ReportWire

Tag: iab-law

  • Officers involved in tasing man who caught fire and later died won’t be criminally charged, New York attorney general’s office says | CNN

    Officers involved in tasing man who caught fire and later died won’t be criminally charged, New York attorney general’s office says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The New York attorney general’s office says criminal charges won’t be brought against officers after a man covered in hand sanitizer was tased and caught on fire – an incident that left him dead weeks later.

    Three officers with the Catskill Police Department were involved in the incident that left Jason Jones dead December 15, 2021, several weeks after he was tased by one of the officers.

    The attorney general’s Office of Special Investigation released its report Friday into the events that led to Jones’ death. The investigation concluded “a prosecutor would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the Catskill Police Department (CPD) officers involved in the incident committed a crime, and therefore criminal charges could not be pursued,” Attorney General Letitia James’ office said in a news release.

    The report includes recommendations that the state’s Office of Public Safety provide additional training on Tasers and similar devices and to “comprehensively study all flammable substances that such weapons could ignite, list those substances in the training materials, and send updates promptly to all departments that have such weapons in use.”

    Police originally escorted Jones from a bar on October 30, 2021 after a call about him being disruptive, according to the news release.

    He ran from officers and entered the Catskill Police Department lobby, about a block away, according to the release.

    He aggressively knocked on the windows, overturned a table, partially disrobed and eventually squirted what appeared to be hand sanitizer on his head and shirtless body, CNN previously reported.

    The attorney general’s office released videos of the incident in January 2022 showing three officers confronting Jones in the lobby. In one of the videos, Jones is seen squirting what appears to be hand sanitizer on his head and shirtless body before going off screen. That’s when one of the officers is seen pointing a Taser at him and deploying the weapon. Jones is engulfed in flames and then falls to the floor as all of the officers exit the lobby, the footage shows.

    The officers ran out of the room to look for a fire extinguisher, according to a statement from the attorney general’s office.

    Nearly 14 seconds later, one of the officers returns to help Jones. A stretcher is brought in approximately 15 minutes later, according to the video, and Jones is then seen wheeled out of the lobby.

    He was taken to the hospital and died 45 days later on December 15, 2021, CNN previously reported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A 17-year-old has been arrested in connection with a mass shooting at Morgan State University | CNN

    A 17-year-old has been arrested in connection with a mass shooting at Morgan State University | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Police have arrested a 17-year-old in connection with the mass shooting at Morgan State University in Baltimore on October 3 that injured five people, the Baltimore Police Department said in a news release Friday.

    He was taken into custody without incident Thursday, and faces charges of multiple counts of attempted murder, police said.

    Police said a warrant has been issued for another suspect, Jovan Williams, 18, in connection to the shooting. He remains at large and should be considered armed and dangerous, police said.

    The shooters were identified from surveillance video obtained from the shooting, police said.

    “BPD has been working tirelessly on the investigation into this incident and are grateful for the many partners that assisted us in identifying and capturing one of our suspects,” said Commissioner Richard Worley said in the release. “We will not rest until Williams is in custody. While this arrest cannot undo the damage and trauma caused that day, it is my hope that it can bring some peace and justice to the victims, the Morgan community and our city.”

    The shooting happened as a popular homecoming week event was letting out. It was among at least 543 mass shootings with at least four victims so far this year in the United States, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and one of at least 17 shootings this year at a US college or university, including in North Carolina, Oklahoma and Michigan.

    Students and teachers were ordered to shelter in place for hours as a SWAT team combed the campus dormitories at the school where 9,000 students enrolled last fall.

    The mayor has said he does not believe the shooting was racially motivated, noting the investigation is ongoing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • One officer who arrested Elijah McClain convicted of criminally negligent homicide; second officer acquitted | CNN

    One officer who arrested Elijah McClain convicted of criminally negligent homicide; second officer acquitted | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Randy Roedema, one of the Aurora, Colorado, police officers who arrested Elijah McClain, an unarmed 23-year-old Black man who died after he was subdued by police and injected with ketamine by paramedics in 2019, was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and assault by a jury on Thursday.

    At the same time, a second officer, Jason Rosenblatt, was acquitted of all charges against him, including reckless manslaughter and assault.

    The jury reached a verdict after deliberating for 16 hours over two days.

    Rosenblatt hugged both of his attorneys and wiped away tears after his verdict was announced. He also hugged members of Roedema’s family.

    Reid Elkus, an attorney for Roedema, comforted the officer’s wife after the verdict, saying, “He may not go to jail.” Roedema’s sentencing has been scheduled for January 5.

    “He’s OK. He’s OK. It’s not mandatory,” Elkus told Roedema’s wife.

    In a statement following the verdicts, Aurora Police Department Chief Art Acevedo said on X, formerly known as Twitter, “As a nation, we must be committed to the rule of law. As such, we hold the American judicial process in high regard.”

    “We respect the verdict handed down by the jury, and thank the members of the jury for their thoughtful deliberation and service,” he added. “Due to the additional pending trials, the Aurora Police Department is precluded from further comment at this time.”

    In closing arguments of the weekslong trial on Tuesday, prosecutors said Roedema and Rosenblatt used excessive force, failed to follow their training and misled paramedics about his health status.

    The officers “chose force at every opportunity,” instead of trying to de-escalate the situation as they’re trained, prosecutor Duane Lyons told the court.

    Meanwhile, defense attorneys placed blame on the paramedics and on McClain himself.

    Roedema and Rosenblatt both pleaded not guilty to charges of reckless manslaughter and assault in connection with McClain’s death. Rosenblatt was fired by the police department in 2020 and Roedema remains suspended.

    Rosenblatt’s attorney, Harvey Steinberg, painted his client as a “scapegoat” and said it’s the paramedics’ responsibility to evaluate a patient’s medical condition. Roedema’s attorney, Don Sisson, said his client’s use of force was justified because McClain resisted arrest. He said McClain had been given 34 commands to either “stop” or “stop fighting.”

    The case focused on the events of August 24, 2019, when officers responded to a call about a “suspicious person” wearing a ski mask, according to the indictment. The officers confronted McClain, a massage therapist, musician and animal lover who was walking home from a convenience store carrying a plastic bag with iced tea.

    In an interaction captured on body camera footage, police wrestled McClain to the ground and placed him in a carotid hold, and paramedics later injected him with the powerful sedative ketamine. He suffered a heart attack on the way to a hospital and was pronounced dead three days later.

    Prosecutors initially declined to bring charges, but the case received renewed scrutiny following the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests in spring 2020. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis appointed a special prosecutor to reexamine the case, and in 2021 a grand jury indicted three officers and two paramedics in McClain’s death.

    A third officer, Nathan Woodyard, and two paramedics who treated McClain, Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec, are set to go on trial in the coming weeks. They have also pleaded not guilty.

    The trial began last month and featured testimony from Aurora law enforcement officers who responded to the scene as well as from doctors who analyzed how McClain died. The defense did not call any witnesses.

    The prosecution played body-camera footage of the arrest and said the footage showed officers used excessive force for no reason. McClain repeatedly said he couldn’t breathe, yet the officers did not tell that to anyone on the scene.

    “His name was Elijah McClain, and he was going home. He was somebody. He mattered,” prosecutor Lyons began his argument Tuesday afternoon.

    A key focus of the trial was analysis of how McClain died and whether the officers’ actions caused his death.

    The jury heard from a pulmonary critical care physician who testified he believed the young man would not have died if the paramedics had recognized his issues and intervened.

    Dr. Robert Mitchell Jr., a forensic pathologist who reviewed McClain’s autopsy, testified the cause of death was “complications following acute ketamine administration during violent subdual and restraint by law enforcement, emergency response personnel.” He testified there was a “direct causal link” between the officers’ actions and McClain’s death.

    Meanwhile, defense attorneys argued there was no evidence the officers’ actions led to his death, and instead pointed to the ketamine injection.

    Though an initial autopsy report said the cause of death was undetermined, an amended report publicly released in 2022 listed “complications of ketamine administration following forcible restraint” as the cause of death. The manner of death was undetermined.

    Dr. Stephen Cina, the pathologist who signed the autopsy report, wrote he saw no evidence injuries inflicted by police contributed to McClain’s death, and McClain “would most likely be alive but for the administration of ketamine.”

    In the prosecution’s rebuttal, Jason Slothouber told the court while the officers did not inject McClain with the ketamine, their failure to protect McClain’s airway allowed him to become hypoxic then acidotic, and that’s what made the ketamine so dangerous to McClain.

    Officers didn’t provide accurate information to the paramedics when they arrived on scene, and in doing so they “failed Elijah McClain,” Slothouber said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A woman accused of killing an elite cyclist attempted to escape custody, sheriff’s office says | CNN

    A woman accused of killing an elite cyclist attempted to escape custody, sheriff’s office says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The woman who authorities say fled to Costa Rica and was missing for more than a month after allegedly killing an elite professional cyclist in Texas attempted to escape custody on Wednesday, authorities said.

    Kaitlin Marie Armstrong is accused of fatally shooting Anna Moriah “Mo” Wilson at an Austin home in May 2022 and was captured in Costa Rica on June 29, 2022, authorities said. She was deported to the US days later to face a first-degree murder charge according to the US Marshals Office. She has pleaded not guilty.

    On Wednesday morning, Armstrong was taken to a doctor’s appointment by corrections staff in Texas, a spokesperson with the Travis County Sheriff’s Office told CNN.

    “As she and two corrections officers were exiting the medical building after the appointment, Armstrong ran,” spokesperson Drew Knight said. “The officers pursued her on foot for approximately 10 minutes without ever losing sight of her.”

    Armstrong was captured and taken to a local hospital, Knight said, adding she is now back in the sheriff’s office custody.

    CNN has reached out to Armstrong’s attorney for comment.

    Armstrong’s jury trial is scheduled for October 30, according to court records.

    Rick Cofer, her attorney, said after a hearing last year that Armstrong “wants her day in court,” and that she “wants a trial.”

    “All I can ask of the press here is that you not consider everything told to you by law enforcement as confirmed and reportable facts. Simply put, there’s a lot more to the story than has yet been heard,” Cofer said at the time.

    Wilson was found dead on May 11, 2022, with multiple gunshot wounds at the home of a friend in Austin, authorities have said. She had told her friend she was going for an afternoon swim with Colin Strickland, 35, a professional cyclist and Armstrong’s boyfriend.

    Strickland told police he and Wilson swam and ate dinner, and he dropped her off at the friend’s home, according to an arrest affidavit in Travis County District Court.

    Strickland considered Wilson, 25, to be one of the best cyclists in the world, he told police.

    Investigators have said romantic jealousy might have been a motivating factor in the killing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jury begins deliberations in trial of officers charged in Elijah McClain’s death | CNN

    Jury begins deliberations in trial of officers charged in Elijah McClain’s death | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A jury began deliberations Tuesday in the trial of two Aurora, Colorado, police officers who arrested Elijah McClain, an unarmed 23-year-old Black man, who died after he was subdued by police and injected with ketamine by paramedics in 2019.

    The two officers, Randy Roedema and Jason Rosenblatt, each face charges including reckless manslaughter and have pleaded not guilty.

    Jurors were given the cases at around 4:30 p.m. local time and spent about half an hour in the jury room before being dismissed for the day. The 12 jurors will return at 8:30 a.m. local time Wednesday to resume deliberations.

    During closing arguments of the trial on Tuesday, prosecutors said the two officers used excessive force, failed to follow their training and misled paramedics about his health status.

    “They were trained. They were told what to do. They were given instructions. They had opportunities, and they failed to choose to de-esclate violence when they needed to, they failed to listen to Mr. McClain when they needed to, and they failed Mr. McClain,” prosecutor Duane Lyons said in court.

    Rosenblatt was fired by the police department in 2020 and Roedema remains suspended. Roedema and Rosenblatt have pleaded not guilty to charges of reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and assault causing serious bodily injury in connection with McClain’s death.

    The case stems from the events of August 24, 2019, when officers responded to a call about a “suspicious person” wearing a ski mask, according to the indictment. The officers confronted McClain, a 23-year-old  massage therapist, musician and animal lover who was walking home from a convenience store carrying a plastic bag with iced tea.

    In an interaction captured on body camera footage, police wrestled McClain to the ground and placed him in a carotid hold, and paramedics later injected him with the powerful sedative ketamine. He suffered a heart attack on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead three days later.

    Prosecutors initially declined to bring charges, but the case received renewed scrutiny following the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests in spring 2020. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis appointed a special prosecutor to reexamine the case, and in 2021 a grand jury indicted three officers and two paramedics in McClain’s death.

    In closing arguments, the prosecution played body-camera footage of the arrest and said the footage showed officers used excessive force for no reason. McClain also repeatedly said he couldn’t breathe, yet the officers did not tell that to anyone on the scene.

    Roedema and Rosenblatt’s joint trial began last month and featured testimony from Aurora law enforcement officers who responded to the scene as well as from doctors who analyzed how McClain died. The defense did not call any witnesses.

    In opening statements, prosecutors argued the officers used excessive force against McClain in the form of two carotid holds. The officers then failed to check his vital signs, even as he threw up in his ski mask and repeatedly said “I can’t breathe,” according to the prosecution.

    Dr. Robert Mitchell Jr., a forensic pathologist who reviewed McClain’s autopsy, testified the cause of death was “complications following acute ketamine administration during violent subdual and restraint by law enforcement, emergency response personnel.” He testified there was a “direct causal link” between the officers’ actions and McClain’s death.

    The defense argued the carotid holds were appropriate because McClain was physically resisting. Defense attorneys also argued there was no evidence the officers’ actions led to his death, and instead placed the blame on the paramedics’ decision to inject McClain with a dose of ketamine too large for his size.

    Dr. David Beuther, a pulmonary critical care physician, testified on cross-examination he believed McClain would not have died if the paramedics had recognized his issues and intervened.

    A third officer and two paramedics who responded to the scene are set to go on trial in the coming weeks. They have also pleaded not guilty.

    In 2021, the city of Aurora settled a civil rights lawsuit with the McClain family for $15 million, and the Aurora police and fire departments  agreed to a consent decree to address a pattern of racial bias found by a state investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark libel ruling, though Clarence Thomas wants to reconsider the decision | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark libel ruling, though Clarence Thomas wants to reconsider the decision | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to revisit the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, rebuffing a request to take another look at decades-old precedent that created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel in civil suits.

    The media world has for years relied on the unanimous decision in the 1964 case to fend off costly defamation lawsuits brought by public figures. The ruling established the requirement that public figures show “actual malice” before they can succeed in a libel dispute.

    Despite being a mainstay in US media law, the Sullivan decision has increasingly come under fire by conservatives both inside and outside the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who said on Tuesday that he still wanted to revisit Sullivan at some point.

    “In an appropriate case, however, we should reconsider New York Times and our other decisions displacing state defamation law,” Thomas wrote in a brief concurrence to the court’s decision not to take up the case. He said that the case, Don Blankenship v. NBC Universal, LLC, was a poor vehicle to reconsider Sullivan.

    Just a few months ago, the conservative justice attacked the ruling in Sullivan in a fiery dissent in which he called it “flawed.” Thomas issued other public critiques of Sullivan in recent years, including in 2019, when he wrote that the ruling and “the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”

    The case at hand concerns Don Blankenship, a former coal baron who was convicted of a federal conspiracy offense related to a deadly 2010 explosion at a mine he ran, in what was one of the worst US mine disasters in decades. His sentence of a year in prison was one day less than a felony sentence.

    “Blankenship himself admits this was a highly unusual sentence for a misdemeanor offense; he notes that he was the only inmate at his prison who was not serving a sentence for a felony conviction,” according to a lower-court opinion in the case.

    During his unsuccessful 2018 US Senate campaign in West Virginia, a number of media organizations erroneously reported that he was a convicted felon, even though his conspiracy offense was classified as a misdemeanor.

    Blankenship sued a slew of news outlets for the error, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Lower courts ruled against him, finding that the outlets did not make the statements with actual malice, the standard required by Sullivan.

    Attorneys for Blankenship told the justices in court papers that the “damage was irreparable” since no felon has ever been elected to the Senate, and urged them to overturn the Sullivan decision.

    “The actual malice standard poses a clear and present danger to our democracy,” they wrote. “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny grant the press a license to publish defamatory falsehoods that misinform voters, manipulate elections, intensify polarization, and incite unrest.”

    Attorneys for the media outlets urged the justices not to take up the case, arguing that it’s “as poor a vehicle as one could imagine to consider” questions related to Sullivan’s holding because, they said, the reporting mistakes were honest ones.

    “There is good reason why the actual malice standard of New York Times has been embraced for so long and so often,” the media organizations told the justices. “At its essence, the standard protects ‘erroneous statements honestly made.’ While it permits recovery for falsehoods uttered with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, it provides the ‘breathing space’ required for ‘free debate.’ A free people engaged in self-government deserves no less.”

    Just last year the court declined to revisit Sullivan in a case brought by a not-for-profit Christian ministry against the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    At the time, Thomas dissented from the court’s refusal to take up the case.

    “I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the ‘actual malice’ standard,” he wrote. “This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

    In 2021, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch also questioned the decision in Sullivan, writing in a dissent when the court decided not to take up a defamation case that the 1964 ruling should be revisited in part because it “has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden interviewed in special counsel’s probe into classified documents found at his home, former office | CNN Politics

    Biden interviewed in special counsel’s probe into classified documents found at his home, former office | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden over the last two days participated in a voluntary interview with special counsel Robert Hur as a part of his classified documents investigation, the White House announced Monday.

    “The President has been interviewed as part of the investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Hur,” White House counsel’s office spokesperson Ian Sams wrote in a statement Monday. “The voluntary interview was conducted at the White House over two days, Sunday and Monday, and concluded Monday.”

    “As we have said from the beginning, the President and the White House are cooperating with this investigation, and as it has been appropriate, we have provided relevant updates publicly, being as transparent as we can consistent with protecting and preserving the integrity of the investigation,” Sams continued, referring additional questions to the Justice Department.

    The interview marks the first major development in the case known to the public in months and stands in stark contrast to Biden’s predecessor. Former President Donald Trump never interviewed with special counsel Robert Mueller during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election despite extensive negotiations over a potential interview. Trump currently faces criminal charges in two separate special counsel investigations, including one regarding his own handling of classified documents after he left the presidency in January 2021.

    The interview comes months after Biden told CNN there had been “no such request and no such interest” for an interview with the special counsel in the investigation.

    A spokesperson for Hur, who oversees the Justice Department’s probe into classified documents found at Biden’s home and former private office, declined to comment to CNN.

    The interview was scheduled weeks ago, according to a person familiar with the matter. It came as Biden spent the three-day holiday weekend in Washington, a rare occurrence.

    The decision to stay at the White House seemed fortuitous as war erupted in Israel but in reality, the choice to skip traveling to one of his Delaware homes was weeks in the making so the president could sit for the interview. Few people inside the White House were aware of the plans, and there was little indication to those who were working there this weekend that the interview was in the works.

    On Saturday morning, the president woke up to urgent news from his senior advisers: Israel was under attack. He convened a meeting of his national security team at 8:15 a.m ET.

    The hours that followed would be filled with a whirlwind of activity for Biden, as he received multiple briefings by his top national security advisers, got on the phone with world leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, and addressed the nation from the State Dining Room.

    The president had a light public schedule Sunday and Monday with no public events, and reporters were given relatively early notice that Biden would not have any public appearances. On Monday, the president met with administration officials about the fighting in Israel in the morning and spoke with allies in the afternoon.

    Some of Biden’s closest advisers were spotted at the White House over the weekend, including chief of staff Jeff Zients and senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, who is married to Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney. The group huddled in the Treaty Room of the White House residence on Saturday to go over Biden’s planned remarks on Israel.

    On Sunday, Biden remained out of public view, though he did speak with Netanyahu by telephone. His interview for the special counsel investigation went undetected by most of those in the building.

    That evening, he hosted a barbeque for White House residence staffers that included live music. On Monday, he continued the interview – even as events in Israel occupied his agenda. Biden stayed out of the public eye, with the White House calling a lid before noon Monday.

    Hur was appointed in January to investigate incidents of classified documents being found at Biden’s former Washington, DC, office and his Wilmington, Delaware, home. Upon announcing the investigation, Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out a timeline of the case that began with the Washington discovery in November 2022.

    The National Archives informed a DOJ prosecutor on November 4 that the White House had made the Archives aware of documents with classified markings that had been found at Biden’s think tank, which was not authorized to store classified materials, Garland said.

    The Archives told the prosecutor that the documents has been secured in an Archives facility. The FBI opened an initial assessment five days later, and on November 14, then-US Attorney John Lausch was tasked with leading that preliminary inquiry. The next month, on December 20, White House counsel informed Lausch of the second batch of apparently classified documents found at Biden’s Wilmington home, according to Garland’s account. Hours before the announcement of Hur’s appointment, a personal attorney for Biden called Lausch and informed him that an additional document marked as classified had been found at Biden’s home.

    The documents were found “among personal and political papers,” according to a statement from the president’s legal team. The FBI later searched Biden’s Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, home in February and found no additional documents.

    While Biden has not often commented on the case, he said in January that he was surprised to learn that classified documents were found in his former office.

    “I was surprised to learn there were any government records that were taken there to that office,” Biden said in response to a reporter’s question at a news conference in Mexico City, where he was attending a trilateral summit with the leaders of Mexico and Canada.

    He emphasized at the time that he did not know what was in the documents. As CNN previously reported, US intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics including Ukraine, Iran and the United Kingdom were among them, according to a source familiar with the matter. Biden didn’t know the documents were there, and didn’t become aware they were there, until his personal lawyers informed the White House counsel’s office, one source familiar with the matter told CNN.

    The president said his attorneys “did what they should have done” by immediately calling the Archives.

    “People know I take classified documents, classified information seriously,” Biden added, saying that the documents were found in “a box, locked cabinet – or at least a closet.”

    After documents were found in his Wilmington home later in January, Biden said he was cooperating fully with the Justice Department. Biden added that the documents were in a “locked garage.”

    “It’s not like they’re sitting out on the street,” he insisted when a reporter asked why he was storing classified material next to a sports car.

    This story has been updated with additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Deadly force against a protester at Atlanta’s future public safety training center was ‘reasonable,’ special prosecutor says | CNN

    Deadly force against a protester at Atlanta’s future public safety training center was ‘reasonable,’ special prosecutor says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The use of force against a protester killed at the future site of the Atlanta public safety center was reasonable, and no charges will be filed against the officers involved, a special prosecutor assigned to investigate the case said Friday.

    Manual Paez Teran, who was camping in the woods in protest at the site dubbed “Cop City,” was shot and killed by state troopers conducting a clearing operation on January 18. The environmental activist was part of a group who believed the planned public safety facility would cause irreversible damage to forest land.

    The case was investigated by special prosecutor George R. Christian, the district attorney pro tempore of the Mountain Circuit District Attorney’s Office.

    Teran “refused to comply with the lawful commands of the Troopers” before the shooting took place, the special prosecutor said in a written statement Friday. Troopers “used a ‘less lethal’ device known as a pepperball launcher” to try to get Teran to leave a tent, Christian wrote.

    Teran responded by shooting four times using a “9 mm pistol through the tent striking and seriously injuring a Georgia State Trooper,” Christian said. “Six Troopers returned fire resulting in the death of Teran.”

    “The use of lethal (deadly) force by the Georgia State Patrol was objectively reasonable under the circumstances of the case,” the special prosecutor said. “No criminal charges will be brought against the Georgia State Patrol Troopers involved in the shooting of Manual Paez Teran.”

    Teran family attorney Jeff Flipovits told CNN “the DA is not the final arbiter.”

    “It’s disturbing that they won’t release the underlying material for the investigation. It’s an abuse of the open records act as far as I’m concerned,” the attorney said.

    Flipovits said the family would be releasing a longer statement later Friday.

    CNN has reached out to the Atlanta Police Department for comment.

    The Georgia State Patrol declined to comment, referring questions to the district attorney’s office.

    The planned 85-acre, $90 million training center has been the subject of debate for years.

    Though the site is just outside Atlanta city limits, the plot of land is owned by the city, meaning residents around the site don’t have voting power for the leaders who approved it.

    The Atlanta Police Foundation, which is helping to fund the project, has said it’s needed to help boost recruitment and morale among police and firefighters who have been using substandard or borrowed facilities.

    Protesters have decried its potential environmental impact and possible role in the further militarization of police. Some demonstrators camped out at the site for months, clashing with police.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ABC: Trump allegedly discussed sensitive nuclear submarine information with a Mar-a-Lago member | CNN Politics

    ABC: Trump allegedly discussed sensitive nuclear submarine information with a Mar-a-Lago member | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about US nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, following his presidency, ABC reported Thursday.

    The member is Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt, sources told ABC. A source familiar with the matter confirmed to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins that Pratt, who had a close relationship with Trump when he occupied the Oval Office, was interviewed by the special counsel probing Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving office. Another source told CNN’s Kristen Holmes that Pratt is on the list of potential witnesses for when the trial begins.

    Sources told ABC that Pratt allegedly went on to share the information he received from the former president during an April 2021 meeting with “more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists.”

    ABC also reported that according to sources, a former Mar-a-Lago employee told investigations that he was “bothered” by the former president disclosing such information to someone who is not a US citizen. He added that he heard Pratt sharing potentially sensitive information minutes after his meeting with the former president, sources told ABC.

    These allegations were not included in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump over his handling of classified documents. But the incident was reported to and investigated by Smith’s team, according to ABC.

    A Trump spokesperson slammed ABC’s report, telling CNN that the claims “lack proper context and relevant information.”

    “The Department of Justice should investigate the criminal leaking, instead of perpetrating their baseless witch-hunts while knowing that President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner, according to the law,” the spokesperson said.

    CNN has reached out to Pratt, who did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.

    Pratt allegedly told investigators that after he told Trump that Australia should buy submarines from the US, the former president went on to share how many nuclear warheads US submarines carry and “how close they can get to a Russian submarine without being detected,” sources told ABC. But Pratt told investigators that he was not shown any government documents, the sources said.

    His company, Pratt Industries, opened a plant in Ohio while Trump was president. Trump attended the opening and praised the businessman in his remarks.

    Another source told CNN’s Collins that during that visit, Pratt planned to unveil two plaques, an official one celebrating the plant’s opening in the US and a second one that he had told Trump about beforehand. The second plaque, which Pratt kept a secret until the day of the visit, read, “Make America and Australia Great Again.” But officials attending the plant’s opening quickly pulled it down and advised Pratt against the move, that source said.

    CNN previously obtained an audio of a July 2021 meeting Trump had in his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, during which the former president acknowledged that he held on to a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran. The audio, exclusively reported by CNN, was a critical piece of evidence in the special counsel’s indictment.

    Trump is facing 40 counts in the classified documents case, including willful retention of national defense information and conspiracy to obstruct justice. It is one of four cases in which the former president has been indicted.

    Trump, who is seeking to return to the White House and remains the GOP front-runner, asked the judge presiding over the case late Wednesday to delay the trial until after the 2024 elections. A similar request was previously denied.

    This story has been updated with additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nadine Menendez hit and killed pedestrian in 2018 car crash referenced in federal indictment | CNN Politics

    Nadine Menendez hit and killed pedestrian in 2018 car crash referenced in federal indictment | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Nadine Arslanian, who would later go on to marry New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez and become Nadine Menendez, hit and killed a pedestrian in a 2018 car crash, according to a police report. That car crash is alleged to be the inception of a bribe in the federal indictment against the couple.

    According to a report from the Bogota, New Jersey, police department, Arslanian struck 49-year-old Richard Koop with her Mercedes-Benz sedan in Bogota in December 2018, killing him. She was driving alone.

    Police questioned Arslanian and concluded she was not at fault for the crash, the report says, and she was released without a summons and allowed to leave the scene of the crash. The pedestrian, Koop, had been jaywalking, according to the police report.

    According to The New York Times, Arslanian was never tested for drugs or alcohol. Authorities must demonstrate probable cause a driver was impaired before testing for alcohol immediately after a crash, Joseph Rotella, a former president of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, told the newspaper.

    The Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office declined to charge her, the Times reported, and the office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNN.

    Speaking to reporters Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Sen. Menendez addressed the car crash.

    “That was a tragic accident,” the Democrat said. “Obviously, we think of the family.”

    The recently uncovered information about the 2018 car crash adds new context to the federal indictment released last month against Nadine Menendez, her senator husband and three others.

    According to the indictment, Nadine Menendez was involved in a car accident around December 2018 that left her without a car.

    The indictment goes on to allege that two of the co-defendants in the case, Wael Hana and Jose Uribe, “offered and then helped to buy” a new Mercedes-Benz convertible worth more than $60,000 for Nadine Menendez in exchange for Sen. Menendez’s interference in a New Jersey state criminal prosecution of one of Uribe’s associates and a related state criminal probe involving one of Uribe’s employees.

    According to the indictment, Sen. Menendez agreed to disrupt the criminal matters in New Jersey.

    Both Bob and Nadine Menendez have pleaded not guilty to all three counts they face as part of the alleged bribery conspiracy. The other three co-defendants have also denied the charges.

    CNN has reached out to a lawyer representing Nadine Menendez for comment. In an interview with the Times, Nadine Menendez’s lawyer said the car crash was a “tragic accident” but was unrelated to her current charges.

    “My understanding was this individual ran in front of her car, and she was not at fault,” David Schertler told the Times.

    CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated Jose Uribe’s name.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The fate of this consumer watchdog is in the hands of the Supreme Court | CNN Business

    The fate of this consumer watchdog is in the hands of the Supreme Court | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in a case that will determine the fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    The case was brought on by the Community Financial Services Association of America, a trade group representing payday lenders.

    The group scored a victory last year in a case it brought before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. The three-judge panel ruled the CFPB’s funding violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and separation of powers. The Supreme Court will have the final say on that, however.

    The consumer watchdog agency was created after the 2008 financial crisis by way of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The agency was the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She began advocating for it in 2007 when she was a Harvard Law School professor.

    The broad purpose of the CFPB is to protect consumers from financial abuses and to serve as the central agency for consumer financial protection authorities.

    Prior to the CFPB’s formation, “[c]onsumer financial protection had not been the primary focus of any federal agency, and no agency had effective tools to set the rules for and oversee the whole market,” the agency said on its site.

    The CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve in an effort to keep the agency independent from political pressure. It also means that the agency doesn’t depend on Congressional appropriations funds.

    While there are critics of the agency’s current structure and funding, it has saved consumers money, made it easier for them to seek redress and to get better clarity and more tailored responses from companies when they have a problem with their accounts, loans or credit reports.

    “Today virtually all financial transactions for residential real estate in the United States depend upon compliance with the CFPB’s rules, and consumers rely on the rights and protections provided by those rules,” the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Homebuilders and the National Association of Realtors said in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

    For instance, the CFPB recently ordered Bank of America to pay $100 million to customers and $90 million in penalties saying that the nation’s second-largest bank harmed consumers by double-dipping on fees, withholding credit card rewards and opening fake accounts.

    The CFPB also took action against Wells Fargo after the agency found the bank had been engaging in multiple abusive and unlawful consumer practices across several financial products between 2011 and 2022 — from auto loans to mortgage loans to bank accounts.

    The agency ordered the bank to pay a $1.7 billion civil penalty in addition to more than $2 billion to compensate consumers.

    The Supreme Court’s decision, which likely won’t be announced until the spring of 2024, has far-reaching implications.

    If the Supreme Court finds the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional, it could shutter the agency and invalidate all of its prior rulings.

    “Without those rules substantial uncertainty would arise as to how to undertake mortgage transactions in accordance with federal law,” the associations said in their joint brief. “The housing market could descend into chaos, to the detriment of all mortgage borrowers,” they added.

    It could also call into question the constitutionality of other government agencies like the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that also aren’t funded by Congressional appropriations.

    “We are confident in the constitutionality of the statute that created the CFPB within the Federal Reserve System and provides its funding,” Sam Gilford, a spokesperson for the CFPB, told CNN in a statement. “We will continue to carry out the vital work Congress has charged us to perform.”

    There’s also a way for the Supreme Court to change the CFPB’s funding structure in a way that wouldn’t invalidate prior rulings, said Joseph Lynyak III, a partner at the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney and a regulatory reform expert.

    “This result would be far more probable rather than voiding the last decade of the CFPB’s activity,” he added.

    From listening to the case on Tuesday, though, Lynyak believes the Supreme Court will rule that the CFPB’s funding structure is constitutional.

    “As we have argued from the outset, the CFPB’s unique funding mechanism lacks any contemporary or historical precedent,” said Noel Francisco, a lawyer arguing on behalf of those challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure.

    He added that it “improperly shields the agency from congressional oversight and accountability, and unconstitutionally strips Congress of its power of the purse under the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.

    But both Republican and Democratic-appointed justices told Francisco on Tuesday they could not understand the crux of his argument.

    “I’m at a total loss,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Echoing her remarks, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, “we’re all struggling to figure out what’s the standard that you would use.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Execution of convicted murderer on death row since 1997 in Florida scheduled for Tuesday night | CNN

    Execution of convicted murderer on death row since 1997 in Florida scheduled for Tuesday night | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Michael Duane Zack III, who was convicted of the 1996 killings of two women he met at bars along the Florida panhandle, is scheduled to be executed at 6 p.m. at the Florida State Prison, according to the state’s Department of Corrections.

    The US Supreme Court on Monday denied a request to halt the execution of the death row inmate after attorneys for Zack filed a stay of execution last week, court records show.

    In the filing, Zack’s lawyers allege a lower court was wrong to “deny his claim that he is intellectually disabled.”

    “At trial, Zack’s defense counsel argued that Zack suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome and posttraumatic stress disorder which are classified as a brain dysfunction and a mental impairment respectively,” according to a state capital case summary.

    On Thursday, attorneys for the state of Florida filed a response opposing the stay of execution, court records show.

    The nation’s highest court denied the appeal Monday afternoon without comment, court records show.

    In 1997, Zack was convicted and sentenced to death for the June 1996 murder of Ravonne Smith, whom he violently killed in her home after meeting at a bar near Pensacola, according to a state capital case summary. Zack received a life sentence for the murder of Laura Rosillo at an Okaloosa County, Florida, beach, whom he also met at a bar before killing, according to the case summary.

    “After his arrest, Zack confessed to the murder of Ravonne Smith,” said the case summary.

    Zack’s execution will be the eighth under Gov. Ron DeSantis and the sixth in the state this year, according to state death row data.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gerry Adams Fast Facts | CNN

    Gerry Adams Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Gerry Adams, former president of Sinn Fein, the leading republican political party in Northern Ireland.

    Birth date: October 6, 1948

    Birth place: Belfast, Northern Ireland

    Birth name: Gerard Adams

    Father: Gerry Adams, laborer and republican activist

    Mother: Annie (Hannaway) Adams, mill worker

    Marriage: Colette (McArdle) Adams (1971-present)

    Children: Gearóid

    Religion: Catholic

    Sinn Fein means “we ourselves.”

    Has written more than 10 books.

    Denies being a member of the Irish Republican Army.

    Early 1960s – Joins Sinn Fein, which supports the reunion of British-ruled Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland.

    1972 – Suspected of being an Irish Republican Army leader, Adams is interned without trial.

    July 1972 – Is released to participate in secret peace talks with the British government.

    1973-1977 – After peace talks fail, Adams is imprisoned again.

    1978 – Elected vice president of Sinn Fein.

    1983 – Elected president of Sinn Fein.

    1983-1992 – Is the elected representative for West Belfast in the British House of Commons. Following Sinn Fein policy, Adams never takes his seat in order to avoid taking the obligatory oath of loyalty to the Queen of England.

    1984 – Is shot and seriously wounded during an assassination attempt.

    1988 – Begins talks with John Hume, the leader of Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic and Labour Party.

    1993 – Adams and Hume issue a statement suggesting ways to peacefully settle the conflict in Northern Ireland.

    1994 – Is granted his first US visa.

    1997 – Meets with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    April 1998 – The Good Friday Agreement, also known as the Belfast Agreement, is signed, establishing a democratically elected assembly in Northern Ireland. The assembly is suspended several times, with the last suspension ending in 2007.

    June 1998 – Is elected to the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

    2011 – Is elected to the Dáil, Ireland’s parliament.

    April 30-May 4, 2014 – Adams is held for questioning in connection with the 1972 Irish Republican Army abduction and slaying of Jean McConville, a mother of 10.

    May 19, 2015 – Meets Prince Charles. This is the first meeting between a member of the British Royal Family and the leader of Sinn Fein.

    May 22, 2015 – Calls the election results making Ireland the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote, “a huge day for equality.”

    September 29, 2015 – Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service confirms that Adams and six others will not be prosecuted in connection with the 1972 murder of Jean McConville.

    March 16, 2016 – The Secret Service apologizes for denying Adams entry to a White House reception, blaming the mix-up on an administrative error. Adams was invited to attend St. Patrick’s Day celebrations on March 15, but when he arrived he says staff informed him that there was an issue of security.

    November 18, 2017 – During Sinn Fein’s annual meeting in Dublin, Ireland, Adams announces his intention to stand down as president in 2018.

    February 10, 2018 – Steps down as president of Sinn Fein.

    July 13, 2018 – An explosive device is thrown at Adams’ home in Belfast, and at the home of Bobby Storey, another Sinn Fein leader. An arrest is made on July 17 in connection to the attacks.

    October 2018 – “The Negotiator’s Cook Book,” which contains recipes Adam’s calls “the best-kept secrets” behind the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, is published.

    October 17, 2019 – A Belfast court dismisses a case against former IRA member Ivor Bell, also clearing Adams of any links to the murder of McConville.

    February 2020 – The Guardian reports that Adams is part of Sinn Fein’s government formation negotiating team, according to a leaked brief. His name does not appear on the list of the negotiating team released by the party. This follows Sinn Fein’s win of a number of seats during Ireland’s general election earlier in the month. In his blog, Adams writes the that the party has always had additional advisers.

    May 13, 2020 – The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court rules that Adams was unlawfully imprisoned in the 1970s and overturns two convictions against him for trying to escape from prison.

    April 28, 2023 – Belfast’s high court rules that Adams was wrongly denied compensation after his convictions were overturned in 2020.

    July 4, 2023 – The House of Lords announces amendments to the government’s legacy bill which would deny compensation to Adams and others who were imprisoned without trial in the 1970s.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A man is convicted of attempted murder in shooting of 2 Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in 2020 | CNN

    A man is convicted of attempted murder in shooting of 2 Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in 2020 | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A jury on Thursday convicted a man on charges relating to a series of crimes, including attempted murder in the shooting of two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies outside a transit station in September 2020, prosecutors said.

    Deonte Murray, 39, was found guilty on 10 charges, including three counts of attempted murder, carjacking, robbery, assault with a semi-automatic firearm and illegal possession of firearms, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said Thursday.

    Murray shot two sheriff’s deputies while they were sitting in their car outside a Metro station in Compton, California, on September 12, 2020, authorities said. He was arrested three days after the shooting triggered a massive manhunt as the officers underwent surgery and recovery.

    Days before the officers’ shooting, Murray carried out other crimes, authorities said. In Compton on September 1, 2020, he shot the owner of a Mercedes-Benz in the leg with a high-powered rifle before stealing the car, prosecutors said.

    Police initially identified Murray as a suspect in the carjacking and arrested him September 15, 2020, authorities said. As police pursued him that day, Murray tossed a firearm from his car, and the weapon was later found to be the same gun used to shoot the deputies, Los Angeles County sheriff’s Capt. Kent Wegener said at the time. The firearm was a ghost gun, Wegener said, using a term for a weapon that is typically challenging to trace because it’s made from assembled parts.

    Police identified him as a suspect in the deputies’ shooting after his arrest in the carjacking, authorities said.

    The deputies’ shooting was caught on surveillance video, which showed a gunman walking up to the passenger door of their squad car parked outside the Martin Luther King Jr. Transit Center and opening fire and running away.

    Murray faces a life sentence in prison, the district attorney said in a news release Thursday. Murray’s attorney declined to comment on the conviction.

    “This verdict reaffirms our commitment to protecting those who serve and sends a clear message that acts of violence will not go unpunished,” Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from President Biden’s first impeachment hearing by House Oversight panel | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans kicked off their first impeachment inquiry hearing Thursday laying out the allegations they will pursue against President Joe Biden, though their expert witnesses acknowledged Republicans don’t yet have the evidence to prove the accusation they’re leveling.

    Thursday’s hearing in the House Oversight Committee didn’t include witnesses who could speak directly to Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealing at the center of the inquiry, but the hearing offered Republicans the chance to show some of the evidence they’ve uncovered to date.

    None of that evidence has shown Joe Biden received any financial benefit from his son’s business dealings, but Republicans said at Thursday’s hearing what they’ve found so far has given them the justification to launch their impeachment inquiry.

    Democrats responded by accusing Republicans of doing Donald Trump’s bidding and raising his and his family’s various foreign dealings themselves, as well as Trump’s attempts to get Ukraine to investigate in 2019 the same allegations now being raised in the impeachment inquiry.

    Here’s takeaways from Thursday’s first impeachment inquiry hearing:

    While Republicans leveled accusations of corruption against Joe Biden over his son’s business dealings, the GOP expert witnesses who testified Thursday were not ready to go that far.

    Forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky, one of the GOP witnesses, undercut Republicans’ main narrative by saying there wasn’t enough evidence yet for him to conclude that there was “corruption” by the Bidens.

    “I am not here today to even suggest that there was corruption, fraud or wrongdoing,” Dubinsky said. “More information needs to be gathered before I can make such an assessment.”

    He said there was a “smokescreen” surrounding Hunter Biden’s finances, including complex overseas shell companies, which he said raise questions for a fraud expert about possible “illicit” activities.

    Conservative law professor Jonathan Turley also said that the House does not yet have evidence to support articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, but argued that House Republicans were justified in opening an impeachment inquiry.

    “I want to emphasize what it is that we’re here today for. This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment,” Turley said. “In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is something that an inquiry has to establish. But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”

    Turley said that Biden’s false statements about his knowledge of Hunter Biden’s business endeavors, as well as the unproven allegations that Biden may have benefited from his son’s business deals, were reason for the House to move forward with the impeachment inquiry. (CNN has previously reported that Joe Biden’s unequivocal denials of any business-related contact with his son have been undercut over time, including by evidence uncovered by House Republicans.)

    Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor, has repeatedly backed up Republican arguments on key legal matters in recent years, including his opposition to Trump’s first and second impeachments.

    Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, pushed Turley further on his comments, asking whether he would vote “no” today on impeachment.

    “On this evidence, certainly,” Turley said. “At the moment, these are allegations. There is some credible evidence there that is the basis of the allegations.”

    Witnesses are sworn in before the House Oversight Committee on September 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

    House Republicans opened their first impeachment hearing Thursday with a series of lofty claims against the president, as they try to connect him to his son’s “corrupt” business dealings overseas.

    House Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer claimed the GOP probes have “uncovered a mountain of evidence revealing how Joe Biden abused his public office for his family’s financial gain,” even though he hasn’t put forward any concrete evidence backing up that massive allegation.

    Two other Republican committee chairs further pressed their case, including by citing some of the newly released Internal Revenue Service documents, which two IRS whistleblowers claim show how the Justice Department intervened in the Hunter Biden criminal probe to protect the Biden family. However, many of their examples of alleged wrongdoing occurred during the Trump administration before Joe Biden took office.

    Ahead of the hearing, the Republican chairs released a formal framework laying out the scope of their probe, saying it “will span the time of Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency to the present, including his time out of office.”

    The document outlines specific lines of inquiry, including whether Biden engaged in “corruption, bribery, and influence peddling” – none of which Republicans have proved yet.

    The memo included four questions the Republicans are seeking to answer related to whether Biden took any action related to payments his family received or if the president obstructed the investigations into Hunter Biden.

    House Oversight Committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2023.

    At the close of the hearing Thursday, Comer announced that he was issuing subpoenas for the bank records of the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and brother, James Biden.

    The subpoenas will be for Hunter and James Biden’s personal and business bank records, a source familiar with the subpoenas confirmed.

    The subpoenas are not a surprise, as Comer has been signaling his intention to issue the subpoenas for the personal bank records. They show where Republicans will head next in their investigation as they continue to seek evidence to substantiate their unproven allegations about the president.

    Some inside the GOP expressed frustration to CNN in real time with how the House GOP’s first impeachment inquiry hearing is playing out, as the Republican witnesses directly undercut the GOP’s own narrative and admit there is no evidence that Biden has committed impeachable offenses.

    “You want witnesses that make your case. Picking witnesses that refute House Republicans arguments for impeachment is mind blowing,” one senior GOP aide told CNN. “This is an unmitigated disaster.”

    One GOP lawmaker also expressed some disappointment with their performance thus far, telling CNN: “I wish we had more outbursts.”

    The bar for Thursday’s hearing was set low: Republicans admitted they would not reveal any new evidence, but were hoping to at least make the public case for why their impeachment inquiry is warranted, especially as some of their own members remain skeptical of the push.

    But some Republicans are not even paying attention, as Congress is on the brink of a shutdown – a point Democrats hammered during the hearing.

    “I haven’t watched or listened to a moment of it,” said another GOP lawmaker. There’s a shutdown looming.”

    Rep Jim Jordan delivers remarks during the House Oversight Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2023 in Washington, DC.

    Democrats repeatedly pointed out that the Republican allegations about foreign payments were tied to money that went mostly Hunter Biden – but not the to the president.

    “The majority sits completely empty handed with no evidence of any presidential wrongdoing, no smoking gun, no gun, no smoke,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee.

    Raskin’s staff brought in the 12,000 pages of bank records the committee has received so far, as Raskin said, “not a single page shows a dime going to President Joe Biden.”

    Raskin also had a laptop open displaying a countdown clock for when the government shuts down in a little more than two days – another point Democrats used to bash Republicans for focusing on impeachment and failing to pass bills to fund the government. The Democrats passed the laptop around to each lawmaker as they had their five minutes to question the witnesses.

    Their arguments also previewed how Democrats intend to play defense for the White House as Republicans move forward on their impeachment inquiry.

    The Democrats needled Republicans for not holding a vote on an impeachment inquiry – one Democrat asked Turley whether he would recommend a vote, which Turley said he would.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks on the Democratic side of the aisle, as the House Oversight Committee begins an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

    House Democrats’ 2019 impeachment of Trump was sparked by Trump’s attempts to push Ukraine to investigate allegations involving Biden and his son’s position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company – some of the same allegations now being probed by the House GOP.

    That led Democrats Thursday to push for testimony from Rudy Giuliani, who as Trump’s personal lawyer sought to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine in 2019.

    Twice, the Democrats forced the Oversight Committee to vote on Democratic motions to subpoena Giuliani, votes that served as stunts to try to hammer home their argument that Giuliani tried and failed to corroborate the same allegations at the heart of the Biden impeachment inquiry.

    “I ask the question: Where in the world is Rudy Giuliani?” said Rep. Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, one of the Democrats who forced the procedural vote. “That’s how we got here, ladies and gentlemen. And this committee is afraid to bring him before us and put him on the record. Shame! And the question was raised. What does this have to do with it? It has everything to do with it.”

    In addition to Giuliani, Raskin sought testimony from Lev Parnas, an associate of Giuliani’s who was indicted in 2019. Parnas subsequently cooperated with the Democratic impeachment inquiry, including providing a statement from a top official at Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company, stating, “No one from Burisma had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him.”

    Several Democrats also raised Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who worked in the White House, receiving $2 billion from Saudi Arabia through a company he formed after leaving the White House.

    The Democrats charged that Kushner’s actions were far worse than Hunter Biden’s, because Kushner worked in government, while Biden’s son did not.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 5 takeaways from America’s landmark lawsuit against Amazon | CNN Business

    5 takeaways from America’s landmark lawsuit against Amazon | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    An antitrust lawsuit from 17 states and the Federal Trade Commission this week against Amazon represents the US government’s biggest regulatory challenge yet against the e-commerce juggernaut.

    The landmark case targets Amazon’s retail platform, alleging that it’s harmed shoppers and sellers alike on a massive scale.

    Through an alleged “self-reinforcing cycle of dominance and harm,” the plaintiffs claim, Amazon has run an illegal monopoly in ways that are “paying off for Amazon, but at great cost to tens of millions of American households and hundreds of thousands of sellers.”

    In response, Amazon has argued the case is “wrong on the facts and the law” and warned that a victory for the FTC would lead to slower shipping times or higher prices, including perhaps for Amazon’s Prime subscription service.

    Here are five of the biggest highlights and takeaways from the plaintiffs’ 172-page lawsuit.

    The plaintiffs’ central claim is that Amazon has used a variety of tactics to lure shoppers and sellers onto its platform and then to trap them there, preventing other online retailers like Walmart, Target or eBay from attracting those same consumers and vendors to their own sites.

    Walmart, Target and eBay are not parties to the suit.

    Not only has that lock-in effect hurt competition between the likes of Amazon and Walmart, the lawsuit claims, but it has also given Amazon confidence it can exploit its sellers and shoppers with impunity — allowing the company to extract ever more value from them without fear those people will leave for a rival platform.

    The complaint portrays Amazon as offering a kind of Faustian bargain — first enticing sellers with the ability to access tens of millions of potential customers and drawing in shoppers with low prices and numerous Prime benefits, such as Amazon Music and Prime Video, that other e-commerce platforms can’t hope to match.

    Then, in the plaintiffs’ narrative, Amazon takes advantage of sellers’ and shoppers’ dependence by increasing platform fees; bloating its search results with advertising that sellers are forced to buy if they want any hope of reaching shoppers; requiring sellers to use Amazon’s in-house fulfillment services if they want the best seller benefits, including the coveted “Prime” badge; and punishing sellers who try to sell their goods elsewhere online at a lower price than on Amazon.

    The overall result, the plaintiffs claim, is a worse experience for Amazon users and artificially high prices for everyone, including on non-Amazon platforms.

    “There are internet-wide effects here,” FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters on a conference call Tuesday.

    Amazon has responded that the lawsuit “reveals the Commission’s fundamental misunderstanding of retail.” Amazon’s general counsel, David Zapolsky, wrote in a blog post that the company’s pricing programs for sellers are meant to “help them offer competitive prices,” that consumers “love Prime because it’s such a great experience,” and that the claim “that we somehow force sellers to use our optional services is simply not true.”

    A big, swirling question is whether Amazon could be broken up as a result of this suit.

    Officially, the FTC is saying that talk of a breakup is premature.

    “At this stage, the complaint is really focused on the issue of liability,” Khan said at an event hosted by Bloomberg News on Tuesday, hours after the lawsuit was filed.

    If the courts find that Amazon did violate the law, then there could be a separate remedies phase to consider potential penalties.

    A breakup is not off the table. The plaintiffs’ complaint, filed in Seattle federal court, suggests that any court order to address the issue could include “structural relief,” a legal term referring to a potential breakup of Amazon.

    Khan also left open the possibility that Amazon executives could be held personally liable and added to the case if there is sufficient evidence of their responsibility for Amazon’s alleged misconduct.

    “We want to make sure that we are bringing cases against the right defendants,” Khan said in response to a question from CNN about whether the FTC considered naming specific executives in Tuesday’s case. “If we think that there is a basis for doing so, we won’t hesitate to do that.”

    Those remarks echo what Khan has said elsewhere about her willingness to name individuals in FTC enforcement actions. Just this month, the FTC added three Amazon officials to a separate consumer protection case dealing with Amazon Prime.

    An entire section of the complaint is devoted to a mysterious algorithm Amazon has developed named Project Nessie. Virtually every detail surrounding Project Nessie is heavily redacted from the complaint, but what little is revealed about the program suggests it is an “algorithmic tool” and “pricing system” that has allegedly helped Amazon “extract” an undisclosed amount of “excess profit” from Amazon shoppers.

    Amazon did not respond to CNN’s questions about Project Nessie. And Project Nessie isn’t the only matter subject to redactions in the lawsuit; black bars obscuring key business numbers, executive testimony and other evidence are strewn throughout the complaint.

    In response to public questioning about the redactions, FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said in a statement: “We share the frustration that much of the data and quotes by Amazon executives … is redacted,” and that “we do not believe that there are compelling reasons to keep much of this information secret from the public.”

    Farrar added that Amazon has a limited procedural window in which to file arguments for why many of the redacted details should remain sealed.

    Whether the FTC can prove in court that Amazon’s actions are illegal will hinge, to a large degree, on showing that Amazon has monopolized certain specific markets.

    The exercise is not as simple as pointing to Amazon’s sales figures or the percentage of online shopping that happens on Amazon’s platform. Instead, the plaintiffs have to show that Amazon is part of a well-defined geographic and economic market that it dominates.

    The complaint tries to define two such markets in the United States: a market the plaintiffs label as “online superstores” — essentially describing large retail websites that offer many different types of goods, with convenient search, checkout and shipping features for consumers — and a seller-focused “online marketplace services” market that grants third-party vendors access to customers, provides them with sales tools like data analytics and listing services, and a review or product ratings system, among other things.

    Expect Amazon to try to challenge how the plaintiffs draw their market boundaries. Zapolsky’s blog post argues that the plaintiffs have attempted to “gerrymander” their proposed markets to make it look like Amazon is more dominant than it is.

    Whether that argument succeeds will be up to the court, but it is clear the plaintiffs have carefully crafted their market definitions. For example, they claim that in this case, Amazon can’t be said to compete with online grocery delivery services such as FreshDirect or Instacart because of the unique and often hyper-local constraints of shipping perishable goods. The FTC also wants to exclude medium-sized or interest-specific retail sites that don’t offer a wide variety of products. Presumably this might exclude websites belonging to companies like the pet care retailer Chewy, or the electronics seller Best Buy.

    FreshDirect, Instacart, Chewy and Best Buy are not parties to the suit.

    Excluding those types of companies allows the plaintiffs to make claims such as that “Amazon’s share of the overall value of goods sold by online superstores is well above 60% — and rising.”

    Even as the lawsuit takes on some of the most important parts of Amazon’s retail business, there is much that the suit doesn’t cover.

    In recent years, critics of Amazon have lobbed a kitchen sink of antitrust allegations at the company, including that it snoops on seller data to figure out what products it should sell under its own brand; that the fact Amazon sells its own products alongside third-party sellers creates an anticompetitive conflict of interest; that Amazon has used predatory pricing to weaken rivals and to ultimately acquire them; and that Amazon wields enormous power in labor markets. Many of these observations were included as part of a 450-page congressional report that Khan helped author while working as a House Judiciary Committee staffer prior to being appointed to the FTC.

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has acknowledged in congressional testimony the possibility that employees may have inappropriately accessed seller data in violation of company policy, but Amazon has broadly disputed most of the other allegations.

    Virtually none of those claims, however, are reflected in this week’s lawsuit. The complaint does allege that Amazon biases its search results to rank its own products higher than those sold by third parties, but largely as a byproduct of Amazon’s main moves to protect its dominance.

    The complaint doesn’t articulate how regulators came to select some allegations and not others.

    When a reporter asked Khan to reflect on her past criticism of how narrowly courts have focused on the issue of consumer prices, in contrast to Tuesday’s Amazon suit that mentions the word “price” some 223 times, not including any redacted parts, Khan said her job was to present the case that stood the best chance of winning.

    “As enforcers, we want to both follow the facts where they take us and also look at how the law applies to the facts,” Khan said. “You want to bring the strongest case that you can.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Convicted felon suspected of killing Baltimore tech CEO has been arrested, police say | CNN

    Convicted felon suspected of killing Baltimore tech CEO has been arrested, police say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A convicted felon suspected of killing tech executive Pava LaPere in Baltimore this week has been arrested, Baltimore police said early Thursday.

    Jason Dean Billingsley was wanted on first-degree murder and other charges in connection with the death of LaPere, the 26-year-old CEO of Baltimore-based startup EcoMap Technologies, according to police.

    Police did not immediately provide details about the arrest.

    LaPere was found dead in a downtown Baltimore apartment building on Monday with apparent blunt force trauma to her head, police said. The killing prompted a dayslong manhunt for Billingsley, who officials warned should be considered armed and dangerous.

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • More than a dozen people were arrested after multiple stores were looted around Philadelphia, police say | CNN

    More than a dozen people were arrested after multiple stores were looted around Philadelphia, police say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    More than a dozen people were arrested after stores were looted when a large crowd gathered in Philadelphia’s Center City district Tuesday night, police said.

    The looting began shortly after the conclusion of peaceful protests against a judge’s decision to dismiss all charges against a former Philadelphia police officer, Mark Dial, in the fatal shooting of 27-year-old Eddie Irizarry on August 14, authorities said. The city’s police commissioner said he believes the looters were “opportunists” that were not directly connected to the protests.

    “This had nothing to do with the protests. What we had tonight was a bunch of criminal opportunists take advantage of a situation,” Commissioner John Stanford in a late-night news conference.

    Police started getting calls around 8 p.m. from businesses reporting they were being broken into or getting ransacked, Stanford said.

    The protest over the Irizarry case ended around 7:30 p.m., and though the police department had begun moving officers out of the area, enough were around to respond quickly when 911 calls about break-ins began, Stanford said.

    Officers responded to the stores, arresting around “15 to 20 people” and working to disperse growing crowds of “juveniles and young adults,” Stanford said.

    “We were told at one point that crowd got as large as maybe 100 or so that were just making their way through Center City area,” the commissioner said.

    Reports of looting began in the Center City area, then continued in other neighborhoods, according to Stanford.

    “We’re investigating that there was possibly a caravan of a number of different vehicles that were going from location to location,” the commissioner told reporters.

    It appears looters came from different parts of the city, Stanford said, adding that officers still were determining where they came from and how the different vehicles may be connected.

    Stanford said it was unclear how many businesses were hit Tuesday, but that targeted stores included clothing and sneaker shops, high-end stores, wine and spirit stores and pharmacies.

    Cell phone video obtained by CNN shows several people in hooded sweatshirts running in and ransacking an Apple store Tuesday night. Different video captured officers detaining several people outside a Lululemon store, where items of clothing could be seen littering the ground.

    Elsewhere, officers were seen outside a Foot Locker store, where the window was smashed and merchandise was strewn around the floor, video from CNN affiliate KYW showed.

    Police respond to reports of looting incidents in Philadelphia on Tuesday.

    Police still were responding to 911 calls related to the looting as Stanford briefed the media Tuesday night, but the commissioner said he believes officers “have it contained.”

    Investigators will be looking through video from the area to make additional arrests, Stanford said.

    “We made arrests and we will continue to make arrests until we have all of the individuals, or a number of the individuals, that have been responsible for what we’ve seen tonight in custody,” he said.

    The reports lootings in Philadelphia come as a wave of retailers – both large and small – say they’re struggling to contain store crimes that have hurt their bottom lines.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court returns to Washington to face a new term and the fresh reality that critics increasingly view the court as a political body.

    In the wake of a series of controversial decisions made possible by former President Donald Trump’s three nominees, including the seismic reversal of Roe v. Wade, the justices find themselves catapulted into the very center of the political discourse.

    Their opinions feature prominently on the campaign trail, approval ratings have plummeted to new lows and Democrats in Congress are vowing to regulate the third branch in the midst of allegations justices are skirting ethics rules and attacks on the very legitimacy of the court.

    So far, they have struggled to respond. At public appearances they grasp at the promise of judicial independence while sending mixed signals about changes that might be afoot.

    Tuesday, the justices will meet in person for their first closed-door conference of the term.

    Chief Justice John Roberts is at the center of it all.

    How he navigates this term will shape the trajectory of his tenure going forward. Some say he’ll remain on the sidelines, out of the fray. Others say he cannot afford to do so.

    Earlier this year, Roberts declined an invitation to appear before the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss Supreme Court ethics, citing separation of powers concerns. In May, speaking before an audience in Washington, Roberts said he wanted to assure the public that the court is committed to adhering to the “highest standards of conduct.”

    It was one line in one speech.

    But at the end of June, as controversy continued amid a raft of high-profile decisions that largely broke along ideological lines, Roberts made an unusual choice. In a 6-3 opinion striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, the chief strayed from the case at hand.

    He said that it had become a “disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of government.”

    He appeared to be responding to the dissent penned by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper limited role in our Nation’s governance,” Kagan began.

    Noting her disagreement, Roberts took the occasion to write, “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement.” He added: “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote.

    It was unclear if the line was directed at his dissenting colleagues or critics outside of court or both, but it was an unusual digression from a justice who, by definition, lacks an obvious pulpit to defend his branch of government.

    The way forward for Roberts is not obvious.

    Even if he did believe a formal ethics code is necessary, it’s unclear whether he would need a unanimous vote to move forward. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might, for instance, balk at such a move arguing that it would never satisfy critics whose true goal is to damage the institution.

    Some believe Roberts ultimately will steer clear of the controversy.

    “I don’t see him moving in any direction to encourage further disclosure reforms, and I don’t see Congress as being able to get sufficient traction,” Cate Stetson, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells, said at the Cato Institute earlier this month.

    But if the court does nothing, pressure will continue.

    Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, a Democrat, traveled to the Supreme Court on September 12 as an invited guest to the annual meeting of the Judicial Conference – the policymaking body for the federal courts.

    Sitting next to the chief justice on Roberts’ home turf, Durbin lobbied him to adopt an enforceable code of conduct directed specifically at the justices, according to a source.

    Roberts and others have continuously stressed how difficult it would be to adopt such a code, particularly when it comes to recusal issues.

    In April, all nine justices released a new statement hoping to provide “clarity” to the public about their ethics procedures, noting that they consult a “wide variety of authorities” when addressing specific ethics issues. They noted that while the Judicial Conference has a code of conduct followed by lower court judges, the conference “does not supervise the Supreme Court.”

    The statement outlined complications that distinguish the Supreme Court from the lower courts.

    At the lower court level, for instance, federal judges can substitute for each other if one judge recuses from a case. That’s not true at the high court where only members can hear a dispute.

    The statement did little to appease critics who say the justices can no longer continue to voluntarily follow rules that govern lower court judges. They must, critics say, have a code of conduct that binds them directly.

    Response from the bench

    Some conservatives believe there is no impending judicial crisis. Instead, they say, critics of the court are manufacturing a controversy to delegitimize the institution and staunch the flow of conservative opinions.

    Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, who is also a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, tweeted recently that the problem is not corruption.

    “The problem is the coordinated campaign by dark money activists, radical politicians, and a willing media to imply there is corruption, undermining the Court’s integrity and selectively smearing the justices they disagree with,” she wrote.

    Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, has taken a radically different approach than the chief justice.

    In an interview in July that appeared on The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, Alito said forthrightly that Congress should stay out of the Supreme Court’s business.

    “I know this is controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” he said. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

    Alito said that he marveled “at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year” and noted that in the face of a political onslaught he was rejecting the notion that judges and justices “should be mute” and leave it to others to defend them.

    “I’ve said to myself, nobody else is going to do this, so I have to defend myself,” he wrote.

    A month earlier he sought to preempt a ProPublica report that had not yet been published concerning allegations that he should have disclosed luxury travel from 2008.

    Over the summer, other justices were asked about ethics and the court’s legitimacy by friendly questioners at universities and judicial conferences – although they never addressed specifics.

    Unlike Alito, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in August that here was some daylight on the question of whether Congress has a role to regulate the Supreme Court. Last week, she told an audience in Indiana that she thought it would be a “good” idea if the court were to adapt the ethics code used by lower court justices to fit the Supreme Court.

    For her part, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that criticism of the court is nothing new. At an appearance before a judicial conference in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, she said that “critiques of the court” are part of its history. Public criticism “comes with the job” she said.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a different message in Ohio saying he was “hopeful” that there would be some “concrete steps” taken soon to address the ethics issue.

    But his sentiment may have been aspirational.

    As the justices grapple with how to respond, they are hampered by an additional factor.

    Change at the high court comes slowly. The court’s unofficial mascot – the tortoise – can be found at the bottom of bronze lampposts on the building grounds. The tortoises are meant to symbolize the slow and steady pace of justice.

    Almost nothing at the high court comes quickly, and the institution is not new to controversy. The justices may decide to ride out the storm.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3M agrees to pay almost $10 million to settle apparent Iran sanctions violations | CNN Business

    3M agrees to pay almost $10 million to settle apparent Iran sanctions violations | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    3M has agreed to pay almost $10 million to settle apparent violations of Iranian sanctions, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control said last week.

    The agency said 3M had 54 apparent violations of OFAC sanctions on Iran. It said between 2016 and 2018, a 3M subsidiary in Switzerland allegedly knowingly sold reflective license plate sheeting through a German reseller to Bonyad Taavon Naja, an entity which is under Iranian law enforcement control.

    It’s the latest of a stream of high-publicity and high-dollar settlements that 3M — which makes Post-It notes, Scotch Tape, N95 masks and other industrial products — has made this year.

    3M has not replied to a request for comment regarding last week’s settlement announcement.

    One US person employed by 3M Gulf, a subsidiary in Dubai, was “closely involved” in the sale, OFAC said.

    The alleged sales occurred after an outside due diligence report, which flagged connections to Iran’s Law Enforcement Forces.

    OFAC notes Iranian law enforcement stands accused of human rights violations both in Iran and Syria.

    The Switzerland subsidiary, known as 3M East, sent 43 shipments to the German reseller even though it knew the products would be resold to the Iranian entity, according to the OFAC.

    OFAC said senior managers at 3M Gulf “willfully violated” sanctions laws and that other employees were “reckless in their handling” of the sales.

    “These employees had reason to know that these sales would violate U.S. sanctions, but ignored ample evidence that would have alerted them to this fact,” OFAC wrote.

    3M voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations after discovering the sale hadn’t been authorized, according to OFAC. It said it fired or reprimanded “culpable” employees involved, hired new trade compliance counsel, revamped sanctions trainings and stopped doing business with the German reseller.

    In June, 3M agreed to pay up to $10.3 billion over 13 years to fund public water suppliers in the United States that have detected toxic “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

    3M has faced thousands of lawsuits through the last two decades over its manufacturing of products containing polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been found in hundreds of household products.

    3M said that the multi-billion-dollar settlement over PFAS is not an admission of liability.

    A few months later, in August, the company agreed to pay $6 billion to resolve roughly 300,000 lawsuits alleging that the manufacturing company supplied faulty combat earplugs to the military that resulted in significant injuries, such as hearing loss.

    3M also said its earplug agreement was not an admission of liability.

    [ad_2]

    Source link