Proposition 30, upper income filers and thousands of small business owners avoided being hit with a 1.75 percentage point, 13% increase in their top marginal state income tax rate. According to IRS data, in 2019, the most recent year for which data is available, more than 86,000 pass-through business owners filed under the individual income tax system in California and have income above $1 million. How many have income above $2 million is not delineated by the IRS data, but it’s likely ten of thousands of small business owners who would’ve seen their job creating and sustaining capacity diminished had Proposition 30 passed.

    The ride-sharing company Lyft
    LYFT
    was the primary financial backer of Proposition 30, which directed the additional funding to the buildout of electric vehicle infrastructure. Had Proposition 30 been enacted, the new 15.05% income tax rate would’ve raised an additional $3 billion to $4.5 billion annually, according to projections from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

    Governor Gavin Newsom (D), along with the California Teachers Association, urged Californians to reject Proposition 30, in part, because it would make revenue collections less predictable. “California’s tax revenues are famously volatile, and this measure would make our state’s finances even more unstable,” Newsom said of the proposed income tax hike.

    “Proposition 30 is a special interest carve-out — a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company,” Newsom said. “Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure.”

    “The election results are an unfortunate setback for the climate movement,” a Lyft spokesman said the day after the election. “Millions were spent by the opposition to confuse and misguide voters, however we are undaunted … we remain committed to achieving our collective climate goals.”

    While Golden State voters rejected an income tax hike on high earners, in Massachusetts another “millionaires tax” proposal, Question One, passed with nearly 52% support. Question One is a constitutional amendment that will move Massachusetts from a flat to progressive income tax structure. Massachusetts currently has a 5% flat state income tax rate and passage of Question One will create a new 9% rate on income above $1 million dollars.

    Question One is projected to raise an additional $1.5 billion annually for state coffers. Whereas the progressive tax hike rejected by Californians would’ve been used to fund EV infrastructure, the income tax increase approved in Massachusetts will use the additional funds to boost education and transportation spending.

    While the state teachers union was a major opponent of the defeated California income tax increase, they were the top proponent and funder of the Massachusetts income tax hike. The California Teachers Association spent $5 million to defeat Proposition 30. The Massachusetts Teachers Association, meanwhile, spent $15.5 million in support of Question One. The American Federation for Teachers also kicked in $6.7 million to help pass the income tax hike.

    While this tax hike was sold to Bay State voters as a way to make the rich pay more, small businesses will also be hit with this tax increase. According to IRS data, more than 19,000 owners of sole proprietorships, LLCs, partnerships & S corporations that filed under the personal income tax system in Massachusetts in 2019 would’ve be hit by the 44% income tax rate hike imposed by Question One had it been in effect at the time.

    In Moving From Flat To Progressive Income Tax, Massachusetts Becomes A National Outlier

    Question One marks the sixth time in the past 50 years that a measure seeking to move Massachusetts to a progressive income tax has been put on the ballot. The previous efforts occurred in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994. In 2022, Question One became the first progressive income tax proposal to receive voter approval.

    By moving from a flat to a progressive income tax structure, Massachusetts is bucking a national trend, as more states have been moving in the opposite direction, going from a progressive to a flat income tax. In September, Idaho became the fifth state in the past two years where lawmakers enacted legislation moving from a progressive to a flat state income tax structure. Other states where lawmakers have passed legislation to move from a progressive to flat income tax over the past two years include Georgia, Mississippi, Iowa, and Arizona.

    North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum (R) has a proposal to move his state to a flat tax. Until passage of Question One, enactment of Governor Burgum’s plan would’ve made North Dakota state number 25 with a flat state income tax rate. Approval of Question One, however, will reduce the number of flat tax states by one, bringing it down to 23 currently. That means enactment of the flat tax proposal pending in North Dakota would get the total number of flat tax states back to 24.

    One of the now 23 states that has a flat tax, Colorado, had an income tax cut on the ballot in the 2022 midterm elections. Proposition 121, which was approved with 65% of the vote, will cut Colorado’s flat income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%. Passage of Proposition 121 marks the second reduction in the state’s flat income tax rate to be approved by Colorado voters in the past two years.

    There are a number of possible take-aways from the results of these 2022 ballot measures. It’s clear that it’s very helpful for progressive tax hike initiatives to have the teachers unions on board, at least in states as blue as California and Massachusetts. Another potential take-away for many will be that, while the 2022 midterm elections went much better for Democrats than was expected going in, the results do not appear to represent an endorsement of progressive policies, even in Democratic strongholds.

    [ad_2]

    Patrick Gleason, Contributor

    Source link

  • Biggest Winners And Losers From The Midterm Elections

    Biggest Winners And Losers From The Midterm Elections

    [ad_1]

    After running to the polls to “vote” and feel like they have power, all the little sheep went home to watch their little streaming shows, eat their fast food, and consume all manner of societal opiates, keeping the flock passive and ripe for slaughter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Klobuchar pushes back against Newsom’s claim that Democrats are ‘getting crushed on narrative’ by Republicans | CNN Politics

    Klobuchar pushes back against Newsom’s claim that Democrats are ‘getting crushed on narrative’ by Republicans | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Sunday pushed back on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s argument that their party is “getting crushed on narrative” by Republicans and right-wing media outlets.

    “You know what? He’s out there in California right now, and I am out here and been all over Ohio with Tim Ryan, in Pennsylvania with John Fetterman, with Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin and Cheri Beasley in North Carolina. I think either we are ahead in these races or we are in striking distance,” Klobuchar told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” referring to Democratic Senate nominees in key contests.

    “We’re going to win these races. So he can talk about all he wants out there. I am in the middle of it,” the Minnesota Democrat added.

    Newsom told CBS in a recent interview that he agreed with the sentiment that a red wave was likely in this year’s midterm elections.

    “It goes to my fundamental grievance with my damn party. We’re getting crushed on narrative. We’re going to have to do better in terms of getting on the offense and stop being on the damn defense,” the California governor said.

    Newsom also said in September at the Texas Tribune Festival that the GOP was “winning right now” as that party controls the national conversation – arguing that Democrats’ failure to offer a “compelling alternative narrative” has put the “entire rights agenda” of the last half-century at risk.

    On Sunday, Klobuchar was asked about her party’s strategy of boosting some Republican candidates during the primary season this year in hopes they would be easier to defeat in the general election. Bash brought up the example of Democrats spending money to benefit Republican Don Bolduc in the primary in New Hampshire now that he is locked in a tight race against incumbent Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan.

    “I’m not going to at one moment concede this race because Maggie has been ahead every step of the way,” Klobuchar said. “First of all, I’m not going back over past strategy right now two days before the election. … I’m not a big fan of spending money on other candidates and messing around. I will admit that, and I’ve said that.”

    Bolduc, a retired Army brigadier general, has consistently pushed election falsehoods, though he has given shifting answers related to false 2020 election claims since securing the Republican nomination.

    Klobuchar, who ran for president in 2020, said that she would support President Joe Biden in the 2024 election after CNN reported last week that former President Donald Trump could launch his next presidential bid as soon as this month.

    “President Biden has made clear he is running, and I support him,” she said. “And what I will say about this is, Donald Trump cannot be president again. The American people know it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom on

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom on

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom on “The Takeout” — 11/4/2022 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    California Governor Gavin Newsom joined Major Garrett on “The Takeout” to discuss the possibility of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy becoming speaker of the House, the fight against homelessness and the recent surge in antisemitism.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gavin Newsom says it’s “not the moment” for him to run for president

    Gavin Newsom says it’s “not the moment” for him to run for president

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom insists he is not interested in running for president, although he’s bought ads in Florida and Texas to troll their GOP governors, elevating his profile ahead of the 2024 election as President Biden weighs whether to run for reelection

    “It’s not my ambition,” the Democrat told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in an exclusive interview on Saturday. “It’s not the direction that I’m leaning into. It’s not the moment.” 

    When pressed on whether he could say he will never run for president, Newsom said, “Yeah, I have no interest.” 

    Newsom said he, unlike some Democrats, wants Mr. Biden to run for reelection. 

    “I don’t think there’s been two years of more effective policy-making of a modern American president,” Newsom said. “It’s been a masterclass the last two years, not necessarily in effective communication and generating narrative, but in terms of the substance under the circumstance, with all the headwinds, the obfuscation and opposition. I think it’s been remarkable.” 

    The governor is seeking a second term after surviving a recall election in 2021. Since his reelection race is not close, he’s been directing his efforts elsewhere, like New Mexico, where Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is in a tight race. 

    Newsom said it feels like a red wave is coming, criticizing his own party’s messaging before the midterm elections next week. 

    “Look, I can be the cheerleader. I’m also pragmatic,” he said. “You feel it. It’s not just intellectualization based on polling.” 

    “You feel it,” he continued. “And it goes to my fundamental grievance with my damn party. We’re getting crushed on narrative. We’re going to have to do better in terms of getting on the offense and stop being on the damn defense.” 

    Democrats have leaned into abortion rights this election cycle at the expense of other issues, while Republicans are “winning the messaging war,” Newsom said. 

    “It’s remarkable Democrats have done as well as they’ve done under these circumstances,” he said. 

    Newsom also said a Republican-controlled House, with California Rep. Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, fills him with “fear.” 

    “What he’s done to aid and abet this notion, the ‘Big Lie,’ sowing doubts around the foundation of our democracy, how he’s aiding and abetting functionally authoritarian leaders across his party,” Newsom said. “That scares the hell out of me.” 

    McCarthy’s office did not respond to a request for comment. 

    Arden Farhi contributed reporting. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom denies plans for presidential run

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom denies plans for presidential run

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom denies plans for presidential run – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Gov. Gavin Newsom is hitting the campaign trail for other Democrats, leading many to question whether his political ambitions extend beyond California. Newsom talked exclusively with Major Garrett about a potential presidential run, the midterm elections and President Biden.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom accuses Fox News of

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom accuses Fox News of

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom partly blamed Fox News for fueling the vitriol against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband, Paul, who was attacked by an intruder with a hammer at the couple’s San Francisco home last week. 

    “I’ve seen the dehumanization of Nancy Pelosi,” Newsom told CBS News’ chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in an exclusive interview on Saturday. “I don’t think anyone’s been dehumanized like she has consistently. Now I watched this one guy, Jesse Watters or something on Fox News. What he’s been saying about Paul Pelosi the last five, six months, mocking him consistently. Don’t tell me that’s not aiding and abetting all this. Of course it is.” 

    “They’re sowing the seeds, creating a culture and a climate like this,” Newsom said. “I mean, look online. Look at the sewage that is online that they amplify on these networks and in social media to dehumanize people like Nancy Pelosi and other political leaders.” 

    CBS News reached out to Fox News and Watters on Monday and had not heard back by 5 p.m. ET. Watters said on his show on Monday night that Newsom “thinks if you mock a Democrat, it puts him on a target list.”

    “If anything, Gavin Newsom has done more to aid and abet this attack on Paul Pelosi than anybody,” Watters said, alleging Newsom’s policies allow people like the alleged attacker to be on the streets

    David Wayne DePape, the suspect in the attack, had a list of people he wanted to target, law enforcement sources briefed on the investigation confirmed to CBS News. He allegedly broke into the couple’s home around 2 a.m. on Friday, shouting “Where is Nancy?” The Democratic leader was in Washington, D.C., at the time of the attack, according to Capitol Police

    Paul Pelosi underwent surgery on Friday for his injuries. 

    Newsom implied that he has also been on the receiving end of threats and that they’ve become more serious. 

    “I know what over the last three years has come in my inbox,” he said. “Trust me, you don’t, because I’m not sharing it. I don’t even share it with my wife. I got four kids. So I know a little bit about this. I mean, it wasn’t just a recall against me. It was surround sound in every way, shape or form.” 

    “Look, there’s always folks in the extreme and you roll your eyes,” he continued. “This is — something is different here. There’s, you know, the mind is being stretched. People feel free to shove again.” 


    Watch more of Major Garrett’s exclusive interview with California Gov. Gavin Newsom on the “CBS Evening News” on Tuesday. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These are the women expected to testify against Harvey Weinstein at his second sexual assault trial | CNN

    These are the women expected to testify against Harvey Weinstein at his second sexual assault trial | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Reporting five years ago on Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual abuse spurred women to speak publicly about their own experiences with sexual violence in what became known as the #MeToo movement.

    Now, in a Los Angeles courtroom, eight women are set to testify in a trial altogether similar to the one that led to Weinstein’s landmark conviction two years ago.

    Weinstein, the 70-year-old movie producer, has pleaded not guilty to 11 charges based on allegations of sexual assault at Los Angeles hotels between 2004 to 2013.

    Opening statements in the trial began Monday and one woman has already testified about her alleged assault. Three more women are expected to testify directly to the charges, and four other women are expected to testify as “prior bad acts” witnesses, meaning their testimony isn’t directly connected to a charge but can be considered as prosecutors try to show Weinstein had a pattern in his behavior.

    He was found guilty in New York in 2020 of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape and was sentenced to 23 years in prison. He has appealed.

    Here’s what we know about the women set to testify in the California case and the charges connected to their allegations based on comments from the prosecution, the defense and their testimony.

    Weinstein is charged with forcible oral copulation and forcible rape of Jane Doe 4 between September 1, 2004, and September 30, 2005.

    Jane Doe 4 has been identified as Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and the wife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. In a statement, her attorneys confirmed she would be testifying against Weinstein in court.

    “Like many other women, my client was sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein at a purported business meeting that turned out to be a trap,” said Beth Fegan, one of Siebel Newsom’s attorneys. “She intends to testify at his trial to seek some measure of justice for survivors and as part of her life’s work to improve the lives of women.”

    Siebel Newsom is a Stanford University graduate who has written, directed and produced several documentaries, including “Miss Representation,” “The Mask You Live In” and “The Great American Lie.” During her time as California’s first partner, Siebel Newsom has advocated for working mothers and launched initiatives focused on closing the gender pay gap, among other efforts.

    In opening statements, prosecutor Paul Thompson said the assault occurred when Siebel Newsom was a “powerless actor trying to make her way in Hollywood.” Weinstein invited her to “discuss her career” at the Peninsula Hotel, and in a hotel room, he assaulted and raped her, the prosecutor said.

    Defense attorney Mark Werksman countered that Siebel Newsom had consensual sex with Weinstein because she wanted his help getting roles and producing films.

    Werksman also said Weinstein donated to two of Gov. Newsom’s political races and that Siebel Newsom took her husband to a Weinstein party. “She brought her husband to meet and party with the man who raped her. Who does that?” he asked.

    Siebel Newsom has written about the incident with Weinstein in vague terms. In October 2017, just a day after The New York Times published its bombshell report on Weinstein, she wrote an opinion editorial for the Huffington Post saying she believed the report because she had a similar experience with Weinstein.

    “I was naive, new to the industry, and didn’t know how to deal with his aggressive advances ― work invitations with a friend late-night at The Toronto Film Festival, and later an invitation to meet with him about a role in The Peninsula Hotel, where staff were present and then all of a sudden disappeared like clockwork, leaving me alone with this extremely powerful and intimidating Hollywood legend,” she wrote.

    Weinstein is charged with forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by foreign object and forcible rape of Jane Doe 1 on or about February 18, 2013, in Los Angeles County, according to the indictment.

    Jane Doe 1 was a model and actress who was married, had three children and was living in Italy in 2013. She speaks Russian, Italian and English, but her English was not very good at the time, she said.

    She was the first witness to testify in the trial and said she was staying in a hotel for the Los Angeles Italia Film Festival when she got a call that Weinstein wanted to see her. She testified she had met him previously in Rome.

    He came to her hotel room and tried to rape her, she testified.

    “I wanted to die. It was disgusting. It was humiliating, miserable. I didn’t fight,” she testified in court. “I remember how he was looking in the mirror and he was telling me to look at him. I wish this never happened to me.”

    Years later, she told her daughter about the assault in an attempt to connect with her about a similar issue, she testified. Jane Doe 1 then went to the police in October 2017 because she promised her daughter she would, she testified.

    In the defense’s opening statements, Werksman said she had fabricated the story and argued there was no evidence he went to her hotel room. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged she had no evidence to show the jury that would prove she was with Weinstein that night and said she couldn’t remember everything about the incident.

    “I remember a lot but I forgot a lot also,” she said.

    Weinstein is charged with sexual battery by restraint of Jane Doe 2 on or about February 19, 2013, in Los Angeles County.

    Jane Doe 2 was a 23-year-old model and aspiring screenwriter who had been modeling since she was 12, Thompson said in opening statements.

    She alleges she was assaulted during the Los Angeles Italia Film Festival, according to Thompson. She met with Weinstein at a restaurant at the Montage hotel and told him she wanted to be a screenwriter, the prosecutor said. The meeting then moved to a space upstairs, and when Weinstein led her into a bathroom, another woman shut the door behind Jane Doe 2, the prosecutor said.

    While she was trapped inside with Weinstein, he allegedly undid her dress, groped her and masturbated, the prosecutor said.

    The next day, she went to a pre-scheduled meeting with a Weinstein Company employee and was advised to go on “Project Runway,” a Weinstein-produced reality TV show.

    Werksman, the defense attorney, said in opening statements that Jane Doe 2 fabricated her story and noted that she met with the Weinstein Company employee the next day.

    Weinstein is charged with sexual battery by restraint of Jane Doe 3 on or about May 11, 2010.

    Jane Doe 3 was a licensed massage therapist who often worked with celebrities and athletes, Thompson said.

    In 2010, she massaged Weinstein and then went to the restroom to wash her hands, and he followed her into the bathroom, backed her into a corner, groped her and masturbated, Thompson said.

    Weinstein had suggested Jane Doe 3 could write a book about her massage work, Thompson said, and afterward an aide to Weinstein paid her $200 for the massage and put her in touch with Miramax’s book division about a potential book deal.

    In contrast, Werksman argued that their sexual interaction was consensual and part of an arrangement. He said that Jane Doe 3 gave him four additional massages after the alleged assault.

    “She made a deal. Sex in exchange for something of value. Jane Doe 3 and Mr. Weinstein were friends with benefits,” Werksman argued.

    Weinstein is charged with four counts related to Jane Doe 5: forcible oral copulation and forcible rape between November 3 and November 9, 2009, and forcible oral copulation and forcible rape on or about November 5, 2010, according to the indictment.

    However, prosecutors did not mention her or her accusations in opening statements of the trial, and neither did the defense. The current status of these charges is not clear.

    “While we have no comment at this time, our office is tirelessly ensuring all of the victims in this case receive justice,” the district attorney’s office said.

    Like in his New York trial, Weinstein’s LA trial will feature testimony from several “prior bad acts” witnesses.

    There are four of these witnesses in this case, identified by their first name and initial. Each of these women alleged they were assaulted by Weinstein outside of LA jurisdiction.

    In all, the defense argued these witnesses were being used solely to “confuse and overwhelm” the jury. Werksman defended Weinstein’s actions as part of the “casting couch” culture at the time.

    The prosecution said the testimony from these women will prove Weinstein’s guilt on the charges.

    “Each of these women came forward independent of each other, and none of them knew one another,” Thompson told the jury.

    Ambra B. went to Weinstein’s office for a meeting in Manhattan in 2015 and he grabbed her breast and put his hand up her skirt, prosecutors said. She reported the incident to the NYPD, which then directed her to speak with him on the phone and at a hotel restaurant and secretly record their conversations, according to Thompson. No charges were filed against Weinstein.

    Werksman argued nothing on the recording was tantamount to a confession and dismissed her as someone playing a “junior G-man” in an undercover sting targeting Weinstein.

    Ashley M., a dancer in the movie “Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights,” was alone in a hotel room with Weinstein in 2003 and said he groped her and masturbated on her, according to Thompson.

    Werksman argued she did not resist or refuse the interaction at the time.

    Natassia M. met Weinstein and briefly interacted with him at an industry party for the 2008 British Academy of Film and Television Arts Awards and alleges he raped her at her hotel, according to Thompson.

    Werksman said there was no evidence of rape and notes they maintained contact for years afterward.

    Kelly S. was an actor in 1991 when, in a hotel room for the Toronto International Film Festival, Weinstein raped her, Thompson said. In 2008, at the same festival, she went to his hotel room with the intention of confronting him, and when he allegedly started groping her and masturbating, she left the room, the prosecutor said.

    Werksman attacked the idea that she didn’t confront him immediately upon seeing him again in 2008 and said she didn’t report the incident to police until 2018.

    Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported Harvey Weinstein was arrested in the alleged incident involving Ambra B.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prosecutor: Women’s stories show Weinstein’s predatory power

    Prosecutor: Women’s stories show Weinstein’s predatory power

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A prosecutor at Harvey Weinstein‘s sexual assault trial told jurors Tuesday that the accusers who will testify will tell uncannily similar stories of themselves as young aspiring women who were cornered in hotel rooms by a man who at the time was the definition of Hollywood power.

    “Each of these women came forward independent of each other, and none of them knew one another,” Deputy District Attorney Paul Thompson said during his opening statement at Weinstein’s Los Angeles trial.

    The 70-year-old former movie mogul, already serving a 23-year sentence in New York, is charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual assault in California.

    The defense countered in its opening statement that the incidents either did not happen or were consensual sex that the women redefined in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

    Weinstein, prosecutor Thompson said, lorded his status as “the most powerful man in Hollywood” over them, talking about the female A-list actors whose careers he had made before growing aggressive.

    Thompson played a video presentation with composite photos of the women who will testify and quotes from prior testimonials. Most were aspiring actors. One was an aspiring screenwriter who thought she was going to pitch him a script.

    All will testify that Weinstein ignored clear signs that they did not consent, the prosecutor said, including “their shaking bodies, their crying, their backing away from him, their saying ‘no.’” Four women whom Weinstein is not charged with assaulting in the case will also testify about what he did to them to demonstrate his propensity for such acts, Thompson said.

    Weinstein attorney Mark Werksman told jurors that what Weinstein did with the women was considered acceptable, “transactional” behavior in Hollywood, where young women were seeking roles and other advantages by having sex with the powerful movie magnate.

    “You’ll learn that in Hollywood, sex was a commodity,” Werksman said.

    The accusers Weinstein is charged with assaulting are expected to be identified only as Jane Doe in court, but they include Jennifer Siebel Newsom, an actor and documentary filmmaker who is married to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Siebel Newsom had not yet met Newsom and was an aspiring actor in 2005 when, according to his indictment, Weinstein raped her at a Beverly Hills Hotel.

    Without using her name, both sides said she would testify. Werksman called her a very prominent citizen of California.”

    “She’s made herself a prominent victim in the #MeToo movement,” he added, “otherwise she’d be just another bimbo who slept with Harvey Weinstein to get ahead in Hollywood.”

    In a statement to The Associated Press, Elizabeth Fegen, who represents Siebel Newsom and two other Weinstein accusers, called the comments “despicable, desperate, dishonest.”

    “The defense is callously engaging in misogynistic name-calling and victim-shaming — but survivors will not be deterred,” she added.

    Werksman said Siebel Newsom and many other women in the case had contact, and even initiated dealings, with Weinstein in the years after the encounters, often referring to him affectionately.

    In an attempt to head off this strategy, Thompson told jurors that they would hear from a psychologist who will dispel rape myths. Key among them is the idea that a sexual assault victim would not have further contact with their assailant.

    Werksman said that Weinstein’s consensual acts were transformed in October 2017 with “the asteroid called the #MeToo movement.”

    “He became the smoldering, radioactive center of it,” Werksman said. “He is Hollywood’s Chernobyl.”

    He said that there was suddenly “a new word” for the women, “victim.”

    The AP does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused unless they come forward publicly. Siebel Newsom’s identity was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, and her attorney has told the AP and other news outlets that she is among the women Weinstein is charged with sexually assaulting who will testify during the trial.

    The first of Weinstein’s accusers to testify, a model and actor who was living and working in Italy when she met him at a film festival in Los Angeles in 2013, said she was stunned to find him knocking at the door of her hotel room after interacting with him briefly earlier that evening.

    She said she was more confused than frightened at first, so she let Weinstein in, but he grew more aggressive. She said he eventually forced her to perform oral sex.

    “I was crying, choking,” said the woman.

    She grew increasingly emotional on the stand until she was sobbing so much that she could no longer speak.

    With the court day near an end, Judge Lisa Lench called for a recess until Tuesday morning, when she’ll return to the stand.

    At the beginning of the day, Weinstein was wheeled into court wearing a suit, and climbed into a seat next to his attorneys.

    Confusion arose when Thompson during his opening statement made no mention of one accuser who had been set to testify as recently as last week. Weinstein was indicted on 11 counts overall, four of which involved the woman who was not mentioned. The district attorney’s office did not address why the woman was not referenced.

    Outside court, Weinstein’s attorney said no charges had been dismissed.

    “The people left her out of their presentation, so I didn’t mention her,” he said. “It’s a glaring absence, though, in their presentation.”

    ———

    Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: twitter.com/andyjamesdalton

    ———

    For more on the Harvey Weinstein trial, visit: https://apnews.com/hub/harvey-weinstein

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Slavery is on the ballot for voters in 5 US states

    Slavery is on the ballot for voters in 5 US states

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — More than 150 years after slaves were freed in the U.S., voters in five states will soon decide whether to close loopholes that led to the proliferation of a different form of slavery — forced labor by people convicted of certain crimes.

    None of the proposals would force immediate changes inside the states’ prisons, though they could lead to legal challenges related to how they use prison labor, a lasting imprint of slavery’s legacy on the entire United States.

    The effort is part of a national push to amend the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that banned enslavement or involuntary servitude except as a form of criminal punishment. That exception has long permitted the exploitation of labor by convicted felons.

    “The idea that you could ever finish the sentence ‘slavery’s okay when … ’ has to rip out your soul, and I think it’s what makes this a fight that ignores political lines and brings us together, because it feels so clear,” said Bianca Tylek, executive director of Worth Rises, a criminal justice advocacy group pushing to remove the amendment’s convict labor clause.

    Nearly 20 states have constitutions that include language permitting slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. In 2018, Colorado was the first to remove the language from its founding frameworks by ballot measure, followed by Nebraska and Utah two years later.

    This November, versions of the question go before voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont.

    Sen. Raumesh Akbari, a Democrat from Memphis, was shocked when a fellow lawmaker told her about the slavery exception in the Tennessee Constitution and immediately began working to replace the language.

    “When I found out that this exception existed, I thought, ‘We have got to fix this and we’ve got to fix this right away,’” she said. “Our constitution should reflect the values and the beliefs of our state.”

    Constitutions require lengthy and technically tricky steps before they can be tweaked. Akbari first proposed changes in 2019; the GOP-dominant General Assembly then had to pass the changes by a majority vote in one two-year legislative period and then pass it again with at least two-thirds approval in the next. The amendment could then go on the ballot in the year of the next gubernatorial election.

    Akbari also had to work with the state Department of Correction to ensure that inmate labor wouldn’t be prohibited under her proposal.

    The proposed language going before Tennessean voters more clearly distinguishes between the two: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime.”

    “We understand that those who are incarcerated cannot be forced to work without pay, but we should not create a situation where they won’t be able to work at all,” Akbari said.

    Similar concerns over the financial impact of prison labor led California’s Democratic-led Legislature to reject an amendment eliminating indentured servitude as a possible punishment for crime after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration predicted it could require the state to pay billions of dollars at minimum wage to prison inmates.

    Scrutiny over prison labor has existed for decades, but the 13th Amendment’s loophole in particular encouraged former Confederate states after the Civil War to devise new ways to maintain the dynamics of slavery. They used restrictive measures, known as the “Black codes” because they nearly always targeted Black people, to criminalize benign interactions such as talking too loudly or not yielding on the sidewalk. Those targeted would end up in custody for minor actions, effectively enslaving them again.

    Fast-forward to today: Many incarcerated workers make pennies on the dollar, which isn’t expected to change if the proposals succeed. Inmates who refuse to work may be denied phone calls or visits with family, punished with solitary confinement and even be denied parole.

    Alabama is asking voters to delete all racist language from its constitution and to remove and replace a section on convict labor that’s similar to what Tennessee has had in its constitution.

    Vermont often boasts of being the first state in the nation to ban slavery in 1777, but its constitution still allows involuntary servitude in a handful of circumstances. Its proposed change would replace the current exception clause with language saying ”slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited.”

    Oregon’s proposed change repeals its exception clause while adding language allowing a court or probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration as part of sentencing.

    Louisiana is the only state so far to have its proposed amendment draw organized opposition, over concerns that the replacement language may make matters worse. Even one of its original sponsors has second thoughts — Democratic Rep. Edmond Jordan told The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate last week that he’s urging voters to reject it.

    The nonprofit Council for a Better Louisiana warned that the wording could technically permit slavery again, as well as continue involuntary servitude.

    Louisiana’s Constitution now says: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, except in the latter case as punishment for a crime.” The amendment would change that to: “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited, (but this) does not apply to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice.”

    “This amendment is an example of why it is so important to get the language right when presenting constitutional amendments to voters,” the nonprofit group said in a statement urging voters to choose “No” and lawmakers to try again, pointing to Tennessee’s ballot language as a possible template.

    Supporters of the amendment say such criticisms are part of a campaign to keep exception clauses in place.

    “If this doesn’t pass, it will be used as a weapon against us,” said Max Parthas, state operations director for the Abolish Slavery National Network.

    The question stands as a reminder of how slavery continues to bedevil Americans, and Parthas says that’s reason enough to vote yes.

    “We’ve never seen a single day in the United States where slavery was not legal,” he said. “We want to see what that looks like and I think that’s worth it.”

    ———

    This story has been updated to correct the language of Vermont’s proposal.

    [ad_2]

    Source link