ReportWire

Tag: government organizations – us

  • House January 6 investigator says it’s ‘likely’ 2020 election subversion probes will produce indictments | CNN Politics

    House January 6 investigator says it’s ‘likely’ 2020 election subversion probes will produce indictments | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The top investigator on the House committee that probed the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack said Wednesday it is “likely” that the Georgia and federal investigations into efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election will produce indictments.

    Timothy Heaphy told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “Erin Burnett OutFront” that “unless there is information inconsistent, which I don’t expect, I think there will likely be indictments both in Georgia and at the federal level.”

    In Georgia, the foreperson of the Atlanta-based grand jury that investigated former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election told CNN on Tuesday that the panel is recommending multiple indictments and suggested “the big name” may be on the list.

    The grand jury met for about seven months in Atlanta and heard testimony from 75 witnesses, including some of Trump’s closest advisers from his final weeks in the White House.

    Now that the grand jury is finished, it’s up to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to review the recommendations and make charging decisions. Willis’ decisions in this case will reverberate in the 2024 presidential campaign and beyond.

    Trump, who has launched his 2024 campaign for the White House, denies any criminal wrongdoing.

    At the federal level, special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing parts of the criminal investigation into the Capitol attack and has subpoenaed members of Trump’s inner circle. On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Smith had subpoenaed the former president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner for testimony.

    “I think it could be very important,” Heaphy said of the pair’s potential testimony.

    “They were present for really significant events. The special counsel will want to hear about the president’s understanding of the election results and also what happened on January 6. And they both had direct communications with him about the events preceding the riot at the Capitol,” he said.

    The special counsel has a massive amount of evidence already in-hand that it now needs to comb through, including evidence recently turned over by the House January 6 committee, subpoena documents provided by local officials in key states and discovery collected from lawyers for Trump allies late last year in a flurry of activity, at least some of which had not been reviewed as of early January, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN at the time.

    “He will not stop because of a family relationship, because of purported executive privilege,” Heaphy said of Smith. “He believes that the law entitles him to all of that information, and he’s determined to get it.”

    Ivanka Trump and Kushner previously testified to the House select committee, which expired in January after Republicans took control of the House. The panel had referred the former president to the Justice Department on four criminal charges in December, and while largely symbolic in nature, committee members stressed those referrals served as a way to document their views given that Congress cannot bring charges.

    This story has been updated with additional information Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawyers for Proud Boys member take steps to subpoena former President Trump in seditious conspiracy trial | CNN Politics

    Lawyers for Proud Boys member take steps to subpoena former President Trump in seditious conspiracy trial | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lawyers for a Proud Boys member on trial for seditious conspiracy related to his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol are taking steps to subpoena former President Donald Trump to testify as a witness for the defense.

    It’s a longshot bid as judges have previously rejected subpoenas for Trump and arguments that rioters were obeying his orders in other trials of January 6 defendants. Trump’s lawyers also wouldn’t accept service of any subpoena for him unless they had extensive discussions about it first, according to a source familiar with the matter, and they have not decided on a Proud Boys trial subpoena.

    The Justice Department has not indicated in court, or in the email to defense attorneys, whether it plans to try to quash this subpoena.

    But DOJ has informed defense lawyers they can contact Trump’s attorney Evan Corcoran, according to an email reviewed by CNN. If he refuses to accept service, the Justice Department said they can reach out to the Secret Service’s Miami field office to facilitate the process, or ask the court to order the US Marshals Service to serve the subpoena.

    The subpoena asks for Trump to come to the federal courthouse in Washington, DC, on March 1, but bringing Trump into court is likely an uphill battle. Trump’s attorneys also could move to quash the subpoena, and federal prosecutors still have the ability to argue that his testimony isn’t relevant to the ongoing trial.

    A federal prosecutor on the case declined to comment.

    Norman Pattis, a lawyer who represents defendant Joseph Biggs, announced the subpoena in court last week and asked for the government’s assistance in serving the subpoena. Pattis told CNN on Wednesday that he had reached out to Corcoran about the subpoena and has not received a response. Pattis added that he also has reached out to the Secret Service in Miami.

    CNN has reached out to Corcoran for comment.

    Biggs and his four co-defendants are on trial for their alleged participation in the January 6 US Capitol insurrection, and all five have pleaded not guilty.

    Attorneys for the five defendants in this case, including Biggs, previously asked a federal judge to allow them to argue to a jury that Trump ordered their clients to storm the Capitol on January 6. District Judge Timothy Kelly rejected the argument, saying that Trump did not have the authority to order a mob to storm the Capitol.

    Pattis told CNN that serving Trump with the subpoena is “the first of many steps” in the process of getting the former president to testify in the high-profile sedition trial. Pattis also said he anticipates lawyers for Trump will move to stop the subpoena.

    “I presented to the United States government a signed subpoena requiring the presence of Donald J. Trump at the Proud Boy trial sometime in March,” Pattis said on his podcast “Law and Legitimacy” last week. “We’re hoping that Mr. Trump – ambitious as he is – recognizes that this is an opportunity for him to begin to explain to the public his position on ‘Stopping the Steal.’”

    “We have drawn the line,” Pattis continued. “We have asked Mr. Trump to join us, and our position is, Mr. President, you urged patriots to stop the steal in 2020 and early 2021. We have a simpler request: Take the stand.”

    Pattis added that they want to question Trump on the period between November 3, 2020 and January 6, 2021.

    Pattis has not said publicly what he would hope to elicit from Trump’s testimony, but several defense lawyers representing Proud Boys members have argued during this trial that their clients were called to action by the former president when he told the far-right group to “stand back and stand by” during a 2020 presidential debate, and that the Proud Boys believed they were acting at his behest on January 6.

    “You see Trump, President Trump, told them the election was stolen. It was Trump that told them to go [to the Capitol]. And it was Trump that unleashed them on January 6,” Sabino Jauregui, the attorney for former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, told jurors during his opening statement last month.

    “It’s too hard to blame Trump,” Jauregui said. “It’s too hard to bring him in here with his army of lawyers. … Instead, they go for the easy target. They go for Enrique Tarrio.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s hearing on Twitter’s liability for terrorist use of its platform | CNN Business

    Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s hearing on Twitter’s liability for terrorist use of its platform | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    After back-to-back oral arguments this week, the Supreme Court appears reluctant to hand down the kind of sweeping ruling about liability for terrorist content on social media that some feared would upend the internet.

    On Wednesday, the justices struggled with claims that Twitter contributed to a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul by hosting content unrelated to the specific incident. Arguments in that case, Twitter v. Taamneh, came a day after the court considered whether YouTube can be sued for recommending videos created by ISIS to its users.

    The closely watched cases carry significant stakes for the wider internet. An expansion of apps and websites’ legal risk for hosting or promoting content could lead to major changes at sites including Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube, to name a few.

    For nearly three hours of oral argument, the justices asked attorneys for Twitter, the US government and the family of Nawras Alassaf – a Jordanian citizen killed in the 2017 attack – how to weigh several factors that might determine Twitter’s level of legal responsibility, if any. But while the justices quickly identified what the relevant factors were, they seemed divided on how to analyze them.

    The court’s conservatives appeared more open to Twitter’s arguments that it is not liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett at one point theorizing point-by-point how such an opinion could be written and Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly offering Twitter what he believed to be a winning argument about how to read the statute.

    The panel’s liberals, by contrast, seemed uncomfortable with finding that Twitter should face no liability for hosting ISIS content. They pushed back on Twitter’s claims that the underlying law should only lead to liability if the help it gave to ISIS can be linked to the specific terrorist attack that ultimately harmed the plaintiffs.

    Here are the takeaways from Wednesday:

    The justices spent much of the time picking through the text of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the law that Twitter is accused of violating – especially the meaning of the words “knowingly” and “substantial.”

    The law says liability can be established for “any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed unpersuaded by Twitter attorney Seth Waxman’s arguments that Twitter could have been liable if the company were warned that specific accounts were planning a specific attack, but that those were not the facts of the case and Twitter was therefore not liable in the absence of such activity and such warnings.

    Chief Justice John Roberts grappled with the meaning of “substantial” assistance: Hypothetically, he asked, would donating $100 to ISIS suffice, or $10,000?

    “Substantial assistance” would hinge on the degree to which a terror group actually uses a platform such as Twitter to plan, coordinate and carry out a terrorist attack, Waxman said at one point. The existence of some tweets that generally benefited ISIS, he argued, should not be considered substantial assistance.

    The justices alluded to the gravity of the dilemma as they drew analogies to other industries that have grappled with related claims.

    “We’re used to thinking about banks as providing very important services to terrorists,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “Maybe we’re not so used to, but it seems to be true, that various kinds of social media services also provide very important services to terrorists,” the liberal justice said. “If you know you’re providing a very important service to terrorists, why aren’t you [said to be] providing substantial assistance and doing it knowingly?”

    Eric Schnapper, an attorney representing the Alassaf family – who had also argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments in Gonzalez v. Google – again struggled to answer justices’ questions as they sought to find some limiting principle to constrain the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Schnapper to respond to concerns that a ruling finding Twitter liable for the ISIS attack — even when the tweets it hosted had nothing to do with it — would negatively affect charities and humanitarian organizations that might incidentally assist terrorist organizations through their work.

    Schnapper suggested those groups might be insulated from liability due to the law’s “knowledge” requirement, but did not offer the justices a way to draw a bright-line distinction.

    Justice Clarence Thomas hinted at the potential expansiveness of what Schnapper was proposing in calling for Twitter to be held liable for the ISIS tweets.

    “If we’re not pinpointing cause-and-effect or proximate cause for specific things, and you’re focused on infrastructure or just the availability of these platforms, then it would seem that every terrorist attack that uses this platform would also mean that Twitter is an aider and abettor in those instances,” Thomas said.

    “I think in the way that you phrased it, that would probably be, yes,” Schnapper replied, going on to suggest a test involving “remoteness and time, weighed together with volume of activity.”

    Several justices asked the parties to respond to hypotheticals about what liability a business would have for dealing with Osama bin Laden. Their reliance of the terrorist in their examples seemed to get at the “knowing” requirement of the law.

    However, the court is being asked to issue an opinion that will guide lower courts in cases that likely will not involve such high-profile figures.

    Kagan invoked bin Laden’s name when she put forward a hypothetical for US Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler about a bank that offered services to a known terrorist that were the same services it provided its non-terrorist clients. Kneedler, arguing that Twitter should not be found liable under the anti-terrorist law in this case, said that in that scenario, the bank could be sued under the law.

    Other exchanges during the hearing revolved around the liability for a business that sold bin Laden a cell phone, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asking if the business could be sued even if bin Laden did not use the cell phone for the terrorist attack that injured the plaintiff. Schnapper said that bin Laden would not need to use the cell phone in an attack for the seller to be found liable.

    Gorsuch put forward a theory for why Twitter should prevail in the case but neither Twitter nor the US Justice Department took him up on it.

    Gorsuch gave Waxman a chance to reframe his arguments for why Twitter shouldn’t be liable, based on language in the law suggesting a defendant is liable for assistance provided to a person who commits an act of international terrorism. Gorsuch noted the lawsuit against Twitter doesn’t link Twitter to the three people involved in the 2017 attack on the Istanbul nightclub.

    Waxman declined to fully adopt that view, arguing instead that the “aid and abet” language in the statute should be tied to the terrorist activity that gives rise to a suit.

    When Kneedler was up to podium, Gorsuch offered up the theory again, implying it would be a way for Twitter to avoid liability in this case.

    “It seems to me that that’s a pretty important limitation on aiding and abetting liability and conspiracy liability … that you have to aid an actual person,” Gorsuch said. “It’s not just a pedantic point. It has to do with the idea that you’re singling somebody out, and that is different than just doing your business normally, and that does help limit the scope of the act.”

    Jackson later hypothesized why Twitter and the US government were reluctant to endorse Gorsuch’s interpretation of the law, suggesting it was not the limitation Gorsuch thought it was.

    “I’m wondering whether the concern about that is, if you’re focusing on the person [who committed a terrorist act]… that it seems to take the focus away from the act itself,” she told Kneedler. “You could ‘aid and abet’ a person who committed the act, even if it’s not with respect to that act.”

    Justice Kagan voices concern on whether Supreme Court should step in. Listen why

    The Taamneh case is viewed as a turning point for the future of the internet, because a ruling against Twitter could expose the platform – and numerous other websites – to new lawsuits based on their hosting of terrorist content in spite of their efforts to remove such material.

    While it’s too early to tell how the justices may decide the case, the questioning on Wednesday suggested some members of the court believe Twitter should bear some responsibility for indirectly supporting ISIS in general, even if the company may not have been responsible for the specific attack in 2017 that led to the current case.

    But a key question facing the court is whether the Anti-Terrorism Act is the law that can reach that issue – or alternatively, whether the justices can craft a ruling in such a way that it does.

    Rulings in the cases heard this week are expected by late June.

    This story has been updated with Wednesday’s developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • East Palestine derailment spurs rare signs of bipartisan agreement on rail safety. Will Washington act? | CNN Politics

    East Palestine derailment spurs rare signs of bipartisan agreement on rail safety. Will Washington act? | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Watch East Palestine, Ohio, residents pose questions to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “A CNN Town Hall: Toxic Train Disaster, Ohio Residents Speak Out” airs tonight at 9 p.m. ET on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    A fiery train wreck that released toxic materials in an Ohio town is raising new questions in the halls of the nation’s capital over the regulation of the rail industry and if stricter measures could have prevented the disaster.

    News of the East Palestine, Ohio, derailment – and its potential harmful effects on the environment and health of local residents – has propelled both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to press the Biden administration on whether there’s enough oversight to keep rail workers and communities near railroads safe. And the supervising agency broadly responsible for regulating rail safety, the Department of Transportation, is calling on Congress to make it easier to institute safety reforms.

    This rare, general bipartisan agreement about taking action in the wake of the derailment follows years of Republicans generally supporting deregulation of the rail industry, including with the broad rollback of transportation rules during the Trump administration.

    Unions, current and former regulatory officials, and members of Congress from both parties have signaled some optimism about the possibility that the Ohio disaster may mark a rare opportunity for Washington to get something done to enhance the rail industry’s safety standards. But what’s unclear is whether there’s enough momentum for both parties in Congress to propel the issue forward into tangible actions. Nor is it clear whether the rail industry’s strong lobbying efforts will pare down any proposed measures or play a hand in eliminating them altogether.

    Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that that he’s fed up with the rail industry’s pressure campaigns to diminish regulatory reforms.

    “I’ve had it,” he said. “We have had situation after situation where even modest, reasonable reform gets just a full court press.”

    “I do think if the railroads, like Norfolk Southern, are in a mode right now where they’re saying, ‘We’re going to do everything it takes and everything we can.’ Let’s give them a chance to show it,” Buttigieg later added. “But let’s be very clear, I’m not waiting for them to do this work. I’m just saying they have a chance to put their money where their mouth is.”

    Experts point out several areas of opportunity to enhance rail safety and hold rail companies further accountable: updating trains’ braking system, shortening the lengths of freight trains, further separating cars with hazardous material, requiring more crew member be on board, and increasing penalties.

    Many of these proposals, experts say, have been around for decades, and have oftentimes been diminished or entirely eliminated after rail lobbying efforts. Data compiled by the nonprofit OpenSecrets show that Norfolk Southern spent $1.8 million on federal lobbying last year.

    Norfolk Southern posted record profits from railway operations of $4.8 billion in 2022, up from its previous record of $4.45 billion in 2021. The company did not respond to questions Wednesday on whether it expects to change its share repurchase plans in the wake of the derailment.

    “Unfortunately, derailments like this are preventable and they become inevitable when there’s more risk in the system,” Sarah Feinberg, a former administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration during the Obama administration, told CNN. “The industry has fought tooth and nail against safety regulations, but I also think that’s typical of any industry.”

    Lobbying influence from the rail industry is “a big problem and they have a stranglehold on Congress, especially in the Senate,” Greg Hynes, national legislative director for the SMART Transportation Division union, told CNN.

    “It’s all about the bottom line and they adhere to the operating ratios that Wall Street is so hungry for, which includes lowering head counts – which includes fewer safety inspections, fewer brake tests, fewer people doing the job that they need to do,” he added.

    Buttigieg recently sent a letter Sunday to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw demanding accountability and calling for greater safety regulations. And DOT subsequently announced on Tuesday that it would take a three-pronged approach to enhance rail safety – push companies to voluntarily adopt additional safety measures, call on Congress to do more and bolster administration efforts to regulate the industry.

    Among other plans to advance existing efforts or deploy existing funding, DOT says it’s initiating focused safety inspections as well as pursuing additional federal rulemaking on high-hazard flammable trains and electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.

    DOT also says it’s working to advance a proposed rule that would require a minimum of two crew members for most railroad operations. Leadership for Norfolk Southern met with Buttigieg and other DOT officials and expressed concerns about the proposed rule. Among other issues, Norfolk Southern argues it will lead to significant labor costs

    Crucial to efforts to enhance rail safety, administration officials and rail experts say, is Congress’ ability to untie the executive branch’s hands.

    DOT is asking Congress to increase the maximum fines that can be issued to rail companies for violating safety regulations. And similar to its regulatory efforts announced Tuesday, DOT is calling on Congress to expand the rules “governing high-hazardous shipments, including high-hazard flammable trains, pushing past industry opposition” and follow through “on new bipartisan support to modernize braking regulations and increase the use of electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.”

    “The apparatus that exists was to allow safety regulators to write and finalize common sense safety regulations that will protect people – protect their homes, protect their water, protect their children, protect their health – it’s totally broken,” Feinberg said. “And the reason it’s totally broken is because the Congress and others – other administrations – will insert themselves into the process and take it over … from safety regulators and say, ‘I know better and I’m going to protect the industry from whatever you’re trying to force its hand on.’”

    The American Association of Railroads, an industry group, has said that “until NTSB has completed their investigation, AAR will not comment on potential policy changes in relation to this event as the cause and any underlying factors have not yet been fully determined.” The NTSB is set to release a preliminary report on the derailment investigation Thursday morning.

    Congressional committees are set to review the environmental and safety impacts of the East Palestine derailment. Although efforts to enhance regulatory oversight of the rail industry have generally broken along party lines, some Republicans and Democrats appear to be moving in the same direction.

    Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, a Washington state Democrat, sent a letter last week to seven of the largest railroad company CEOs, inquiring about safety practices involved in rail transportation of hazardous materials. She’s also requested a joint staff-level briefing with the Environment and Public Works Committee, asking federal transportation and environmental agencies to appear, according to Politico.

    House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, scheduled a bipartisan briefing for members of the committee last week, and there may be further briefings for committee and all House members to help keep them informed of the status and relevant issues, Graves’ office told CNN.

    Republican Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Marco Rubio of Florida sent a letter to DOT requesting information about the administration’s regulatory oversight, questioning whether the three crew members on board the Norfolk Southern train that derailed were enough to staff the 149-car locomotive.

    Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, the leading Republican on the Senate Commerce committee, last week tweeted that he fully agreed with Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who wrote, in part, “We need Congressional inquiry and direct action from [Buttigieg] to address this tragedy.”

    Republican candidates for president Nikki Haley and former President Donald Trump have criticized President Joe Biden for not visiting the site of the derailment, arguing that his trip to Ukraine and Poland this week shows he’s more focused on a foreign crisis than what’s happening at home – an increasingly frequent critique of the president and his administration.

    Trump – whose administration sidelined the pending rule to require freight trains to have at least two crew members – appeared in East Palestine on Wednesday alongside Vance.

    Rubio and Buttigieg, meanwhile, are in a spat – with the secretary suggesting the senator was previously parroting lines from the rail industry and Rubio calling for Buttigieg’s resignation.

    “Anybody who has seen fit to get on television and talk about this incident, talk about this issue, can do right by the people of East Palestine and everybody else who lives near a railroad,” Buttigieg told CNN. “Not just when it comes to this case, but when it comes to the future, by getting on the right side of this issue, and helping to raise – not lower – the bar of accountability for the railroad industry.”

    Biden on Wednesday posted on Instagram about his phone call with his EPA Administrator Michael Regan and officials from Ohio and Pennsylvania to discuss the East Palestine situation. He also accused the Trump administration of limiting the ability to strengthen rail safety measures and said some of his current Republican critics were trying to dismantle the EPA.

    “The Department of Transportation has made clear to rail companies that their pattern of resisting safety regulations has got to change,” the caption stated. “Congress should join us in implementing rail safety measures. But the Department of Transportation is limited in the rail safety measures they can implement. Why? For years, elected officials – including the last (administration) – have limited our ability to implement and strengthen rail safety measures.”

    Following repeated calls for Buttigieg to visit the Ohio site, the secretary said earlier this week that he intended to visit East Palestine when the time was right. And then on Wednesday, DOT announced that he would visit on Thursday.

    A DOT spokesperson said Buttigieg had planned to go when it was “appropriate and wouldn’t detract from the emergency response efforts. The Secretary is going now that the EPA has said it is moving out of the emergency response phase and transitioning to the long-term remediation phase.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon closes its acquisition of One Medical, but scrutiny of the deal is not over | CNN Business

    Amazon closes its acquisition of One Medical, but scrutiny of the deal is not over | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    Amazon closed its acquisition of health care provider One Medical and its parent in a $3.9 billion deal on Wednesday, hours after the Federal Trade Commission said it would not challenge the purchase but that regulators were still investigating potential competitive and consumer harms of the transaction.

    The landmark deal will turn the e-commerce giant into a provider of primary medical care with access to more than 200 brick-and-mortar doctors’ offices, along with roughly 815,000 One Medical members, according to that company’s latest financial statement.

    The One Medical deal would also allow Amazon to expand its telehealth services and acquire valuable relationships with hospital systems, industry analysts have said.

    On Wednesday, Amazon said One Medical will offer new customers a $55 discount on annual memberships for a limited time.

    “We’re on a mission to make it dramatically easier for people to find, choose, afford, and engage with the services, products, and professionals they need to get and stay healthy, and coming together with One Medical is a big step on that journey,” said Neil Lindsay, senior vice president of Amazon Health Services, in a release. “One Medical has set the bar for what a quality, convenient, and affordable primary care experience should be like. We’re inspired by their human-centered, technology-forward approach and excited to help them continue to grow and serve more patients.”

    But while Amazon can consummate the deal without the immediate threat of an FTC antitrust suit, the agency is still investigating the acquisition and can still challenge the deal after the fact.

    “The FTC’s investigation of Amazon’s acquisition of One Medical continues,” said FTC spokesman Douglas Farrar. “The commission will continue to look at possible harms to competition created by this merger, as well as possible harms to consumers that may result from Amazon’s control and use of sensitive consumer health information held by One Medical.”

    The FTC plans to warn Amazon it may close the deal at its own risk, an agency official said. Known as a “pre-consummation warning,” the FTC began sending such letters to merging companies in 2021 in response to a surge in proposed deals that threatened to overwhelm regulators’ investigative capacity.

    The warning highlights the continued legal risk for Amazon and the potential concerns driving the FTC probe. Worries include not only the potential for Amazon to entrench its economic dominance but also fears that its acquisition of valuable health data could lead to the misuse of that information for other purposes, such as targeted advertising or e-commerce, the agency official said.

    Amazon’s deal to acquire One Medical follows its 2018 purchase of the online pharmacy service PillPack, which later became Amazon Pharmacy. Separately, Amazon partnered with JPMorgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway on an effort to provide better health care services and insurance at a lower cost to workers and families at the three companies, and possibly other businesses, too. That effort, called Haven, shut down in 2021.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tester to run for reelection in 2024, providing boost to Democrats’ Senate hopes | CNN Politics

    Tester to run for reelection in 2024, providing boost to Democrats’ Senate hopes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Montana Sen. Jon Tester announced Wednesday morning that he will seek reelection in 2024, providing a boost to Democrats’ hopes of retaining the Senate.

    “It’s official. I’m running for reelection,” Tester tweeted. “Montanans need a fighter that will hold our government accountable and demand Washington stand up for veterans and lower costs for families. I will always fight to defend our Montana values. Let’s get to work.”

    Tester is one of several Democratic senators in red and purple states who are likely to face competitive challenges this cycle. Along with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Tester was one of the top incumbents being urged by party leadership to seek reelection.

    Reacting to the announcement, the National Republican Senatorial Committee swiftly moved to tie Tester to President Joe Biden in the deep-red state, calling him the president’s “favorite senator.”

    Democrats have a difficult road to maintain their slim 51-49 majority, with 23 seats to defend compared to just 11 for the GOP.

    Plus, they’ll have to hold onto Democratic seats in GOP terrain, such as in Ohio and West Virginia – not to mention keep their seats in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada. The map provides them with scant pickup opportunities, since Republican incumbents are mostly running in ruby-red states or states that have trended to the GOP, like Florida.

    Tester has nearly $3 million in his Senate campaign account as he gears up for the campaign.

    This story has been updated with additional background information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US Navy can’t keep up with China’s PLA in shipbuilding, service chief says | CNN

    US Navy can’t keep up with China’s PLA in shipbuilding, service chief says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    China’s navy has significant advantages over its US rival, including a bigger fleet and greater shipbuilding capacity, as Beijing seeks to project its power across the oceans, the head of the United States Navy said Tuesday.

    Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, US Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said China “consistently attempts to violate the maritime sovereignty and economic well-being of other nations including our allies in the South China Sea and elsewhere.”

    “They got a larger fleet now so they’re deploying that fleet globally,” he said, adding that Washington must upgrade the US fleet in response.

    “We do need a larger Navy, we do need more ships in the future, more modern ships in the future, in particular that can meet that threat,” he said.

    Satellite images of mockup US Navy ships in China spark concern (November 2021)

    China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy could be fielding up to 400 ships in the coming years, the Navy secretary said – up from about 340 now.

    Meanwhile, the US fleet sits at under 300 ships.

    According to the US Navy’s Navigation Plan 2022 released last summer, the Pentagon’s goal is to have 350 manned ships by 2045 – still well short of the projection for China’s fleet.

    Before that target is met, however, the US fleet is expected to shrink as older vessels are retired, according to a November report from the US Congressional Budget Office.

    A Great Wall 236 submarine of the PLA Navy, participates in a naval parade on April 23, 2019.

    Del Toro said Tuesday that US naval shipyards can’t match the output of Chinese ones. As with fleet size, it’s about numbers.

    “They have 13 shipyards, in some cases their shipyard has more capacity – one shipyard has more capacity than all of our shipyards combined. That presents a real threat,” he claimed.

    Del Toro did not give a breakdown of those shipyards, but Chinese and Western reports say China has six major and two smaller shipyards building naval vessels.

    In the US, seven shipyards produce large and deep draft ships for the US Navy and Coast Guard, according to an October report from Brent Sadler at the Center for National Defense.

    But no matter the number of shipyards, they need workers, and Del Toro says China has a numerical advantage there, largely because it is free of the restrictions, regulations and economic pressures that affect labor in the US.

    Taiwan military parade ripley intl hnk vpx_00012704.png

    Analysts warn of intensifying arms race across Asia (November, 2021)

    One big US problem is finding skilled labor, he said.

    “[W]hen you have unemployment at less than 4%, it makes it a real challenge whether you’re trying to find workers for a restaurant or you’re trying to find workers for a shipyard,” the Navy leader said.

    He also said China can do things the US can’t.

    “They’re a communist country, they don’t have rules by which they abide by,” he said.

    “They use slave labor in building their ships, right – that’s not the way we should do business ever, but that’s what we’re up against so it does present a significant advantage,” he claimed.

    CNN has reached out to China’s Foreign Ministry for reaction to Del Toro’s allegations.

    The US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey refuels at sea with the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson on October 11, 2018.

    Del Toro did not supply specifics to support the slave labor allegation, and analysts expressed doubt that Beijing would resort to such a tactic.

    “China has a very large pool of available manpower and it wouldn’t really make sense to use slave labor in a high-tech sector vital to their national security,” said Blake Herzinger, a nonresident fellow and Indo-Pacific defense policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Herzinger said comments like that from the Navy chief are indicative of a pattern where US attention is put in the wrong place – to the detriment of US abilities.

    “This seems unfortunately common, that Navy leadership throws stones at real or imagined faults in Chinese shipbuilding rather than reckoning with US failures over two decades to conceptualize, design and build ships for its own navy,” Herzinger said.

    220119-N-EE352-1075 PHILIPPINE SEA (Jan. 19, 2022) A Sailor fuels an F-35C Lightning II, assigned to the

    Here’s why the US doesn’t want its F-35 wreckage to fall into China’s hands

    According to a US Congressional Research Service report from November, the US Navy has taken steps to address the gap with China, including assigning more of its fleet to the Pacific and using newer and more capable ships in Pacific roles.

    And Del Toro said Tuesday that the US retains one big advantage over China – “our people.”

    “In many ways our shipbuilders are better shipbuilders, that’s why we have a more modern, more capable, more lethal Navy than they do,” he said.

    US military personnel are better on their feet, too, Del Toro contended.

    “They script their people to fight, we actually train our people to think,” he said.

    “There’s a fundamental difference in how we train our Marines and our sailors and our soldiers and our airmen and our Space Force in this country that gives us an inherent advantage over anything the Chinese can put up.”

    china near space

    This could be the next battlefield in modern warfare

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What is the future of the internet? Don’t ask the Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    What is the future of the internet? Don’t ask the Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Nine justices set out Tuesday to determine what the future of the internet would look like if the Supreme Court were to narrow the scope of a law that some believe created the age of modern social media.

    After nearly three hours of arguments, it was clear that the justices had no earthly idea.

    That hesitancy, coupled with the fact that the justices were wading for the first time into new territory, suggests the court, in the case at hand, is not likely to issue a sweeping decision with unknown ramifications in one of the most closely watched disputes of the term.

    Tech companies big and small have been following the case, fearful that the justices could reshape how the sites recommend and moderate content going forward and render websites vulnerable to dozens of lawsuits, threatening their very existence.

    The case before the justices was initially brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a US student who was killed in a Paris bistro in 2015 after ISIS terrorists opened fire. Now, her family seeks to hold YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, liable for her death because of the site’s alleged promotion – through algorithms – of terrorist videos.

    The family sued under a federal law called the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 , which authorizes such lawsuits for injuries “by reason of an act of international terrorism.”

    Lower courts dismissed the challenge, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the law that has been used for years to provide immunity for websites from what one justice on Tuesday called a “world of lawsuits” that stem from third party content. The Gonzalez family argues that Section 230 does not protect Google from liability when it comes to targeted recommendations.

    Oral arguments drifted into a maze of issues, raising concerns about trending algorithms, thumbnail pop-ups, artificial intelligence, emojis, endorsements and even Yelp restaurant reviews. But at the end of the day, the justices seemed deeply frustrated with the scope of the arguments before them and unclear of the road ahead.

    Family of ISIS victim says YouTube algorithm is liable. What will the Supreme Court say?


    02:30

    – Source:
    CNN Business

    A lawyer representing the plaintiffs challenging the law repeatedly failed, for instance, to offer substantial limiting principles to his argument that could trigger a deluge of lawsuits against powerful sites such as Google or Twitter or threaten the very survival of smaller sites. And some justices retracted from the “sky is falling” attitude put forward by an advocate for Google.

    On several occasions, the justices said they were confused by the arguments before them – a sign that they may find a way to dodge weighing in on the merits or send the case back to the lower courts for more deliberations. At the very least they seemed spooked enough to tread carefully.

    “I’m afraid I’m completely confused by whatever argument you’re making at the present time,” Justice Samuel Alito said early on. “So I guess I’m thoroughly confused,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said at another point. “I’m still confused,” Justice Clarence Thomas said halfway through arguments.

    Justice Elena Kagan even suggested that Congress step in. “I mean, we’re a court. We really don’t know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet,” she said to laughter.

    But in court, Eric Schnapper, a lawyer for the family, repeatedly pushed much broader arguments that could impact other areas of third party content.

    Yet even Thomas, who has expressed reservations about the scope of Section 230 before, seemed skeptical. He sought clarification from Schnapper of how one might be able to distinguish between algorithms that “present cooking videos to people who are interested in cooking and ISIS videos to people interested in ISIS.”

    Alito asked whether Google might have been simply organizing information, instead of recommending any kind of content.

    “I don’t know where you’re drawing the line,” Alito said.

    Chief Justice John Roberts tried to make an analogy with a book seller. He suggested that Google recommending certain information is no different than a book seller sending a reader to a table of books with related content.

    At one point Kagan suggested that Schnapper was trying to gut the entire statute: “Does your position send us down the road such that 230 can’t mean anything at all?” she asked.

    When Lisa Blatt, a lawyer for Google, stood up she warned the justices that Section 230 “created today’s internet” because “Congress made that choice to stop lawsuits from stifling the internet in its infancy.”

    “Exposing websites to liability for implicitly recommending third-party context defies the text [of 230] and threatens today’s internet,” she added.

    In the end, Schnapper seemed to speak for the court when he said that “it’s hard to do this in the abstract.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ohio governor drinks the tap water as the EPA demands Norfolk Southern manage all cleanup of a toxic train wreck — or face consequences | CNN

    Ohio governor drinks the tap water as the EPA demands Norfolk Southern manage all cleanup of a toxic train wreck — or face consequences | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US Environmental Protection Agency is ordering Norfolk Southern to handle and pay for all necessary cleanup after a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio.

    The EPA announced its legally binding order Tuesday, 18 days after the freight train derailed. The disaster ignited a dayslong inferno, shot plumes of black smoke into the air and led to the intentional release of vinyl chloride to help avert a more catastrophic blast.

    Some residents have reported health problems, and about 3,500 fish have died in Ohio waterways since the wreck.

    “Norfolk Southern will pay for cleaning the mess that they created and the trauma that they inflicted on this community,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said Tuesday.

    As part of the EPA’s legally binding order, Norfolk Southern will be required to:

    • Identify and clean up any contaminated soil and water resources,

    • Reimburse the EPA for cleaning services to be offered to residents and businesses to provide an additional layer of reassurance, which will be conducted by EPA staff and contractors,

    • Attend and participate in public meetings at the EPA’s request and post information online, and

    • Pay for the EPA’s costs for work performed under the order.

    The order will take effect Thursday. The EPA said it will exercise its strongest authority against the train’s operator under CERCLA – the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

    “In no way, shape or form will Norfolk Southern get off the hook for the mess that they created,” Regan said.

    If the rail company fails to meet the demands, the EPA said it will immediately step in, conduct the necessary work and then seek to compel Norfolk Southern to pay triple the cost.

    In response to the EPA’s announcement, Norfolk Southern said it has been working to clean up the site and will continue helping residents.

    “We recognize that we have a responsibility, and we have committed to doing what’s right for the residents of East Palestine,” Norfolk Southern said in a statement to CNN.

    “We have been paying for the clean-up activities to date and will continue to do so. We are committed to thoroughly and safely cleaning the site, and we are reimbursing residents for the disruption this has caused in their lives. We are investing in helping East Palestine thrive for the long-term, and we will continue to be in the community for as long as it takes. We are going to learn from this terrible accident and work with regulators and elected officials to improve railroad safety.”

    Hours before the EPA’s announcement, Regan and Gov. Mike DeWine visited an East Palestine home and tried to reassure residents that the municipal water supply is safe.

    They raised two glasses filled with water straight from the tap and toasted before drinking.

    The municipal water supply comes from five wells deep underground that are encased in steel, state officials have said. But residents with private well water should get that water tested before using it, since that water may be sourced closer to the ground’s surface.

    “State and local authorities will continue the water sampling efforts, and EPA will continue indoor air screenings to residents within the evacuation zone,” Regan said Tuesday.

    But “I recognize that no matter how much data we collect or provide, it will not be enough to completely reassure everybody,” the EPA chief said.

    “It may not be enough to restore the sense of safety and security that this community once had. But we’re going to work together, day by day, for as long as it takes to make sure that this community feels at home once again.”

    The soil under the railroad track at the site of the wreck is still contaminated, and the tracks need to be lifted to remove that soil, the director of Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday.

    The governor acknowledged residents’ concerns about the contaminated soil and said 4,588 cubic yards of soil and 1.1 million gallons of contaminated water have been removed from East Palestine.

    “The railroad got the tracks back on and started running and the soil under the tracks had not been dealt with,” DeWine said. “The tracks will have to be taken up, and that soil will have to be removed.”

    To address the growing reports of rashes, headaches, nausea and other symptoms in East Palestine, the state opened a new health clinic for residents.

    The health clinic will have registered nurses, mental health specialists and – at times – a toxicologist, the Ohio Department of Health said.

    Medical teams from the US Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention and the US Department of Health are expected to arrive in the community as early as this week to help assess what dangers might remain.

    Authorities have repeatedly assured residents that the air and municipal water supply in the town are safe. Crews have checked hundreds of homes and have not detected any dangerous levels of contaminants, the EPA said.

    Still, life in East Palestine has been uprooted as residents question the findings and wonder whether it’s really safe to drink the water or breathe the air.

    “It will be important to monitor people’s health and the environment around the train derailment for some time to come since health impacts may not emerge until later,” said Dr. Erin Haynes, an environmental health scientist at the University of Kentucky.

    “We should never say we’re done looking at this community for potential exposures and health impacts.”

    Petroleum based chemicals float on the top of the water in Leslie Run creek after being agitated from the sediment on Monday in East Palestine.

    Some waterways were contaminated after the crash, killing an estimated 3,500 fish. But officials have said they believe those contaminants have been contained.

    Norfolk Southern installed booms and dams to restrict the flow of contaminated water from Sulphur Run and Leslie Run – two streams where fish were found dead, the EPA said.

    “The spill did flow to the Ohio River during that initial slug, but the Ohio River is very large, and it’s a water body that’s able to dilute the pollutants pretty quickly,” Ohio Environmental Protection Agency official Tiffani Kavalec said last week.

    Kavalec said the agency is pretty confident that the “low levels” of contaminants that remain are not getting passed on to water customers.

    A series of pumps have been placed upstream to reroute Sulphur Run around the derailment site, Norfolk Southern said Monday.

    “Environmental teams are treating the impacted portions of Sulphur Run with booms, aeration, and carbon filtration units,” Norfolk Southern added. “Those teams are also working with stream experts to collect soil and groundwater samples to develop a comprehensive plan to address any contamination that remains in the stream banks and sediment.”

    Water intakes from the Ohio River that were shut off Sunday “as a precautionary measure” were reopened after sampling found “no detections of the specific chemicals from the train derailment,” the Greater Cincinnati Water Works and Northern Kentucky Water District said Monday.

    A third utility provider – Maysville utility in Kentucky – announced that it temporarily shut off water intakes from the Ohio River on Saturday, when the toxic chemicals released into the river from the derailment were expected to arrive at the water treatment intake in Kentucky, utility general manager Mark Julian said.

    Water measurements have been below the level of concern, Julian said, and Maysville took precautionary measures in temporarily shutting down their Ohio River intake valve due to the public concern.

    “The takeaway is that anyone along the Ohio River where the contaminants made their way can breathe a sigh of relief,” he said.

    A member of Ohio EPA Emergency Response looks for fish at Leslie Run creek and checks for chemicals in East Palestine on Monday.

    Meanwhile, the majority of the hazardous rail cars remain at the crash site as investigators continue to probe the wreck. But about 15,000 pounds of contaminated soil and 1.1 million gallons of contaminated water have been removed from the scene, Norfolk Southern announced Monday.

    The contaminated soil became a point of contention last week after a public document sent to the EPA on February 10 did not list soil removal among completed cleanup activities. It is not yet known what significance or impact the soil that was not removed before the railroad reopened on February 8 will have had on the surrounding areas.

    As skepticism spreads about the safety of the air and water, some local businesses say they’ve seen fewer customers.

    “Everybody’s afraid … They don’t want to come in and drink the water,” Teresa Sprowls, a restaurant owner in East Palestine, told CNN affiliate WOIO.

    A stylist at a hair salon told WOIO there’s no doubt the salon lost business and that customers may be worried about what may be in the water washing their hair.

    “I know a lot of our businesses are already suffering greatly because people don’t want to come here,” local greenhouse owner Dianna Elzer told CNN affiliate WPXI.

    Her husband, Donald Elzer, echoed her concerns, saying, “It’s devastating. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets.”

    Dianna Elzer also worried about longer-term economic impacts to the community.

    “Our property values – who is going to want to buy a house here now?” she told WPXI. “It’s going to be a long struggle to get back to where we were.”

    As residents call for accountability from both Norfolk Southern and government officials, US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said he plans to visit East Palestine “when the time is right” – but did not announce a date.

    He did announce Monday new efforts by the Department of Transportation to improve rail safety.

    “We are accelerating and augmenting our ongoing lines of effort on rail regulation and inspection here at the US DOT, including further regulation on high hazard flammable trains and electronically controlled pneumatic brakes – rules that were clawed back under the previous administration – to the full extent of that we are allowed to under current law, and we will continue using resources from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to fund projects that improve rail safety,” Buttigieg said.

    A DOT news release said the agency will continue to press for the “Train Crew Staffing Rule,” which would require a minimum of two crew members during most railroad operations. Norfolk Southern has opposed the proposed rule.

    Norfolk Southern has committed millions of dollars’ worth of financial assistance to East Palestine, including $3.4 million in direct financial assistance to families and a $1 million community assistance fund, among other aid, the company said.

    Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw posted an open letter telling East Palestine residents, “I hear you” and “we are here and will stay here for as long as it takes to ensure your safety and to help East Palestine recover and thrive.”

    “Together with local health officials,” Shaw said, “we have implemented a comprehensive testing program to ensure the safety of East Palestine’s water, air, and soil.”

    Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled the first name of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency official Tiffani Kavalec.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s hearing in blockbuster internet speech case | CNN Business

    Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s hearing in blockbuster internet speech case | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Supreme Court justices appeared broadly concerned Tuesday about the potential unintended consequences of allowing websites to be sued for their automatic recommendations of user content, highlighting the challenges facing attorneys who want to hold Google accountable for suggesting YouTube videos created by terrorist groups.

    For nearly three hours on Tuesday, the nine justices peppered attorneys representing Google, the US government and the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American student killed in a 2015 ISIS attack, with questions about how the court could design a ruling that exposes harmful content recommendations to liability while still protecting innocuous ones.

    How – or if – the court draws that line could have significant implications for the way websites choose to rank, display and promote content to their users as they seek to avoid a litigation minefield.

    The attorney for the Gonzalez family argued that narrowing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – the federal law protecting websites’ right to moderate their platforms as they see fit – would not lead to sweeping consequences for the internet. But both the Court’s liberals and conservatives worried about the impact of such a decision on everything from “pilaf [recipes] from Uzbekistan” to individual users of YouTube, Twitter and other social media platforms.

    A big concern of the justices seems to be the waves of lawsuits that could happen if the court rules against Google.

    “Lawsuits will be nonstop,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said at one point.

    But Eric Schnapper, representing the plaintiffs, argued that a ruling for Gonzalez would not have far-reaching effects because even if websites could face new liability as a result of the ruling, most suits would likely be thrown out anyway.

    “The implications are limited,” Schnapper said, “because the kinds of circumstance in which a recommendation would be actionable are limited.”

    Later, Justice Elena Kagan warned that narrowing Section 230 could lead to a wave of lawsuits, even if many of them would eventually be thrown out, in a line of questioning with US Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart.

    “You are creating a world of lawsuits,” Kagan said. “Really, anytime you have content, you also have these presentational and prioritization choices that can be subject to suit.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts mused that under a narrowed version of Section 230, terrorism-related cases might only be a small share of a much wider range of future lawsuits against websites alleging antitrust violations, discrimination, defamation and infliction of emotional distress, just to name a few.

    “I wouldn’t necessarily agree with ‘there would be lots of lawsuits’ simply because there are a lot of things to sue about,” Stewart said, “but they would not be suits that have much likelihood of prevailing, especially if the court makes clear that even after there’s a recommendation, the website still can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of the underlying third party.”

    Multiple justices pushed Schnapper to clarify how the court should treat recommendation algorithms if the same algorithm that promotes an ISIS video to someone interested in terrorism might be just as likely to recommend a pilaf recipe to someone interested in cooking.

    “I’m trying to get you to explain to us how something that is standard on YouTube for virtually anything you have an interest in, suddenly amounts to aiding and abetting [terrorism] because you’re [viewing] in the ISIS category,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.

    Schnapper attempted several explanations, including at one point digressing into a hypothetical about the difference between YouTube videos and video thumbnail images, but many of the justices were lost about what he was calling for.

    “I admit I’m completely confused by whatever argument you’re making at the present time,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

    Roberts added: “It may be significant if the algorithm is the same across … the different subject matters, because then they don’t have a focused algorithm with respect to terrorist activities… Then it might be harder for you to say that there’s selection involved for which you can be held responsible.”

    One of the few justices focusing on how changes to Section 230 could affect individual internet users was Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who repeatedly asked whether narrowing the law in the ways Schnapper has proposed could put average social media users in legal jeopardy.

    The text of Section 230 explicitly immunizes “users,” and not just social media platforms, from liability for the content posted by third parties. So a change that exposes tech platforms to new lawsuits could also have implications for users, according to several amicus briefs.

    Under Schnapper’s interpretation, could liking, retweeting or saying “check this out” expose individuals to lawsuits that they could not deflect by invoking Section 230?

    Yes, Schnapper acknowledged, because “that’s content you’ve created.”

    Barrett raised the issue again in a question for Justice Department lawyer Stewart. She asked: “So the logic of your position, I think, is that retweets or likes or ‘check this out’ for users, the logic of your position would be that 230 would not protect in that situation either. Correct?”

    Stewart said there was distinction between an individual user making a conscious decision to amplify content and an algorithm that is making choices on a systemic basis. But Stewart did not provide a clear answer about how he believed changes to Section 230 could affect individual users.

    Tech law experts say an onslaught of defamation litigation is the real threat if Section 230’s protections are weakened and the justices seemed to agree, posing several questions and hypothetical that turned on defamation claims.

    “People have focused on the [Antiterrorism Act], because that’s the one point that’s at issue here. But I suspect there will be many, many times more defamation suits,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, while pointing to other types of claims that also may flood the legal system if tech companies no longer had broad Section 230 immunity.

    Justice Samuel Alito posed for Schnapper a scenario where a competitor of a restaurant created a video making false claims about the restaurant violating health code and YouTube refusing to take the video down despite knowing its defamatory.

    Kagan seized on Alito’s hypothetical later on in the hearing, asking what happens if a platform recommended the false restaurant competitor’s video and called it the greatest video of all time, but didn’t repeat anything about the content of the video.

    “Is the provider on the hook for that defamation?” Kagan asked.

    This story and headline have been updated with developments from Tuesday’s hearing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. David Cicilline to resign from Congress June 1 to run foundation | CNN Politics

    Rep. David Cicilline to resign from Congress June 1 to run foundation | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat, will resign from Congress June 1 to run the Rhode Island Foundation.

    The First Congressional District of Rhode Island is a Democratic stronghold, with Cicilline winning by almost 30 points in his last midterm election. There will be a special election held to determine who fills the seat.

    “For more than a decade, the people of Rhode Island entrusted me with a sacred duty to represent them in Congress, and it is a responsibility I put my heart and soul into every day,” the congressman said in a statement released by his office.

    He went on to say, “The chance to lead the Rhode Island Foundation was unexpected, but it is an extraordinary opportunity to have an even more direct and meaningful impact on the lives of residents of our state.”

    The Rhode Island Foundation provides funding for local nonprofits.

    The Boston Globe first reported the announcement.

    Cicilline has held the seat for Rhode Island’s First Congressional District since 2011. Prior to that, he served as the mayor of Providence for two terms. Cicilline was also a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives for four terms.

    In early 2021, Cicilline served as one of the impeachment managers during the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michigan election denier who has yet to concede her 2022 loss will chair state GOP | CNN Politics

    Michigan election denier who has yet to concede her 2022 loss will chair state GOP | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Michigan Republicans have chosen Kristina Karamo, who has yet to concede last year’s secretary of state race, as their next chair, putting an election denier at the head of the party in a crucial battleground state.

    Karamo tweeted Sunday that she was “honored to lead the Michigan Republican Party.”

    On the heels of the GOP’s midterm losses in Michigan last year, the state party backed Karamo at its Saturday night convention over Matthew DePerno, who had former President Donald Trump’s backing in the race. DePerno ran unsuccessfully for attorney general last year.

    Trump congratulated Karamo on Truth Social Sunday, calling her a “a powerful and fearless Election Denier, in winning the Chair of the GOP in Michigan.”

    “If Republicans (and others!) would speak the truth about the Rigged Presidential Election of 2020, like FoxNews should, but doesn’t, they would be far better off,” he said.

    Karamo, a former community college professor, rose to prominence in Michigan after the 2020 election when she alleged to have witnessed fraud as a poll challenger during the state’s count of absentee ballots. She has falsely claimed Trump was the true victor in Michigan in 2020 and has spread the conspiracy theory that left-wing anarchists were behind the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Trump had backed Karamo in the 2022 secretary of state race, which she lost by 14 points to incumbent Democrat Jocelyn Benson.

    A CNN review in November 2021 of Karamo’s podcast and writings on her now defunct personal website revealed her declaring herself an “anti-vaxxer” in 2020 even before the Covid-19 vaccine became a political flashpoint. She opposed teaching evolution and called public schools “government indoctrination camps.”

    CNN’s KFile reported last year that Karamo called abortion “child sacrifice” and a “satanic practice.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet | CNN Business

    Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court is set to hear back-to-back oral arguments this week in two cases that could significantly reshape online speech and content moderation.

    The outcome of the oral arguments, scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, could determine whether tech platforms and social media companies can be sued for recommending content to their users or for supporting acts of international terrorism by hosting terrorist content. It marks the Court’s first-ever review of a hot-button federal law that largely protects websites from lawsuits over user-generated content.

    The closely watched cases, known as Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, carry significant stakes for the wider internet. An expansion of apps and websites’ legal risk for hosting or promoting content could lead to major changes at sites, including Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube, to name a few.

    The litigation has produced some of the most intense rhetoric in years from the tech sector about the potential impact on the internet’s future. US lawmakers, civil society groups and more than two dozen states have also jumped into the debate with filings at the Court.

    At the heart of the legal battle is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a nearly 30-year-old federal law that courts have repeatedly said provide broad protections to tech platforms but that has since come under scrutiny alongside growing criticism of Big Tech’s content moderation decisions.

    The law has critics on both sides of the aisle. Many Republican officials allege that Section 230 gives social media platforms a license to censor conservative viewpoints. Prominent Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have argued Section 230 prevents tech giants from being held accountable for spreading misinformation and hate speech.

    In recent years, some in Congress have pushed for changes to Section 230 that might expose tech platforms to more liability, along with proposals to amend US antitrust rules and other bills aimed at reining in dominant tech platforms. But those efforts have largely stalled, leaving the Supreme Court as the likeliest source of change in the coming months to how the United States regulates digital services.

    Rulings in the cases are expected by the end of June.

    The case involving Google zeroes in on whether it can be sued because of its subsidiary YouTube’s algorithmic promotion of terrorist videos on its platform.

    According to the plaintiffs in the case — the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a 2015 ISIS attack in Paris — YouTube’s targeted recommendations violated a US antiterrorism law by helping to radicalize viewers and promote ISIS’s worldview.

    The allegation seeks to carve out content recommendations so that they do not receive protections under Section 230, potentially exposing tech platforms to more liability for how they run their services.

    Google and other tech companies have said that that interpretation of Section 230 would increase the legal risks associated with ranking, sorting and curating online content, a basic feature of the modern internet. Google has claimed that in such a scenario, websites would seek to play it safe by either removing far more content than is necessary, or by giving up on content moderation altogether and allowing even more harmful material on their platforms.

    Friend-of-the-court filings by Craigslist, Microsoft, Yelp and others have suggested that the stakes are not limited to algorithms and could also end up affecting virtually anything on the web that might be construed as making a recommendation. That might mean even average internet users who volunteer as moderators on various sites could face legal risks, according to a filing by Reddit and several volunteer Reddit moderators. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and former California Republican Rep. Chris Cox, the original co-authors of Section 230, argued to the Court that Congress’ intent in passing the law was to give websites broad discretion to moderate content as they saw fit.

    The Biden administration has also weighed in on the case. In a brief filed in December, it argued that Section 230 does protect Google and YouTube from lawsuits “for failing to remove third-party content, including the content it has recommended.” But, the government’s brief argued, those protections do not extend to Google’s algorithms because they represent the company’s own speech, not that of others.

    The second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, will decide whether social media companies can be sued for aiding and abetting a specific act of international terrorism when the platforms have hosted user content that expresses general support for the group behind the violence without referring to the specific terrorist act in question.

    The plaintiffs in the case — the family of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in an ISIS attack in Istanbul in 2017 — have alleged that social media companies including Twitter had knowingly aided ISIS in violation of a US antiterrorism law by allowing some of the group’s content to persist on their platforms despite policies intended to limit that type of content.

    Twitter has said that just because ISIS happened to use the company’s platform to promote itself does not constitute Twitter’s “knowing” assistance to the terrorist group, and that in any case the company cannot be held liable under the antiterror law because the content at issue in the case was not specific to the attack that killed Alassaf. The Biden administration, in its brief, has agreed with that view.

    Twitter had also previously argued that it was immune from the suit thanks to Section 230.

    Other tech platforms such as Meta and Google have argued in the case that if the Court finds the tech companies cannot be sued under US antiterrorism law, at least under these circumstances, it would avoid a debate over Section 230 altogether in both cases, because the claims at issue would be tossed out.

    In recent years, however, several Supreme Court justices have shown an active interest in Section 230, and have appeared to invite opportunities to hear cases related to the law. Last year, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote that new state laws, such as Texas’s that would force social media platforms to host content they would rather remove, raise questions of “great importance” about “the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

    A number of petitions are currently pending asking the Court to review the Texas law and a similar law passed by Florida. The Court last month delayed a decision on whether to hear those cases, asking instead for the Biden administration to submit its views.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As residents near the toxic train wreck in Ohio worry about rashes, sore throats and nausea, the state sets up a health clinic | CNN

    As residents near the toxic train wreck in Ohio worry about rashes, sore throats and nausea, the state sets up a health clinic | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    While officials have repeatedly sought to assure residents that the water and air in East Palestine, Ohio, are safe after the derailment of a train carrying hazardous materials earlier this month, anxiety has permeated the community amid reports of rashes, nausea and headaches.

    The state now plans to open a health clinic in East Palestine Tuesday for residents concerned about possible symptoms related to the derailment and the Biden administration announced it deployed experts to help assess what dangers remain in the area after Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine requested medical teams from the US Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention and the US Department of Health.

    It’s been over two weeks since a train carrying vinyl chloride derailed in the small community of less than 5,000 people, igniting a dayslong inferno and prompting crews to carry out detonations to the toxic chemical to prevent a potentially deadly explosion.

    The detonations unleashed a black cloud of smoke over the area, where a chemical stench lingered for days. While it was deemed safe for evacuated residents to return home on February 8, community members have questioned how safe their village is and the validity of the air and water tests.

    US Sen. Sherrod Brown said residents are “right to be skeptical.”

    “We think the water’s safe,” Brown told CNN, citing comments made by the administrators of the state and federal Environmental Protection Agencies. “But when you return to your home, you should be tested again for your water and your soil and your air, not to mention those that have their own wells.”

    Testing of air quality in more than 530 homes has shown no detection of contaminants, the US Environmental Protection Agency said Sunday.

    As for the water, no vinyl chloride has been detected in any down-gradient waterways near the train derailment, EPA official Tiffani Kavalec told CNN last week.

    And while some waterways in the area were contaminated – killing thousands of fish downstream – officials have said they believe those contaminants to be contained.

    After crews discovered the contaminated runoff on two surface water streams, Sulphur Run and Leslie Run, Norfolk Southern installed booms and dams to restrict the flow of contaminated water, according to the EPA.

    Still, despite the assurances from officials that the water is safe, some residents are too afraid to drink from their taps and the town has been distributing bottled water.

    Desiree Walker – a 19-year resident of the town who lives just 900 feet from the derailment site – told CNN affiliate WOIO that she refuses to let her children drink the water, fearing it could have long-term health effects.

    “There’s a big concern because they’re young. They’ve got their whole life ahead of them,” Walker said. “I don’t want this to impact them down the road. I want them to have a long, happy life.”

    Walker said her family is feeling symptoms, but doctors tell them they don’t know what to test for.

    “At nighttime especially is when we smell it the most,” she told the station. “Our throats are sore, we’re coughing a lot now. My son, his eyes matted shut.”

    As anger and frustration bubbled in the small town, hundreds of East Palestine residents attended a town hall last week to express concerns over air and water safety in their community.

    Residents reported a variety of issues – including rashes, sore throats, nausea and headaches – and shared worries that the symptoms could potentially be related to chemicals released after a train derailment.

    “Why are people getting sick if there’s nothing in the air or in the water,” one resident yelled during the gathering.

    Ayla Antoniazzi and her family returned to their house less than a mile from the crash site the day after evacuation orders were lifted. The mother made sure to air the house out and wash all the linen before bringing her children home.

    “But the next day when they woke up, they weren’t themselves,” Antoniazzi said. “My oldest had a rash on her face. The youngest did too but not as bad. The 2-year-old was holding her eye and complaining that her eye was hurting. She was very lethargic, so I took them back to my parents’ home.”

    The Ohio Department of Health’s clinic opening Tuesday is meant to help East Palestine recover from the incident, officials said. The clinic will have registered nurses, mental health specialists and, at times, a toxicologist, the agency said.

    “I heard you, the state heard you, and now the Ohio Department of Health and many of our partner agencies are providing this clinic, where people can come and discuss these vital issues with medical providers,” said the department’s director, Dr. Bruce Vanderhoff.

    The decision to conduct controlled detonations at the derailment site on February 6 has also fueled skepticism and questions about safety.

    Ayla Antoniazzi's 4-year-old daughter developed a rash after going back to school in East Palestine.

    Officials said the move was meant to avert an explosion at the site of the derailment by venting the toxic vinyl chloride gas and burning it in a pit, a move that shot up a thick plume of smoke over the town.

    Vinyl chloride – a man-made substance used to make PVC – can cause dizziness, sleepiness and headaches and has also been linked to an increased risk of cancer in the liver, brain, lungs and blood.

    The burning vinyl chloride gas could break down into compounds including hydrogen chloride and phosgene, a chemical weapon used during World War I as a choking agent, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency and CDC.

    After the detonation, crews checked the air for chemicals of concern, including phosgene and hydrogen chloride, as well as butyl acrylate, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, according to the EPA, and reported that the data was normal.

    Work now continues to clear the crash site.

    The train’s operator, Norfolk Southern, is “scrapping and removing rail cars at the derailment location, excavating contaminated areas, removing contaminated liquids from affected storm drains, and staging recovered waste for transportation to an approved disposal facility,” the EPA said Sunday.

    “Air monitoring and sampling will continue until removal of heavily contaminated soil in the derailment area is complete and odors subside in the community,” the agency said.

    US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg sent a letter Sunday to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, demanding accountability and calling for greater safety regulations.

    “The people of East Palestine cannot be forgotten, nor can their pain be simply considered the cost of doing business,” Buttigieg wrote to the railway’s chief executive.

    “You have previously indicated to me that you are committed to meeting your responsibilities to this community, but it is clear that area residents are not satisfied with the information, presence, and support they are getting from NorfolkSouthern in the aftermath and recovery,” Buttigieg added.

    Brown also pledged to hold the rail company accountable for the impacts on the community, saying in a news conference he would “make sure Norfolk Southern does what it says it’s going to do, what it’s promised.”

    “All the cleanup, all the drilling, all the testing, all the hotel stays, all of that is on Norfolk Southern. They caused it, there’s no question they caused it,” Brown said, adding the total cost could amount to either tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Norfolk Southern’s CEO posted an open letter Saturday telling East Palestine residents, “I hear you” and “we are here and will stay here for as long as it takes to ensure your safety and to help East Palestine recover and thrive.”

    “Together with local health officials, we have implemented a comprehensive testing program to ensure the safety of East Palestine’s water, air, and soil,” Shaw said in the letter, adding that the company also started a $1 million fund “as a down payment on our commitment to help rebuild.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top House Republicans call on Biden to increase military support for Ukraine | CNN Politics

    Top House Republicans call on Biden to increase military support for Ukraine | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Two leading House Republicans have called on President Joe Biden to increase military support to Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s invasion and reiterated support on both sides of the aisle for continuing to fund the Ukrainian war effort.

    Texas Rep. Mike McCaul, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN’s Pamela Brown on “State of the Union” in a joint interview with House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner that aired Sunday that bipartisan support for Ukraine is “still very strong.”

    But as the one-year anniversary of the war approaches, McCaul warned that hedging support for Ukraine could prolong the conflict, which could play into Russia’s advantages and allow anti-Ukraine dissent to build.

    “The longer (Biden administration officials) drag this out, they play into (Russian leader Vladimir) Putin’s hands. He wants this to be a long, protracted war because he knows that potentially, he will lose – we could lose the will of the American people and therefore the Congress,” the Texas Republican told CNN, speaking from the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

    The US and its allies have already sent nearly $50 billion in aid and equipment to Ukraine’s military over the past year. To keep that up, and to rebuild its own stockpiles, the Pentagon is racing to re-arm, embarking on the biggest increase in ammunition production in decades and putting portions of the US defense industry on a war-footing despite America technically not being at war.

    Asked by Brown if he believes the US is considering sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, McCaul replied, “I hope so,” and reiterated his concern over a drawn-out conflict between Russia and Ukraine while noting, “I think the momentum is building for this to happen.”

    “The fact is, the longer they wait, the longer this conflict will prevail,” McCaul said.

    US Sen. Lindsey Graham echoed that message, telling ABC in an interview that aired Sunday that US lawmakers attending the Munich Security Conference were in “virtually unanimous belief” that the US should begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets.

    “I believe a decision will be imminent when we get back to Washington, that the administration will start training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16. They need the weapons system,” Graham said.

    Asked by CNN whether the Biden administration has ruled out sending F-16s to Ukraine, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said officials were “working very closely and directly with the Ukrainians on identifying what their needs are and when they need them.”

    “We’re also working to ensure that they have the training and the capacity to use whatever weapon systems we provide for them. So, this discussion is continuing,” she said in a separate interview on “State of the Union.”

    Turner, an Ohio Republican, defended congressional support for Ukraine despite several of his fellow House GOP colleagues co-signing a “Ukraine Fatigue” resolution calling for the US to end military and financial aid to the country. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told CNN last week he opposes the resolution.

    Turner equated the resolution to a letter more than two dozen progressive House Democrats sent the White House last fall, asking it to pursue diplomacy between Russia and Ukraine. The letter was retracted shortly after.

    “You have a handful on both sides, both sides, Pamela, who have been cautious or who have said that they don’t support, or they want support to come to an end,” he said from Munich. “There are 435 members of Congress. There are probably 400 that are for continuing this direction and this path.”

    McCaul also told CNN that the suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that flew over US airspace before being shot down off the coast of South Carolina earlier this month contained parts manufactured in the United States and urged the US to restrict the flow of weapons technology to China.

    “This balloon, by the way, had a lot of American parts in it. We know that the hypersonic missile that went around the world with precision was built on the backbone of American technology,” McCaul said, referring to Beijing’s test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile in 2021.

    “They steal a lot of this from us. But we don’t have to sell them the very technology they can put in their advanced weapons systems to then turn against either Taiwan in the Pacific or eventually, possibly the United States of America. I think there’s great bipartisanship on this issue,” he added.

    Turner and McCaul also said they want to see Biden take a more serious position toward China following the a balloon incident.

    McCaul said that the tension between the two countries “is very high right now” and that both Democrats and Republicans are aligned in wanting to confront Chinese threats.

    “I think we have a unique opportunity to be bipartisan on this issue of national security against one of the greatest threats to this country, and the world, for that matter,” McCaul said.

    Turner, meanwhile, said there is an opportunity for the Biden administration to “get back to a normal dialogue with China.”

    “No one, of course, wants a cold war, but that isn’t the issue. What we want is a China that is not going to be an aggressor state, that’s not going to be building up its military and threatening the United States, and certainly not making the negative comments that it’s making instead of just openly apologizing for sending a spy balloon over our most sensitive military sites,” Turner said.

    Adding to the tension between Washington and Beijing, the US has recently begun seeing “disturbing” trendlines in China’s support for Russia’s military, and there are signs that Beijing wants to “creep up to the line” of providing lethal military aid to Russia without getting caught, US officials familiar with the intelligence told CNN.

    The officials would not describe in detail what intelligence the US has seen suggesting a recent shift in China’s posture, but said US officials have been concerned enough that they have shared the intelligence with allies and partners at the Munich Security Conference over the last several days.

    “The most catastrophic thing that could happen to US-China relationship, in my opinion, is for China to give lethal weapons to (Russian leader Vladimir) Putin and his crime against humanity,” Graham told ABC.

    “If you jump on the Putin train now, you’re dumber than dirt. It would be like buying a ticket on the Titanic after you saw the movie. Don’t do this,” he said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Feral cows in New Mexico’s Gila Wilderness will be shot from air, US Forest Service says | CNN

    Feral cows in New Mexico’s Gila Wilderness will be shot from air, US Forest Service says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US Forest Service will move forward with killing feral cattle in New Mexico’s Gila National Forest, officials say.

    The agency issued its decision in a news release on Thursday, stating the feral cattle “pose a significant threat to public safety and natural resources.”

    Aerial shooting of the cattle will take place from February 23 to February 26, according to the news release. The service told CNN via email that they would “lethally dispatch as many feral cattle as we are able to during this operation” and that “it is likely that additional operations, using lethal and non-lethal methods, will be necessary to eliminate the feral cattle population.”

    There are an estimated 150 feral cows living in the Gila Wilderness, a protected wilderness area in southwest New Mexico and part of the Gila National Forest.

    The feral cattle have created problems in the Gila National Forest since the 1970s, when a rancher abandoned cattle on the Redstone Allotment within the Gila Wilderness, according to a memo from the Forest Service. The memo defined feral cattle as cattle that don’t have brands, ear tags, or other signs of ownership.

    “These cattle have not been husbanded, cared for by private owners, or kept or raised on a ranch for several generations, and are thus not domesticated,” the service said in the memo.


    The difficult terrain of the forest as well as the “wild, uncooperative nature of the animals” makes capturing the cattle alive challenging and dangerous for both the animals and humans involved, according to the memo.

    According to the service, the problem posed by the untamed cattle is twofold. First, the cattle are aggressive towards humans. In the memo, the service said hikers in the Gila Wilderness have been charged by feral bulls.

    Second, the herbivores’ intensive grazing habits have damaged the environment and harmed native species’ natural habitats, according to the memo. The cattle’s trampling and eroding stream banks have also damaged the water quality.

    “This has been a difficult decision, but the lethal removal of feral cattle from the Gila Wilderness is necessary to protect public safety, threatened and endangered species habitats, water quality, and the natural character of the Gila Wilderness,” Gila National Forest Supervisor Camille Howes said in the news release.

    “The feral cattle in the Gila Wilderness have been aggressive towards wilderness visitors, graze year-round, and trample stream banks and springs, causing erosion and sedimentation,” Howes continued. “This action will help restore the wilderness character of the Gila Wilderness enjoyed by visitors from across the country.”

    Some cattle ranchers are concerned some of their branded cattle could have strayed into the Gila Wilderness over the past few years, according to the news release. The service said it is “committed to continued efforts toward collaborative solutions” and that it would work with ranchers to locate and remove their branded cattle.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News executives refused to let Trump on-air when he called in during January 6 attack, Dominion says | CNN Politics

    Fox News executives refused to let Trump on-air when he called in during January 6 attack, Dominion says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump tried to call into Fox News after his supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, but the network refused to put him on air, according to court filings from Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation case against the company.

    The House select committee that investigated the January 6 attack did not know that Trump had made this call, according to a source familiar with the panel’s work.

    The panel sought to piece together a near minute-by-minute account of Trump’s movements, actions and phone calls on that day. His newly revealed call to Fox News shows some of the gaps in the record that still exist, due to roadblocks the committee faced.

    “The afternoon of January 6, after the Capitol came under attack, then-President Trump dialed into Lou Dobbs’ show attempting to get on air,” Dominion lawyers wrote in their legal brief.

    ‘He could easily destroy us’: See Tucker Carlson’s private text about Trump

    “But Fox executives vetoed that decision,” Dominion’s filing continued. “Why? Not because of a lack of newsworthiness. January 6 was an important event by any measure. President Trump not only was the sitting President, he was the key figure that day.”

    The network rebuffed Trump because “it would be irresponsible to put him on the air” and “could impact a lot of people in a negative way,” according to Fox Business Network President Lauren Petterson, whose testimony was cited by Dominion in the new filing.

    Dobbs’ show on Fox Business – in which he routinely promoted baseless conspiracies about the 2020 election – was canceled a few weeks after the January 6 insurrection.

    Fox News and its parent company have denied all wrongdoing and are aggressively fighting Dominion’s defamation lawsuit. In a previous statement, a Fox spokesperson claimed that Dominion “mischaracterized the record” in its court filing and “cherry-picked quotes” that were “stripped of key context.”

    The most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel allowing lies about the presidential contest to be promoted on its air, damning messages contained in a Thursday court filing revealed.

    General view of Fox Plaza on February 8, 2023 in New York City.

    Haberman describes ‘striking’ claim that stood out to her from court documents

    The messages showed that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham brutally mocked lies being pushed by Trump’s camp asserting that the election had been rigged.

    In one set of messages revealed in the court filing, Carlson texted Ingraham, saying that Sidney Powell, an attorney who was representing the Trump campaign, was “lying” and that he had “caught her” doing so. Ingraham responded, “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy [Giuliani].”

    giuliani screengrab

    Court filings show Fox stars ridiculed Giuliani over 2020 election fraud claims

    The messages also revealed that Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox Corporation, did not believe Trump’s election lies and even floated the idea of having Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham appear together in prime time to declare Joe Biden as the rightful winner of the election.

    Such an act, Murdoch said, “Would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election stolen.”

    The court filing offered the most vivid picture to date of the chaos that transpired behind the scenes at Fox News after Trump lost the election and viewers rebelled against the channel for accurately calling the contest in Biden’s favor.

    Dominion filed its mammoth lawsuit against Fox News in March 2021, alleging that during the 2020 presidential election the network “recklessly disregarded the truth” and pushed various pro-Trump conspiracy theories about the election technology company because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.”

    Fox News has not only vigorously denied Dominion’s claims, it has insisted it is “proud” of its 2020 election coverage.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Exclusive: Attorney for Gaetz’s ex-girlfriend says prosecutors didn’t have credible evidence to charge | CNN Politics

    Exclusive: Attorney for Gaetz’s ex-girlfriend says prosecutors didn’t have credible evidence to charge | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A defense attorney who represented the former girlfriend of Rep. Matt Gaetz says that prosecutors made the right decision not to charge the Florida Republican after a yearslong federal sex trafficking investigation.

    Attorney Tim Jansen told CNN on Saturday that Justice Department prosecutors were aggressive with his client. She was initially approached as a possible target in the sex-trafficking investigation but eventually agreed to cooperate and testified before an Orlando grand jury hearing evidence in the case last year.

    The ex-girlfriend, whom CNN has not named, is not the underage woman at the center of the sex-trafficking investigation.

    Jansen, who said the DOJ thoroughly pursued leads against Gaetz, disputed the notion that the congressman was cleared because he was in a powerful position, arguing that the evidence against Gaetz simply wasn’t credible and couldn’t hold up in court.

    “They turned over every stone. And I think they ultimately made a decision that they didn’t have evidence to prove a crime,” Jansen said. “And I know critics think that the congressman somehow bought it off or somehow used his power, but I found (federal prosecutor) Todd (Gee) very responsible. He was very organized. He had evidence that he believed that he was following, and they made a determination that they weren’t going to charge.”

    CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

    CNN first reported this week that the Justice Department had informed lawyers for Gaetz and several witnesses that it would not prosecute the GOP lawmaker.

    Last fall, investigators working on the case recommended not bringing charges amid concerns that the central witnesses in the case would not be perceived as credible, including Joel Greenberg, a former Seminole County, Florida, tax collector who pleaded guilty to six federal crimes, including sex trafficking, and agreed to cooperate with the government.

    The DOJ’s formal decision not to charge Gaetz, who has been serving in Congress since 2017, marks the end of a long-running investigation into allegations that the congressman violated federal law by transporting underage girls across state lines for sex.

    Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

    Jansen told CNN that his client was initially threatened with prosecution by federal investigators as part of the investigation. Her phone was seized, and she was told she could be a target in the investigation. She ultimately became a witness, Jansen said.

    But Jansen said the problems with Greenberg’s credibility and the inconsistencies in the testimony of the women ultimately prompted Gee, a deputy chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, not to charge Gaetz.

    “In order to prosecute a case, you have to have credible evidence, either tangible witnesses, and in this case, there was no credible evidence of any wrongdoing,” Jansen said. “Joel Greenberg was somebody who (you) couldn’t put on the witness stand, as a prosecutor. I believe these women; none of them believed they were victims of any crime.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These 26 words ‘created the internet.’ Now the Supreme Court may be coming for them | CNN Business

    These 26 words ‘created the internet.’ Now the Supreme Court may be coming for them | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Congress, the White House and now the US Supreme Court are all focusing their attention on a federal law that’s long served as a legal shield for online platforms.

    This week, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on two pivotal cases dealing with online speech and content moderation. Central to the arguments is “Section 230,” a federal law that’s been roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats for different reasons but that tech companies and digital rights groups have defended as vital to a functioning internet.

    Tech companies involved in the litigation have cited the 27-year-old statute as part of an argument for why they shouldn’t have to face lawsuits alleging they gave knowing, substantial assistance to terrorist acts by hosting or algorithmically recommending terrorist content.

    A set of rulings against the tech industry could significantly narrow Section 230 and its legal protections for websites and social media companies. If that happens, the Court’s decisions could expose online platforms to an array of new lawsuits over how they present content to users. Such a result would represent the most consequential limitations ever placed on a legal shield that predates today’s biggest social media platforms and has allowed them to nip many content-related lawsuits in the bud.

    And more could be coming: the Supreme Court is still mulling whether to hear several additional cases with implications for Section 230, while members of Congress have expressed renewed enthusiasm for rolling back the law’s protections for websites, and President Joe Biden has called for the same in a recent op-ed.

    Here’s everything you need to know about Section 230, the law that’s been called “the 26 words that created the internet.”

    Passed in 1996 in the early days of the World Wide Web, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was meant to nurture startups and entrepreneurs. The legislation’s text recognized that the internet was in its infancy and risked being choked out of existence if website owners could be sued for things that other people posted.

    One of the law’s architects, Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, has said that without Section 230, “all online media would face an onslaught of bad-faith lawsuits and pressure campaigns from the powerful” seeking to silence them.

    He’s also said Section 230 directly empowers websites to remove content they believe is objectionable by creating a “good Samaritan” safe harbor: Under Section 230, websites enjoy immunity for moderating content in the ways they see fit — not according to others’ preferences — although the federal government can still sue platforms for violating criminal or intellectual property laws.

    Contrary to what some politicians have claimed, Section 230’s protections do not hinge on a platform being politically or ideologically neutral. The law also does not require that a website be classified as a publisher in order to “qualify” for liability protection. Apart from meeting the definition of an “interactive computer service,” websites need not do anything to gain Section 230’s benefits – they apply automatically.

    The law’s central provision holds that websites (and their users) cannot be treated legally as the publishers or speakers of other people’s content. In plain English, that means that any legal responsibility attached to publishing a given piece of content ends with the person or entity that created it, not the platforms on which the content is shared or the users who re-share it.

    The seemingly simple language of Section 230 belies its sweeping impact. Courts have repeatedly accepted Section 230 as a defense against claims of defamation, negligence and other allegations. In the past, it’s protected AOL, Craigslist, Google and Yahoo, building up a body of law so broad and influential as to be considered a pillar of today’s internet.

    “The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, has written. “Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal basis.”

    In recent years, however, critics of Section 230 have increasingly questioned the law’s scope and proposed restrictions on the circumstances in which websites may invoke the legal shield.

    For years, much of the criticism of Section 230 has come from conservatives who say that the law lets social media platforms suppress right-leaning views for political reasons.

    By safeguarding platforms’ freedom to moderate content as they see fit, Section 230 does shield websites from lawsuits that might arise from that type of viewpoint-based content moderation, though social media companies have said they do not make content decisions based on ideology but rather on violations of their policies.

    The Trump administration tried to turn some of those criticisms into concrete policy that would have had significant consequences, if it had succeeded. For example, in 2020, the Justice Department released a legislative proposal for changes to Section 230 that would create an eligibility test for websites seeking the law’s protections. That same year, the White House issued an executive order calling on the Federal Communications Commission to interpret Section 230 in a more narrow way.

    The executive order faced a number of legal and procedural problems, not least of which was the fact that the FCC is not part of the judicial branch; that it does not regulate social media or content moderation decisions; and that it is an independent agency that, by law, does not take direction from the White House.

    Even though the Trump-era efforts to curtail Section 230 never bore fruit, conservatives are still looking for opportunities to do so. And they aren’t alone. Since 2016, when social media platforms’ role in spreading Russian election disinformation broke open a national dialogue about the companies’ handling of toxic content, Democrats have increasingly railed against Section 230.

    By safeguarding platforms’ freedom to moderate content as they see fit, Democrats have said, Section 230 has allowed websites to escape accountability for hosting hate speech and misinformation that others have recognized as objectionable but that social media companies can’t or won’t remove themselves.

    The result is a bipartisan hatred for Section 230, even if the two parties cannot agree on why Section 230 is flawed or what policies might appropriately take its place.

    “I would be prepared to make a bet that if we took a vote on a plain Section 230 repeal, it would clear this committee with virtually every vote,” said Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse at a hearing last week of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The problem, where we bog down, is that we want 230-plus. We want to repeal 230 and then have ‘XYZ.’ And we don’t agree on what the ‘XYZ’ are.”

    The deadlock has thrown much of the momentum for changing Section 230 to the courts — most notably, the US Supreme Court, which now has an opportunity this term to dictate how far the law extends.

    Tech critics have called for added legal exposure and accountability. “The massive social media industry has grown up largely shielded from the courts and the normal development of a body of law. It is highly irregular for a global industry that wields staggering influence to be protected from judicial inquiry,” wrote the Anti-Defamation League in a Supreme Court brief.

    For the tech giants, and even for many of Big Tech’s fiercest competitors, it would be a bad thing, because it would undermine what has allowed the internet to flourish. It would potentially put many websites and users into unwitting and abrupt legal jeopardy, they say, and it would dramatically change how some websites operate in order to avoid liability.

    The social media platform Reddit has argued in a Supreme Court brief that if Section 230 is narrowed so that its protections do not cover a site’s recommendations of content a user might enjoy, that would “dramatically expand Internet users’ potential to be sued for their online interactions.”

    “‘Recommendations’ are the very thing that make Reddit a vibrant place,” wrote the company and several volunteer Reddit moderators. “It is users who upvote and downvote content, and thereby determine which posts gain prominence and which fade into obscurity.”

    People would stop using Reddit, and moderators would stop volunteering, the brief argued, under a legal regime that “carries a serious risk of being sued for ‘recommending’ a defamatory or otherwise tortious post that was created by someone else.”

    While this week’s oral arguments won’t be the end of the debate over Section 230, the outcome of the cases could lead to hugely significant changes the internet has never before seen — for better or for worse.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Key senators torn over retirement decisions as party leaders try to fortify 2024 standing | CNN Politics

    Key senators torn over retirement decisions as party leaders try to fortify 2024 standing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Sen. Joe Manchin, torn over whether to run for reelection, says he’s “given everything I possibly can” over four decades of holding public office. Sen. Jon Tester is close to making his final decision on a 2024 bid and concedes there’s a risk of his seat flipping next year.

    “It’s a commitment,” the Montana Democrat said of another run.

    They’re not the only ones in a tough spot.

    Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is weighing health considerations after treatment for prostate cancer. Sen. Bernie Sanders, 81, says he’ll make a decision about whether to run for a fourth Senate term in Vermont “at the appropriate time.”

    And Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican who has gone to battle with former President Donald Trump, says he’ll decide whether to run for a second term by mid-April, sounding ready to take on his party’s MAGA wing if he runs again.

    “People understand that every action has a consequence, and you accept the consequences for the actions that you think are right,” Romney, 75, said of potentially facing a stiff challenge from the right. He then added bullishly: “If I run, I’ll win.”

    As the 2024 landscape begins to take shape, the senators’ decisions about their political futures will dramatically alter the map and hold major ramifications for the makeup of the institution itself.

    For Democrats, the concern is the most acute. They already have a difficult road to maintain their slim 51-49 majority, with 23 seats to defend compared to just 11 for the GOP.

    Plus they’ll have to hold onto Democratic seats in GOP terrain, such as in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – not to mention keep their seats in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada. The map provides them with scant pickup opportunities, since Republican incumbents are mostly running in ruby-red states or states that have trended to the GOP, like Florida.

    Then there’s the complicated dance for both parties in Arizona, if Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, now an independent, decides to run again for a seat that would put her up against a Republican and Democrat in a messy, three-way race. For Republicans, fear is growing that the hard-right Kari Lake may mount a bid and put their hopes for a pickup in jeopardy.

    And with few pickup chances, Senate Democrats recognize they’ll have to limit losses – and prevent retirements – in order to cling to power.

    “I’m doing everything I can to help Manchin in West Virginia,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN when asked if he were concerned that the conservative Democrat might hang it up, referring to legislative actions.

    After Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow announced she’d retire, Schumer and his top deputies are hoping to prevent others from following suit, recognizing that an open seat would give Republicans an even better chance of seizing control of the chamber they lost in the 2020 elections. The exception is California, where the 89-year-old Dianne Feinstein announced her retirement this week, something widely expected, as Democrats are expected to keep the seat in their control in the blue state.

    In particular, Democratic leaders are urging Tester and Manchin to run again, knowing full well that finding another Democrat to win in those conservative battlegrounds will be an extremely tall order in 2024.

    “Clearly, it’s important for them to run,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Democratic campaign arm, when asked about Tester and Manchin. “I don’t know where they are. I’ve talked to them, but they’re just working through issues, personal issues for themselves as to what they want to do. So we just have to give them time to think that through and I look forward to their answers.”

    Peters acknowledged that his party’s effort to keep the Senate will grow bleaker if either or both men retire.

    “Those are states that are very Republican,” Peters told CNN, referring to Montana and West Virginia. “And I know they can win again, but they’re without question the strongest candidates in those states. It’d be more difficult without them running.”

    Democrats acknowledge they have close to no backup plans in Montana or West Virginia. But they have been heartened by the polls that are being released publicly by Republican groups in those states, showing their numbers have been better than expected – and perhaps encouraging – for the incumbents.

    But neither Manchin nor Tester seem concerned that the seat could turn red if they retire.

    “That’s not my factor,” Manchin said in the interview. “I’m not weighing that because of my, what it might do to the numbers as far as up here. No, I’ve been at this for quite some time. This term being up, there’ll be 42 years I’ve been in public service so I’ve given everything I possibly can.”

    Several Democratic operatives involved in planning for Senate races tell CNN they expect that ultimately, Tester will run and that Casey will as well after his successful surgery this week. Manchin has them more on edge, and they anticipate that’s how they’ll remain for almost a year: the West Virginia filing deadline isn’t until next January.

    That, after all, is what he did in 2018.

    Manchin, a former governor and state legislator who has served in the Senate since 2010, insists he’s not concerned about the prospects that the GOP governor, Jim Justice, is strongly considering a run against him, though Justice would have to escape a difficult primary against Rep. Alex Mooney and potentially the state’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, who may run as well. He has acknowledged that Justice would be the toughest candidate to face, though he insists he could still pull off a victory.

    Manchin, 75, just doesn’t know if he wants to do it again as he looks back at the last several years – especially in the 50-50 Senate in the last Congress where he was at the peak of his power in the chamber and played a central role shaping major laws. The question Manchin is weighing: whether he’ll have the same kind of impact with another six years.

    “I make a decision based on if I’ve been able to deliver for the state, have I been able to support the Constitution and the oath I’ve taken, I think I have,” Manchin said, confirming he’s been urged by Biden and Schumer both to run. “Is there more I can do in different, other areas? I don’t know.”

    Tester, who also said Schumer has been urging him to run, conceded that his seat could flip if he bows out.

    “Oh, absolutely there’s a risk of flipping there’s no doubt about that but so are all of them,” Tester said.

    But he contended other Democrats could mount a vigorous challenge for the seat.

    “Actually, we’ve got some really good folks in the wings that can run,” Tester, 66, said before he noted that things have gotten dire for Democrats in recent cycles. “We haven’t had the best of luck the last few cycles in Montana but I think that’s as much self-inflicted as it is the state turning red.”

    But Tester pointed to key positions he holds – chairing a subcommittee on Pentagon spending and running the veterans panel – as he weighs another run.

    “I’m at a point and time where we can get a lot of good things done because of my position on Veterans Affairs and defense chairman but it’s just something where I think you just need to take the time to think over,” he said.

    Yet Democrats could benefit from a potentially divisive GOP primary in Montana – with the possibility of candidacies from two House members, the governor and the state attorney general. That will put the other Montana senator, Republican Steve Daines, to the test as he plans to use his National Republican Senatorial Committee to be more assertive in GOP primaries to root out lackluster general election candidates, though it’s unclear how he would handle his home state.

    In an interview, Daines was noncommittal when asked about one candidate in particular – Rep. Matt Rosendale – a hard-right Republican who lost to Tester in 2018 and is considering running again. He said “it’s early” since candidates have yet to declare and that the field will get “sorted out,” contending the race is “winnable.”

    “These are three red states where the only statewide elected official left that’s a Democrat is a US Senator. That’s Montana, it’s West Virginia, it’s Ohio,” Daines said. “These are going to be spirited races.”

    And after last cycle’s GOP debacle, where several Donald Trump-aligned candidates petered out in the general election and effectively cost them winning the majority, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is determined not to allow that to happen again.

    “I just think we need to focus on candidates who can win in the general election,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas and close McConnell ally. “We had some great primary candidates, but that won’t get the job done. You got to have somebody who can have a broader appeal than just the base. That was one of the most important lessons of this last cycle.”

    Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, at left, is challenging Sinema, at right, for her US Senate seat in 2024.

    Senate leaders in both parties see Arizona as the biggest wildcard – depending on what Sinema decides to do and which Republican decides to run.

    Lake, the Trump-aligned Republican who lost one of the nation’s premier governor’s races last fall, recently met with officials at NRSC headquarters – even though many Republicans are nervous about her potential candidacy and one GOP strategist called the potential of a Lake Senate run “disastrous.”

    As she made the rounds in Washington, Daines told CNN that he spoke with Lake.

    “I want to see a candidate who can not only win a primary, but can win a general election,” Daines said when asked about that visit, not commenting on Lake directly.

    Other top Republicans are unnerved about Lake – and her evidence-free claims of widespread election fraud – and are pushing for other candidates to jump into the race.

    “I’ve just said to any of our candidates or potential candidates in 2024, that you got to talk about the future, not the past,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican. “And I think if you’re building your campaign around the theme of a stolen election, that’s not a winning strategy. We’ve seen that. So if she does decide to do it again, I think she’s gonna have to talk about the things that are on the hearts and minds of American people.”

    Schumer and Democratic leaders, themselves, are in a bind in the state, refusing to say if they’ll back their party’s nominee with Sinema still undecided on a run. The reason: They need Sinema to continue to organize with them in order to maintain their 51-49 majority and are in no mood to alienate her.

    But some Democrats are angry at their leaders for refusing to say if they’ll back their nominee, especially backers of Rep. Ruben Gallego, the party’s leading candidate in the race.

    “At some point, they’re going to have to endorse a Democrat,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a fellow Arizona Democrat who backs Gallego, noting it would be “problematic” if party leaders didn’t dump huge resources to help their party’s nominee win a general election.

    “If they don’t, that would be an insult at many levels,” Grijavla said.

    While some Democrats are nervous that Gallego and Sinema would split the vote and give Republicans a victory, Gallego dismisses the possibility and says only a “strong Democrat” can win.

    “No matter what happens, Kyrsten Sinema is always going to be in third place,” Gallego said. “I also doubt she fully runs.”

    As she’s grown more alienated from her former party, Sinema has grown closer to Republicans, including one – Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – who told CNN she would endorse the senator if she ran again.

    “I absolutely support Sen. Sinema,” Murkowski said, noting she’s also backing Manchin. “She’s not afraid to take on hard things, and I’m gonna be supporting her too.”

    Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on August 03, 2022 in Washington, DC.

    Even in safe Democratic seats, there’s the potential for a shakeup that could bring more diversity and younger members into the ranks, including in Maryland and Delaware where Sens. Ben Cardin and Tom Carper, respectively, have not made a final decision to run yet.

    Cardin, 79, who hasn’t spent much time fundraising yet, said he would make his decision sometime in the spring, while Carper, 76, said he’d be ready to run but noted that campaigns are “way too long.”

    In Hawaii, Sen. Mazie Hirono said she plans to run again, as did Maine’s Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.

    “There’s only two ways to run: Scared or unopposed,” King said.

    In more contested states, Nevada’s Jacky Rosen said she is running, as did Ohio’s Sherrod Brown. And in Wisconsin, Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she’d make her announcement about her plans in the spring after upcoming elections in the state.

    In Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz has announced plans to run for a third Senate term, and Democrats are weighing whether to mount a serious effort to try to unseat him in the red state – with a focus on whether Democratic Rep. Colin Allred will try to mount an upset bid against the conservative senator.

    In Michigan, where Stabenow’s retirement is leaving Democrats with an open seat in a swing state, Rep. Elissa Slotkin is eying a run and could get some implicit help from the outgoing senator herself. Stabenow has spoken by phone with several prominent Michigan Democrats, and while some have perceived that as dissuading some weaker candidates from running, a Stabenow spokesperson says she’s just been giving everyone advice on the challenges of running statewide in Michigan and not trying to clear the field.

    Republican recruitment efforts in the state are also up in the air, with a push for newly elected Rep. John James, who has lost two previous bids for the Senate. If he passes, GOP leaders believe other contenders will emerge, potentially former Rep. Peter Meijer and even some current members of the House delegation or local officials.

    While several potential Democratic candidates have decided not to run, other political players in the state remain unsure about Slotkin’s statewide strength and have continued talking privately about finding an alternative.

    Given how much Democrats in the state rely on high turnout in heavily African-American Detroit, finding a candidate who could run strong there has been a major topic in those discussions. Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, who got his start in Detroit politics is “very seriously thinking about making a run” and is expected to make a decision over the next month, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

    Meanwhile, several Democrats in Michigan tell CNN they have been surprised by outreach they’re getting from “The Good Doctor” actor Hill Harper, whose political experience mostly relates to being Barack Obama’s law school roommate, but who owns a coffee shop in Detroit and has gotten involved with the local business community there. Harper did not return a request for comment.

    Stabenow said she’s not endorsing any candidate in the primary to replace her.

    “What I’m saying to folks is that I want somebody that is strong, effective, who can raise money, who can win,” Stabenow said. “But I’m talking to everybody.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link