ReportWire

Tag: international-us news

  • 21 Donald Trump election lies listed in his new indictment | CNN Politics

    21 Donald Trump election lies listed in his new indictment | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Special counsel Jack Smith said Tuesday that the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol was “fueled by lies” told by former President Donald Trump. The indictment of Trump on four new federal criminal charges, all related to the former president’s effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, lays out some of those lies one by one.

    Even in listing 21 lies, the 45-page indictment does not come close to capturing the entirety of Trump’s massive catalogue of false claims about the election. But the list is illustrative nonetheless – highlighting the breadth of election-related topics Trump was dishonest about, the large number of states his election dishonesty spanned, and, critically, his willingness to persist in privately and publicly making dishonest assertions even after they had been debunked to him directly.

    Here is the list of 21.

    1. The lie that fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election, that Trump “had actually won,” and that the election was “stolen.” (Pages 1 and 40-41 of the indictment)

    Trump’s claim of a stolen election whose winner was determined by massive fraud was (and continues to be) his overarching lie about the election. The indictment asserts that Trump knew as early as 2020 that his narrative was false – and had been told as such by numerous senior officials in his administration and allies outside the federal government – but persisted in deploying it anyway, including on January 6 itself.

    2. The lie that fake pro-Trump Electoral College electors in seven states were legitimate electors. (Pages 5 and 26)

    The indictment alleges that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators “organized” the phony slates of electors and then “caused” the slates to be transmitted to Vice President Mike Pence and other government officials to try to get them counted on January 6, the day Congress met to count the electoral votes.

    3. The lie that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have affected the outcome of the election. (Pages 6 and 27)

    Attorney General William Barr and other top Justice Department officials had told Trump that his claims of major fraud had proved to be untrue. But the indictment alleges that Trump still sought to have the Justice Department “make knowingly false claims of election fraud to officials in the targeted states through a formal letter under the Acting Attorney General’s signature, thus giving the Defendant’s lies the backing of the federal government and attempting to improperly influence the targeted states to replace legitimate Biden electors with the Defendant’s.”

    4. The lie that Pence had the power to reject Biden’s electoral votes. (Pages 6, 32-38)

    Pence had repeatedly and correctly told Trump that he did not have the constitutional or legal right to send electoral votes back to the states as Trump wanted. The indictment notes that Trump nonetheless repeatedly declared that Pence could do so – first in private conversations and White House meetings, then in tweets on January 5 and January 6, then in Trump’s January 6 speech in Washington at a rally before the riot – in which Trump, angry at Pence, allegedly inserted the false claim into his prepared text even after advisors had managed to temporarily get it removed.

    5. The lie that “the Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.” (Page 36)

    The indictment alleges that the day before the riot, Trump “approved and caused” his campaign to issue a false statement saying Pence agreed with him about having the power to reject electoral votes – even though Trump knew, from a one-on-one meeting with Pence hours prior, that Pence continued to firmly disagree.

    6. The lie that Georgia had thousands of ballots cast in the names of dead people. (Pages 8 and 16)

    The indictment notes that Georgia’s top elections official – Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger – a republican – explained to Trump in a phone call on January 2, 2021 that this claim was false, but that Trump repeated it in his January 6 rally speech anyway. Raffensperger said in the phone call and then in a January 6 letter to Congress that just two potential dead-voter cases had been discovered in the state; Raffensperger said in late 2021 that the total had been updated and stood at four.

    7. The lie that Pennsylvania had 205,000 more votes than voters. (Pages 8 and 20)

    The indictment notes that Trump’s acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue had both told him that this claim was false, but he kept making it anyway – including in the January 6 rally speech.

    8. The lie that there had been a suspicious “dump” of votes in Detroit, Michigan. (Pages 9 and 17)

    The indictment notes that Barr, the attorney general, told Trump on December 1, 2020 that this was false – as CNN and others had noted, supposedly nefarious “dumps” Trump kept talking about were merely ballots being counted and added to the public totals as normal – but that Trump still repeated the false claim in public remarks the next day. And Barr wasn’t the only one to try to dissuade Trump from this claim. The indictment also notes that Michigan’s Republican Senate majority leader, Mike Shirkey, had told Trump in an Oval Office meeting on November 20, 2020 that Trump had lost the state “not because of fraud” but because Trump had “underperformed with certain voter populations.”

    9. The lie that Nevada had tens of thousands of double votes and other fraud. (Page 9)

    The indictment notes that Nevada’s top elections official – Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, also a Republican – had publicly posted a “Facts vs. Myths” document explaining that Nevada judges had rejected such claims.

    10. The lie that more than 30,000 non-citizens had voted in Arizona. (Pages 9 and 11)

    The indictment notes that Trump put the number at “over 36,000” in his January 6 speech – even though, the indictment says, his own campaign manager “had explained to him that such claims were false” and Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, a Republican who had supported Trump in the election, “had issued a public statement that there was no evidence of substantial fraud in Arizona.”

    11. The lie that voting machines in swing states had switched votes from Trump to Biden. (Page 9)

    This is a reference to false conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting Systems machines, which Trump kept repeating long after it was thoroughly debunked by his own administration’s election cybersecurity security arm and many others. The indictment says, “The Defendant’s Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, and Acting Deputy Attorney General all had explained to him that this was false, and numerous recounts and audits had confirmed the accuracy of voting machines.”

    12. The lie that Dominion machines had been involved in “massive election fraud.” (Page 12)

    The indictment notes that Trump, on Twitter, promoted a lawsuit filed by an alleged co-conspirator, whom CNN has identified as lawyer Sidney Powell, that alleged “massive election fraud” involving Dominion – even though, the indictment says, Trump privately acknowledged to advisors that the claims were “unsupported” and told them Powell sounded “crazy.”

    13. The lie that “a substantial number of non-citizens, non-residents, and dead people had voted fraudulently in Arizona.” (Page 10)

    The indictment alleges that Trump and an alleged co-conspirator, whom CNN has identified as former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, made these baseless claims on a November 22, 2020 phone call with Bowers; the indictment says Giuliani never provided evidence and eventually said, at a December 1, 2020 meeting with Bowers, “words to the effect of, ‘We don’t have the evidence, but we have lots of theories.”

    14. The lie that Fulton County, Georgia elections workers had engaged in “ballot stuffing.” (Pages 13 and 14)

    This is the long-debunked lie – which Trump has continued to repeat in 2023 – that a video had caught two elections workers in Atlanta breaking the law. The workers were simply doing their jobs, and, as the indictment notes, they were cleared of wrongdoing by state officials in 2020 – but Trump continued to make the claims even after Raffensperger and Justice Department officials directly and repeatedly told him they were unfounded.

    15. The lie that thousands of out-of-state voters cast ballots in Georgia. (Page 16)

    The indictment notes that Trump made this claim on his infamous January 2, 2021 call with Raffensperger, whose staff responded that the claim was inaccurate. An official in Raffensberger’s office explained to Trump that the voters in question had authentically moved back to Georgia and legitimately cast ballots.

    16. The lie that Raffensperger “was unwilling, or unable,” to address Trump’s claims about a “‘ballots under table’ scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more.” (Page 16)

    In fact, contrary to this Trump tweet the day after the call, Raffensperger and his staff had addressed and debunked all of these false Trump claims.

    17. The lie that there was substantial fraud in Wisconsin and that the state had tens of thousands of unlawful votes. (Page 21)

    False and false. But the indictment notes that Trump made the vague fraud claim in a tweet on December 21, 2020, after the state Supreme Court upheld Biden’s win, and repeated the more specific claim about tens of thousands of unlawful votes in the January 6 speech.

    18. The lie that Wisconsin had more votes counted than it had actual voters. (Page 21)

    This, like Trump’s similar claim about Pennsylvania, is not true. But the indictment alleges that Trump raised the claim in a December 27, 2020 conversation with acting attorney general Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Donoghue, who informed him that it was false.

    19. The lie that the election was “corrupt.” (Page 28)

    The indictment alleges that when acting attorney general Rosen told Trump on the December 27, 2020 call that the Justice Department couldn’t and wouldn’t change the outcome of the election, Trump responded, “Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” (Deputy attorney general Donoghue memorialized the reported Trump remark in his handwritten notes, which CNN reported on in 2021 and which were subsequently published by the House committee that investigated the Capitol riot.)

    20. The lie that Trump won every state by hundreds of thousands of votes. (Page 34)

    The indictment says that, at a January 4, 2021 meeting intended to convince Pence to unlawfully reject Biden’s electoral votes and send them back to swing-state legislatures, Pence took notes describing Trump as saying, “Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes.” This was, obviously, false even if Trump was specifically talking about swing states won by Biden rather than every state in the nation.

    21. The lie that Pennsylvania “want[s] to recertify.” (Page 38)

    Trump made this false claim in his January 6 speech. In reality, some Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania had expressed a desire to at least delay the congressional affirmation of Biden’s victory – but the state’s Democratic governor and top elections official, who actually had election certification power in the state, had no desire to recertify Biden’s legitimate win.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Georgia lieutenant governor subpoenaed to testify before Fulton County grand jury in 2020 election probe | CNN Politics

    Former Georgia lieutenant governor subpoenaed to testify before Fulton County grand jury in 2020 election probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Georgia Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan received subpoenas to testify before a Fulton County grand jury this month, a source with direct knowledge of the 2020 election interference investigation in the state told CNN.

    Duncan has been a sharp critic of Donald Trump’s efforts to upend Georgia’s election results. He recently told CNN that he was “embarrassed” when Rudy Giuliani, a former attorney for Trump, and other allies of the former president appeared before Georgia state lawmakers. While Duncan was president of the Georgia state Senate at the time, he told CNN he did not “sanction” those meetings, and that they were not “official hearings.”

    In an interview Monday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room,” Duncan committed to testifying in front of the grand jury, saying he’ll “be there to answer the facts as I know them and to continue this process of trying to discover what actually happened during that post-election period of time.”

    “We can never repeat that in this country. Certainly I never want to see that happen in my home state of Georgia, a lot of good peoples’ lives were uprooted, a lot of peoples’ reputations have been soiled,” Duncan, a CNN political contributor and Republican, said.

    Duncan said that he would be “willing to testify and tell the truth in as many settings as I possibly can,” in response to a question about whether he’d be willing to testify in any other related trials.

    A spokesperson for the Fulton County district attorney’s office declined to comment.

    The former lieutenant governor is the third witness publicly known to receive a subpoena for grand jury testimony. CNN previously reported independent journalist George Chidi and former Georgia Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan have also been subpoenaed.

    On December 3, 2020, while Duncan was president of the state Senate, Giuliani spread conspiracy theories about widespread irregularities and fraud in the state during a Georgia Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing about election integrity. Jordan was in attendance.

    At the hearing, Trump’s team presented a video of what they claimed was evidence of fraud from election night ballot tabulating in Fulton County, allegations that were investigated by the FBI, Department of Justice and state election officials – and proven to be erroneous.

    The recent subpoenas are the clearest indication Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis intends to seek indictments in her long-running criminal probe into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

    Willis told CNN affiliate WXIA at an event late last month that “the work is accomplished,” adding later, “We’ve been working for two and half years. We’re ready to go.”

    Sources expect Willis’ team to spend roughly two days presenting its case before one of the two grand juries meeting regularly in Fulton County with the power to issue indictments. Willis has said she will make her charging announcements before September 1.

    The subpoenas for grand jury testimony call on the witnesses to appear before the grand jury during the month of August and state that witnesses will get a 48-hour notice when they are required to appear. Multiple people who were subpoenaed told CNN they have not yet been notified of an appearance date.

    Duncan on Monday would not comment on the timing of his expected appearance in front of the grand jury: “I don’t want to infringe on any details of the investigation, so I’ll leave that offline and off of this commentary here. But I’m committed to telling the truth – I know a number of people are around this process.”

    Duncan, Jordan and Chidi were all part of the group of 75 witnesses who previously testified before the special grand jury Willis used last year to gather evidence in her investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Possible deal to free American prisoners in Iran called for shuttle diplomacy — from hotel to hotel | CNN Politics

    Possible deal to free American prisoners in Iran called for shuttle diplomacy — from hotel to hotel | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Closing in on a deal to free five Americans detained in Iran, US and Iranian delegations gathered in separate hotels in Doha – within sight of each other, but not within earshot – as Qatari diplomats shuttled back and forth trying feverishly to broker an elusive agreement between the two.

    None of the conversation played out in face-to-face meetings between the US and Iran over more than a year of on-and-off hotel meetings in the Qatari capital, a US official familiar with the negotiations told CNN.

    Instead, Qatari officials relayed messages back and forth, with some of the logistical work happening in the most discreet way possible, according to a US official familiar with the negotiations – via text thread between the Qataris and the US diplomats.

    The indirect talks were part of a two-year process that brought about the deal announced this week, a potential diplomatic breakthrough between bitter adversaries who don’t even talk to each other.

    The overall contours of the deal’s roadmap began to crystallize in Doha about six months ago, after two-and-a-half years of intensive on-and-off indirect discussions between Washington and Tehran. And on Thursday, those intense efforts yielded the first sign of payoff, when Iran released four Americans who had been detained in the notorious Evin Prison and moved them into house arrest.

    “It’s a positive step that they were released from prison and sent to home detention. But this is just the beginning of a process that I hope and expect will lead to their return home to the United States,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said after the transfer was announced.

    If that plays out as agreed, the intricate diplomacy will have produced a momentous agreement between long-time adversaries whose relationship has been strained by Iran’s growing nuclear program and its alleged human rights abuses.

    Befitting the relationship, the path has been thorny, according to accounts shared with CNN by several sources familiar with the talks. The United States and Iran don’t have diplomatic relations, and public overtures by Washington to engage directly with Tehran on the matter were rebuffed.

    Instead, the US had to pursue indirect avenues, relying on partners in the Middle East and Europe including Qatar, Oman, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, all of whom served as interlocutors for the two sides over the course of the past two and a half years.

    US officials approached the negotiations with the understanding that there were “no guarantees” with the Iranians, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. But as things seemed to fall into place, the US government began reaching out to Congress and to family members.

    It was not until a couple of days before the transfer to house arrest that the American side realized the plan was going into motion. A fifth American was already under house arrest.

    On Wednesday, the US had “what (appeared) to be concrete information” that the first step in the deal – moving the four Americans out of Evin Prison and into house arrest – would be taken on Thursday, the source familiar with the negotiations said.

    Still, officials were wary.

    “There are certainly elements of the Iranian system that do not want this to happen,” the source warned.

    When Thursday came, US officials had a direct line to the Swiss Ambassador in Iran for updates as to progress on the ground, the US official said. Swiss diplomats serve as the protecting power – the eyes and ears on the ground – for the US in Iran.

    Early in the afternoon Thursday Washington time, National Security Council Spokesperson Adrienne Watson announced the White House had “received confirmation that Iran has released from prison five Americans who were unjustly detained and has placed them on house arrest.”

    The path forward now has been described as a step-by-step process, and American officials stress that the indirect negotiations are ongoing and sensitive.

    One component of the deal is an expected prisoner swap between the US and Iran, and another involves making $6 billion in Iranian funds that have been in a restricted account in South Korea more readily available for “non-sanctionable trade” of goods like food and medicine by moving them to restricted accounts in Qatar. Sources tell CNN the funds came from oil sales that were allowed and placed into accounts set up under the Trump administration.

    One source briefed on the agreement said the process to transfer the funds to Qatar is likely to take 30 to 45 days, and two sources said the money would go through Switzerland before getting to Qatar.

    The implementation won’t be easy. The US Treasury will be heavily involved, as the transfer of Iranian funds to Qatar is expected to take weeks to complete particularly because the US is not lifting any sanctions in order to facilitate the transfer, sources said.

    The indirect negotiations involved officials from across the Biden administration, including the State Department and the White House, and they closely involved the US Treasury Department, the official said. Treasury’s involvement made the process more arduous at times, but was necessary to be sure that any agreement would maintain strict oversight of the Iranian funds, the official added.

    The process to get to this point – with the end goal of securing the Americans’ release – has been a long road for Biden administration officials. Sources said that bringing the Americans back home had been a priority from the outset of President Joe Biden’s tenure.

    The three Americans publicly known to be in the deal – Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz and Emad Shargi – had been imprisoned for years before Biden took office, with Namazi being arrested when Biden was vice president and left behind in a deal secured under the Obama administration.

    Now, US officials say the work continues, but they are cautiously optimistic that the five could be coming home.

    “My belief is that this is the beginning of the end of their nightmare and the nightmare that their families have experienced,” Blinken said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 2 Trump co-defendants ask judge to break apart Georgia election interference case and hold separate trials | CNN Politics

    2 Trump co-defendants ask judge to break apart Georgia election interference case and hold separate trials | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two Trump co-defendants in Georgia who requested speedy trials asked a judge Wednesday to formally separate their cases from the sprawling overall indictment, a move that would undercut Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ attempt to hold one massive trial for all 19 defendants in the election interference case.

    Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell and pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro separately asked the judge overseeing the case to “sever” their trials from the other defendants. If granted, this would break apart the case and allow their cases to go to trial as soon as October.

    These are the first attempts in court by former President Donald Trump’s co-defendants to break apart the case. The motions filed Wednesday are part of the increasingly convoluted pretrial wrangling among Trump, his 18 co-defendants and Willis, who wants a trial for all 19 defendants to occur in October.

    Powell and Chesebro, who both deny wrongdoing in the case, already invoked their right to a speedy trial, which would need to begin before early November, per Georgia law. Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee ordered Chesebro’s trial to begin October 23. Powell’s request is pending. Trump wants to slow things down and opposes that timeline.

    Trump’s lawyers have also said they want to sever his case from the other defendants but haven’t yet filed a motion in court.

    Raskin: Trump could learn from early Georgia trials

    In the filing, Powell’s attorneys also argued that she “did not represent President Trump or the Trump campaign” related to the 2020 election because she never had an “engagement agreement” with either.

    “She appears on no pleadings for Trump or the Campaign,” Powell’s attorneys wrote. “She appeared in no courtrooms or hearings for Trump or the Campaign. She had no contact with most of her purported conspirators and rarely agreed with those she knew or spoke with.”

    Despite these assertions, Trump publicly announced in mid-November 2020 that he “added” Powell to his “truly great team” of lawyers working on the election. One week later – after she promoted wild conspiracy theories that millions of votes were flipped as part of an international anti-Trump scheme – the Trump campaign dropped her from the legal team and said she was “practicing law on her own.”

    In an effort to distance Powell from the other Trump lawyers charged in the Georgia case, her attorneys pointed out that she “went her own way” after the 2020 presidential election and that “many of her purported coconspirators publicly shunned and disparaged Ms. Powell beginning in November 2020.”

    In the filing, Powell’s attorneys also lauded her legal career and her commitment to “integrity” and “the rule of law.” They also amplified the debunked right-wing claim that her former client, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, was the victim of “charges completely concocted against him by a politicized FBI.”

    Kenneth Chesebro Jan 6

    CNN reveals where accused Trump co-conspirator was on Jan. 6

    Additionally on Wednesday, Chesebro’s attorneys asked the judge to force Willis to “disclose” the identities of the 30 unindicted co-conspirators named in the indictment. Chesebro, who was the architect of the Trump campaign’s fake electors plot, said he needs these names to help his defense.

    Earlier this month, after the indictment was filed, CNN published a report identifying many of the unindicted co-conspirators based on public information that matches what was in the indictment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s X Corp. sues California AG over content moderation law | CNN Business

    Elon Musk’s X Corp. sues California AG over content moderation law | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Elon Musk’s X Corp., the parent company of the platform formerly known as Twitter, on Friday sued California’s attorney general over the state’s new content moderation law.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed bill AB 587 into law last September. The law requires social media companies to post their terms of service online and submit a semiannual report to the state attorney general outlining their content moderation policies and practices. Platforms must, among other things, disclose how their automated content moderation systems work, how they define controversial content categories such as “hate speech” and “disinformation,” and the number of pieces of content flagged or removed in such categories.

    Newsom’s office touted the bill as a way to improve transparency from social networks. But in a complaint filed in California’s Eastern District Court against California Attorney General Robert Bonta, X alleged that the law violates the First Amendment and California’s constitution by potentially compelling the company to moderate users’ politically charged speech.

    The law “compels companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will, impermissibly interferes with the constitutionally-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp., has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company alleged in the complaint. It added that the law could place an “undue burden” on social media companies such as Musk’s X, which is headquartered in California.

    Attorney General Bonta’s press office said in an email to CNN: “While we have not yet been served with the complaint, we will review it and respond in court.”

    A spokesperson for Newsom sent CNN a statement from last September in which the governor remarked on the bill.

    “California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country,” Newsom said in the statement. “Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day.”

    The lawsuit comes as Musk has escalated his rhetoric over what kinds of speech should be permitted on his platform, as the company’s core advertising business has taken a major revenue hit over concerns, among other things, about the approach to content moderation. Under Musk’s leadership, the platform has made several changes to its content policies, including ceasing enforcement of its Covid-19 misinformation policy and reinstating many previously banned users.

    Just last month, at least two brands paused their ad spending on X after their advertisements ran alongside an account promoting Nazism. (X suspended the account after the issue was flagged and said ad impressions on the page were minimal.)

    The billionaire this week threatened a lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League for defamation, claiming that the nonprofit organization’s statements about rising hate speech on the social media platform have torpedoed X’s advertising revenue. (The ADL says it does not comment on legal threats, but CEO Jonathan Greenblatt spoke out against the #BanTheADL campaign on X.)

    In Friday’s lawsuit, X Corp. alleged that requiring social media companies to report their moderation practices could pressure the platforms into “limiting or censoring constitutionally-protected content that the State finds objectionable.” It also claimed that the law could force social platforms “to take public positions on controversial and politically charged issues” and thus tailor those positions in a way it otherwise wouldn’t to avoid public scrutiny.

    The law “‘compel[s]’ X Corp. to ‘speak a particular message,’ which necessarily ‘alters the content of’ its speech,’” in violation of its First Amendment rights, the company alleges in the complaint.

    The lawsuit seeks a jury trial on the constitutionality and legal validity of the California law.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who is C.Q. Brown, the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? | CNN Politics

    Who is C.Q. Brown, the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Charles Q. Brown builds on an already historic career in becoming the the country’s next most senior ranking military officer.

    Before being confirmed Wednesday as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Brown, who goes by C.Q., was the first Black service chief in US military history when he was confirmed as chief of the Air Force in 2020.

    Brown is only the second Black man to serve as chairman – following Gen. Colin Powell – where he will act as the principal military adviser to President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and the National Security Council.

    Brown’s confirmation also marks the first time that both of the Defense Department’s top leaders – the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs – are African American.

    President Joe Biden nominated Brown in May and described the general as “a warrior” and a “fearless leader and unyielding patriot.” But his nomination became ensnared in a monthslong blockage on Pentagon nominations by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville in the Senate.

    The Senate ultimately voted 83-11 to confirm his nomination Wednesday.

    Commissioned in 1984 from the ROTC Program at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas, Brown has commanded a fighter squadron, two fighter wings, US Air Forces Central Command and the US Air Force Weapons School, according to his official biography.

    Prior to becoming the Air Force chief of staff, Brown served as the commander of Pacific Air Forces – the air component of US Indo-Pacific Command.

    While serving as the commander of the Pacific Air Forces, the typically reserved Brown made headlines by releasing a deeply personal video in the wake of the 2020 police killing of George Floyd. In the video, he said he was “full with emotion” for “the many African Americans that have suffered the same fate as George Floyd” and recalled being one of the few Black people at his school, his platoon and in leadership.

    “I’m thinking about the pressure I felt to perform error-free, especially for supervisors I perceived had expected less of me as an African American. I’m thinking about having to represent by working twice as hard to prove their expectations and perceptions of African Americans were invalid,” he said.

    He added: “I’m thinking about how I can make improvements personally, professionally and institutionally, so that all Airmen, both today and tomorrow, appreciate the value of diversity and can serve in an environment where they can reach their full potential.”

    Brown’s confirmation was held up after Tuberville said he would object to confirming military nominees as a group by unanimous consent in protest of the Pentagon’s policy providing a travel allowance for troops and their families who must travel to receive an abortion because of the state laws where they are stationed. He instead suggested that Brown and other military nominees be brought to the Senate floor one-by-one – a process that could take hundreds of hours.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Shumer ultimately caved to Tuberville’s demand and agreed to bring a handful of votes on military promotions to the floor.

    The Senate is expected to vote to confirm Gen. Eric Smith as commandant of the Marine Corps and Gen. Randy George as Army chief of staff later this week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump and his adult children are listed as potential witnesses in NY fraud case | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump and his adult children are listed as potential witnesses in NY fraud case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump, his adult children, and his closest business advisers could be called to testify during the civil fraud trial expected to begin next week in New York.

    The former president is listed on the witness lists submitted by the New York attorney general and Trump’s legal team.

    Placing someone on a potential witness list does not mean that person will be called to testify. Attorneys for both sides need to be inclusive on their witness lists of any potential person they might want to call, or the judge could exclude the testimony.

    Trump previously sat for a deposition in the case and said he had little “if any” role in preparing the financial statements that a New York judge ruled earlier this week were fraudulent.

    Also on both lists are Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who are both defendants in the case, and numerous current and former Trump Organization employees, including former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg. Most of the witnesses have also testified in videotaped depositions.

    In civil cases, defendants can be called to testify and if they refuse, the jury, or in this case Judge Arthur Engoron, can use that against them in weighing the evidence.

    The New York attorney general’s office identified 28 witnesses they could call in the case, including Michael Cohen and Ivanka Trump. Ivanka Trump was initially a defendant in the case, but a New York appeals court struck her from the lawsuit saying the claims brought against her were too old.

    Trump’s attorneys identified 127 possible witnesses that they would call, including some of the lenders behind the loans at issue in the lawsuit.

    The case is scheduled to start Monday. Engoron will decide how much money the Trumps would pay the state after finding the former president and his business engaged in a persistent fraud by using inflated financial statements for nearly a decade.

    The state is also seeking to prove the Trumps engaged in insurance fraud and falsified business records. Engoron has set aside nearly three months for the trial.

    An appeals court ruling is expected as soon as Thursday that could potentially impact the trial start date.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • First on CNN: Fulton County DA to present Trump election subversion case to grand jury early next week | CNN Politics

    First on CNN: Fulton County DA to present Trump election subversion case to grand jury early next week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    An Atlanta-area prosecutor has notified at least two witnesses to appear before a grand jury early next week, the most significant indication of her intention to seek indictments in the investigation of how Donald Trump and others tried to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.

    Former Georgia Lt. Gov Geoff Duncan, a Republican, said Saturday on CNN that he has been told to appear Tuesday before a Fulton County grand jury to testify about the efforts by Trump and his allies. Independent journalist George Chidi posted on social media later Saturday that he’d been told to appear before the grand jury on Tuesday, too.

    The upcoming appearances signal that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is moving forward with a grand jury presentation where she’s expected to seek charges against more than a dozen people stemming from her investigation into the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

    The Fulton County probe brings the possibility of a fourth indictment against Trump, taking the GOP frontrunner even further into uncharted legal territory. Trump’s legal troubles have dominated the Republican primary for months, with the former president casting his indictments as politically motivated and frequently utilizing them in fundraising pitches.

    “I did just receive notification to appear on Tuesday morning at the Fulton County grand jury and I certainly will be there to do my part in recounting the facts,” Duncan, a CNN contributor, told CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield on Saturday.

    “I have no expectations as to the questions, and I’ll certainly answer whatever questions are put in front of me,” Duncan said.

    Willis, an elected Democrat, has been eyeing conspiracy and racketeering charges in her probe, which would allow her to bring a case against multiple defendants. The wide-ranging criminal investigation has focused on efforts to pressure state election officials, the plot to put forward fake electors and a breach of voting systems in rural Coffee County, Georgia.

    A spokesperson for Willis declined to comment on Saturday.

    The expected charges would mark the culmination of a nearly three-year investigation, which Willis launched in early 2021 soon after Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and pressured the Republican to “find” the votes necessary for Trump to win the state.

    At a campaign event earlier this week, Trump continued to insist it was a “perfect phone call.”

    The charges in Georgia would follow special counsel Jack Smith’s federal charges against Trump over efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as well as the special counsel’s indictment of Trump for the mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and New York state criminal charges over falsified business records. Trump denies wrongdoing in all cases.

    The witnesses Willis has subpoenaed to testify when she presents her case include Duncan, Chidi and former Georgia state Sen. Jen Jordan, a Democrat. All of them previously testified before a special purpose grand jury tasked with investigating the Trump case, which heard from more than 75 witnesses in all.

    Georgia law is unusual in that special purpose grand juries – which have broad investigative powers – are not permitted to issue indictments. When the subpoenaed witnesses appear before the regular grand jury, those grand jurors will hear the witnesses’ testimony for the first time with a narrower purpose at hand: to approve or reject indictments.

    As her investigation has expanded, Willis has been weighing racketeering charges in the Trump case. RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – is a statute the district attorney has spoken fondly of and used in unorthodox ways to bring charges against teachers as well as musicians in the Atlanta area.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FBI working with sheriff’s office after threats to Fulton County officials | CNN Politics

    FBI working with sheriff’s office after threats to Fulton County officials | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The FBI is aware that some Fulton County officials have received threats of violence, the bureau’s Atlanta office said in a statement Thursday.

    The threats come days after a local grand jury voted to indict former President Donald Trump and others stemming from their efforts to overturn his 2020 electoral defeat in Georgia.

    The agency did not identify any specific targets, but said, “It is our policy not to discuss details of ongoing investigations. However, each and every potential threat brought to our attention is taken seriously. Individuals found responsible for making threats in violation of state and/or federal laws will be prosecuted.”

    According to the statement, the FBI Atlanta field office is working with the Fulton County sheriff’s office on the investigation.

    The statement comes amid concerns over the safety of the officials and jury members connected to Monday’s indictment and reports that the names, photographs, social media profiles and even the home addresses purportedly belonging to members of the grand jury were circulating on social media. CNN could not independently verify if the photographs, social media accounts and the homes addresses being posted actually belonged to the grand jurors.

    The Fulton County sheriff’s office said in a statement Thursday afternoon that it was “aware that personal information of members of the Fulton County Grand Jury is being shared on various platforms” and that investigators are trying to “track down the origin of threats” against the grand jurors.

    “We take this matter very seriously and are coordinating with our law enforcement partners to respond quickly to any credible threat and to ensure the safety of those individuals who carried out their civic duty,” the statement said.

    As CNN has reported, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was recently assigned additional security protection near her Georgia residence, according to a source with direct knowledge of Atlanta law enforcement movements.

    Willis, who is investigating Trump and his associates for interfering with Georgia’s 2020 election results, has recently urged local officials to stay vigilant about possible security threats. In an email less last month to county officials, the district attorney shared a racist and sexualized message she received and said similar obscene messages had been left via voicemail.

    Trump once again attacked Willis earlier this month at a New Hampshire campaign event, calling the Black district attorney a “racist,” while defending his actions in Georgia around the 2020 election.

    Willis has previously said security concerns have been escalated by Trump’s rhetoric.

    In early 2022, she asked the FBI for help in providing security for buildings and staff one day after Trump called prosecutors investigating him “racists.” The former president asked his supporters to hold “the biggest protests we have ever had” in cities like Atlanta if the prosecutors “do anything wrong or illegal.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maui conspiracy theories are spreading on social media. Why this always happens after a disaster | CNN Business

    Maui conspiracy theories are spreading on social media. Why this always happens after a disaster | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A slew of viral conspiracy videos on social media have made baseless claims that the Maui wildfires were started intentionally as part of a land grab, highlighting how quickly misinformation spreads after a disaster.

    While the cause of the fires hasn’t been determined, Hawaiian Electric — the major power company on Maui — is under scrutiny for not shutting down power lines when high winds created dangerous fire conditions. (Hawaiian Electric previously said both the company and the state are conducting investigations into what happened). Maui experienced high winds from Hurricane Dora in the south while it was also grappling with a drought. Wildfires across the region have long been a concern.

    Still, conspiracy theories continue to circulate as nearly 400 people are still unaccounted for.

    It’s not uncommon for conspiracy theories to make the rounds after a national crisis. According to Renee DiResta, a research manager at Stanford University who studies misinformation, people often look for a way to make sense of the world when they are anxious or have a feeling of powerlessness.

    “Theories that attribute the cause of a crisis to a specific bad actor offer a villain to blame, someone to potentially hold responsible,” DiResta said. “The conspiracy theories that are the most effective and plausible are usually based on some grain of truth and connect to some existing set of beliefs about the world.”

    For example, someone who distrusts the government may be more inclined to believe someone who posts negatively about a government agency.

    Conspiracy theorists on varying platforms claim the fires, which killed at least 114 people earlier this month, were planned as part of a strategic effort to weed out less wealthy residents on Maui and make room for multi-million dollar developments.

    In one video, a user claims a friend sent him a video of a laser beam “coming out of the sky, directly targeting the city.” “This was a direct energy weapon assault,” he said. The video remains posted but now includes a label from Instagram listing it as “false information.” The imagery appears to be from a previous SpaceX launch in California.

    Related far-fetched theories say the alleged “laser beams” were programmed not to hit anything blue, explaining why so many blue beach umbrellas were left unscathed by the fires.

    Other social media users allege elite Maui residents were behind the fires so they could buy the destroyed land at a discounted price and rebuild potentially a “smart city.”

    “You’re telling me that these cheaper lower middle class houses burnt down directly across the street and all of the mansions are still standing?” one YouTube user posted, referencing aerial imagery taken of the destruction.

    One tweet about a celebrity purchasing hundreds of acres across Maui over the past few years has received more than 12 million views on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

    When a conspiracy theory gains traction online, others may chime in and offer explanations for details not discussed in the original post. Social media algorithms can amplify these theories based on user attention and interactions.

    “Social media is incredibly valuable in crisis events as people on the ground can report the facts directly, but that usefulness is tempered, and can be dangerous, if misleading claims proliferate particularly in the immediate aftermath,” DiResta said.

    Social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok and YouTube have taken steps to curb the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation, but some videos can slip through the cracks. Many platforms use a mix of tech monitoring tools and human reviewers to enforce their community guidelines.

    Ahead of the publishing of this article, TikTok removed several conspiracy theory videos sent by CNN that were in violation of its community guidelines, which it characterizes as “inaccurate, misleading, or false content that may cause significant harm to individuals or society, regardless of intent” on the platform. A company spokesperson said more than 40,000 trust and safety professionals around the world review and moderate content at all hours of the day.

    Meanwhile, in a statement provided to CNN, YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez said the platform uses different sections, such as top news, developing news and a fact-check panel, to provide users with as much context and background information as possible on certain trending topics, and will remove content when necessary.

    “During major news events, such as the horrific fires in Hawaii, our systems are designed to raise up content from authoritative sources in search results and recommendations,” Hernandez said.

    Instagram also employs third-party fact-checkers to contact sources, check public data and work to verify images and videos on questionable content. They then rate and provide labels to the content in question, such as “false,” “altered” or “missing context,” to encourage viewers to think critically about what they’re about to see.

    As a result, those posts show up far less often in users’ feeds and repeat offenders can face varying risks, such as losing monetization on their pages.

    Social media platform X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Michael Inouye, a principal analyst at market research firm ABI Research, said social media companies are in a challenging spot because they want to uphold freedom of speech, but do so in an environment where posts that receive the most shares and likes often rise to the top of user feeds. That means posts sharing conspiracy theories that spark fear and emotion may perform better in a crisis than those sharing straightforward, accurate information.

    “Ultimately, social media will have to decide if it wants to be a better news organization or remain this ‘open’ platform for expression that can run counter to the ethics and standards that is required by news reporting,” Inouye said. “The problem is, even if something isn’t labeled as ‘news,’ some will still interpret personal opinion as truth, which puts us back in the same position.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Army, Marine units involved in Afghanistan withdrawal to receive Presidential Unit Citation two years later | CNN Politics

    Army, Marine units involved in Afghanistan withdrawal to receive Presidential Unit Citation two years later | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    US service members deployed on the Afghanistan withdrawal mission will receive the Presidential Unit Citation, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced Thursday, the two-year anniversary of the withdrawal.

    “In recognition of teams that operated and excelled under these difficult and dangerous conditions, I am proud to announce the approval of the Presidential Unit Citation for the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command, and Joint Task Force 82 of the 82nd Airborne Division and its supporting units,” Austin said in a statement.

    “Today, our hearts and our prayers are with the brave Americans who volunteered to keep our country safe, with the Gold Star families whose loved ones fell in Afghanistan, with the military families who endured so much over those two decades, and with the veterans who still carry the memories and the scars of war,” Austin said. “The war in Afghanistan is over, but our gratitude to the Americans who fought it is unending.”

    Army National Guard and Reserve soldiers will be among those who are receiving the citation, an Army spokesman told CNN. The Air Force does not appear to be included in the units receiving citations under Thursday’s announcement, an Air Force official said, though Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said at a news briefing on Thursday that more units could receive the citation in the future.

    “So in the statement that we put out today, it highlighted the units that have currently been awarded that recognition. I’d refer you to the services right now for their current statuses. That’s not to say there won’t be others,” Ryder said. “That’s just where we’re at right now at this point in time.”

    The US service members involved in the chaotic withdrawal helped evacuate thousands of civilians from Hamid Karzai International Airport. In his statement on Thursday, Austin recognized “the 2,461 U.S. service members who never made it home” from the war, “including the 13 courageous troops taken from us in the attack at Abbey Gate in the final hours of the war.”

    The announcement of the citation comes just days after the families of some of those 13 service members were on Capitol Hill demanding answers and accountability over their children’s deaths. During a roundtable with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, convened by Republican Chairman Mike McCaul, parents of the troops killed at Abbey Gate claimed they’d been lied to by officials in the military and Biden administration.

    The Biden administration conducted an after-action review of the Afghanistan withdrawal and released a summary of findings in April this year. The summary largely placed blame for the conditions that led to the frenzied withdrawal on the Trump administration, though a State Department after-action review released in June said both administrations made decisions that had “serious consequences” for security in Afghanistan.

    Indeed, the security of Afghanistan fell apart in the weeks leading up to the withdrawal as the Taliban swept through Kabul and took over the presidential palace and President Ashraf Ghani fled the country. What followed was days of chaos and confusion as civilians fled to the Kabul airport in hopes of being evacuated with the US and allied military partners.

    US forces manning the gates of the airport were forced into impossible situations of deciding which civilians and families had the appropriate paperwork to be let into HKIA and ultimately out of the country. The mayhem culminated on August 26, when a suicide bomber detonated at Abbey Gate, killing 11 Marines, one Navy corpsman, and a soldier, along with more than 170 Afghan civilians.

    The Defense Department has not released an unclassified after-action review, though the official investigation into the Abbey Gate bombing, conducted by US Central Command, was released last year.

    On August 31, 2022, Austin announced that “all units” involved in the withdrawal mission would receive the Meritorious Unit Commendation “or its equivalent.” He also directed an “expedited review of all units” present during the withdrawal “to identify those units or individuals that meet the high standards of the Presidential Unit Citation or appropriate individual awards.”

    The citation is used, Austin said in August 2022, to recognize extraordinary heroism for military units “in action against an armed enemy.”

    Both the Army and Marine Corps applauded the unit citations on Thursday. Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division “demonstrated heroic discipline and courage.”

    “It is a privilege to recognize these soldiers for their actions during the tumultuous days of August 2021 and to honor their courage at a time when the entire Nation relied on them to complete their mission – which they did with great distinction,” Wormuth said.

    A statement from the Marine Corps echoed the same, saying the citation is “a testament to the incredible dedication, sacrifice, and professionalism embodied by the men and women of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force – Crisis Response (Central Command), who rapidly deployed into harm’s way to protect and defend Afghan civilians.”

    While the Air Force does not appear to be included in Thursday’s announcement, thousands of airmen have received other awards, including Distinguished Flying Crosses and Bronze Star medals for their actions during the withdrawal.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge rejects Mark Meadows’ bid to move Georgia election interference case to federal court | CNN Politics

    Judge rejects Mark Meadows’ bid to move Georgia election interference case to federal court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday rejected former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move his Georgia criminal case to federal court, a significant setback for Meadows and a troubling sign for former President Donald Trump.

    US District Judge Steve Jones found that the allegations against Meadows contained in the Fulton County district attorney’s indictment on election subversion charges were largely “related to political activities” and not to Meadows’ role as White House chief of staff.

    “The evidence before the Court overwhelmingly suggests that Meadows was not acting in his scope of executive branch duties during most of the Overt Acts alleged,” wrote Jones, a Barack Obama appointee.

    The Friday ruling has significant implications for the former president and his 18 co-defendants in the Fulton County district attorney’s sprawling racketeering case, though the judge said the ruling did not apply to the other defendants. Meadows was the first of five defendants who already filed motions to move the case to federal court – and Trump is expected to do so, too.

    Meadows unsuccessfully argued that his case, now playing out in Georgia state court, should be moved because the allegations in the indictment were connected to his official duties as White House chief of staff. His lawyers wanted the case in federal court so they could try to get it dismissed altogether, invoking federal immunity extended to certain individuals who are prosecuted or sued for conduct tied to their US government roles.

    The judge’s decision could set the tone for the other defendants also trying to move their cases. It’s an ominous sign for the defendants who are hoping to invoke the same federal immunity protections.

    The judge explicitly stated in his ruling that he is not offering any opinion about Fulton County’s underlying criminal case against Meadows, who has pleaded not guilty.

    Jones wrote in the decision that Meadows had not met even the “‘quite low’ threshold for removal” to federal court, because his activities for the Trump campaign were outside the scope of his federal role as White House chief of staff.

    “The Court finds that the color of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign, except for simply coordinating the President’s schedule, traveling with the President to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign,” Jones wrote. “Thus, consistent with his testimony and the federal statutes and regulations, engaging in political activities is exceeds the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.”

    The Hatch Act, which prohibits federal officials from engaging in political activity as part of their official duties, was “helpful in defining the outer limits of the scope the White House Chief of Staff’s authority,” the judge said.

    “These prohibitions on executive branch employees (including the White House Chief of Staff) reinforce the Court’s conclusion that Meadows has not shown how his actions relate to the scope of his federal executive branch office. Federal officer removal is thereby inapposite,” the judge wrote in the decision.

    Meadows on Friday swiftly appealed the ruling to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The indictment identifies eight overt acts Meadows allegedly took in furtherance of the scheme to overturn the 2020 election results. Meadows argued that these actions were part of his federal duties – and thus, the case should be moved to federal court – but Jones disagreed.

    “The Court finds insufficient evidence to establish that the gravamen, or a heavy majority of overt acts alleged against Meadows relate to his role as White House Chief of Staff,” Jones wrote, adding that “Meadows failed to provide sufficient evidence that these actions related to any legitimate purpose of the executive branch.”

    One of Meadows’ most critical actions was his participation in Trump’s phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in early January 2021, when Trump infamously prodded Raffensperger to “find” enough votes for him to overcome Joe Biden’s margin of victory.

    Jones ruled that this phone call “was made regarding private litigation brought by President and his campaign” and was “therefore outside Meadows’ federal role as an executive branch officer.”

    Meadows other actions in late 2020, including contacts with state lawmakers that Trump hoped would help him undermine the election results, also weren’t tied to his government role, Jones concluded.

    “The Court finds that the underlying substance of those meetings and calls were related to political activities and not to the scope of Meadows’s federal office,” the judge wrote.

    The ruling is also a personal blow to Meadows, who took a significant risk by testifying about the removal bid at a recent hearing, where he was questioned under oath by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ team. Prosecutors could potentially use his testimony against him in future proceedings.

    After the charges against Trump and his 18 co-defendants were filed, the former president’s lawyers signaled they intended to try to move Trump’s case to federal court, just as Trump had unsuccessfully sought to do in his New York criminal case. Trump’s lawyers told the judge overseeing the state case on Thursday that he may seek to move the case to federal court, but they haven’t filed the legal motions yet.

    Trump has 30 days from the time he entered his not-guilty plea to file to move his case.

    CNN has reached out to lawyers for Meadows and Trump for comment.

    In addition to Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, the former Trump administration DOJ official, and three Georgia GOP officials who served as Trump’s fake electors have also filed to move their cases to federal court. Former Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer and former GOP Coffee County Chairwoman Cathy Latham have a joint hearing scheduled on September 20, while the third fake elector seeking federal removal – Shawn Still, a Georgia state senator – has a hearing on September 18.

    While Meadows’ motion was rejected, Shafer, Still and Latham have made a slightly different argument: They say they acted as fake electors at Trump’s direction. But unlike Meadows, who worked in the White House in 2020, the fake electors have a more tenuous link to the federal government, as nominees to serve as real electors for Trump if he won Georgia, who would’ve participated in the federally mandated Electoral College process.

    In his decision Friday, Jones noted that his ruling regarding Meadows “does not, at this time, have any effect on” the other defendants who are also trying to move their case to federal court. Those motions are still pending before Jones, and evidentiary hearings are scheduled for later this month.

    “The Court will assess these Defendants’ arguments and evidence following the forthcoming hearings…. independent of its conclusion” in the Meadows case, Jones wrote.

    There are several reasons why it would be advantageous for Meadows and the other defendants to move their cases to federal court. In addition to making immunity claims under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, a federal trial would likely have a jury pool more sympathetic to Trump and his co-defendants.

    While the state courthouse for this case is based in deep-blue Fulton County, the federal court district that includes Fulton also contains the more-Republican northern part of the state.

    At his hearing last month, Meadows surprisingly took the stand trying to help move his case to federal court, testifying for more than three hours about what happened in the White House after the 2020 election.

    Meadows tried to argue that all of his work as the president’s top adviser fit into his role as chief of staff – even when it spilled into politics.

    “It’s still part of my job to make sure that the president is safe and secure and able to perform his job. And that’s what I was doing,” Meadows said, later adding, “serving the president of the United States and … it takes on all kinds of forms.”

    But the Fulton County prosecutors peppered Meadows with questions about how his official job involved things like setting up phone calls involving campaign lawyers, such as Trump’s infamous January 2021 phone call Raffensperger.

    Jones concluded that some of Meadows’ high-stakes testimony on the witness stand was lacking – and even used some of it against him in the ruling.

    “When questioned about the scope of his authority, Meadows was unable to explain the limits of his authority, other than his inability to stump for the President or work on behalf of the campaign,” Jones wrote, saying he would give Meadows’ testimony on that topic “less weight” than the other evidence.

    Jones also cited Meadows’ acknowledgment that the lawyers he included in the phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state were working for Trump or his campaign – not the government.

    Fulton County prosecutors also subpoenaed Raffensperger to testify at Meadows’ hearing, where Raffensperger said plainly there was no role for the federal government in certifying Georgia’s elections.

    “It was a campaign call,” Raffensperger testified.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dozens of states sue Instagram-parent Meta over ‘addictive’ features and youth mental health harms | CNN Business

    Dozens of states sue Instagram-parent Meta over ‘addictive’ features and youth mental health harms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Dozens of states sued Instagram-parent Meta on Tuesday, accusing the social media giant of harming young users’ mental health through allegedly addictive features such as infinite news feeds and frequent notifications that demand users’ constant attention.

    In a federal lawsuit filed in California by 33 attorneys general, the states allege that Meta’s products have harmed minors and contributed to a mental health crisis in the United States.

    “Meta has profited from children’s pain by intentionally designing its platforms with manipulative features that make children addicted to their platforms while lowering their self-esteem,” said Letitia James, the attorney general for New York, one of the states involved in the federal suit. “Social media companies, including Meta, have contributed to a national youth mental health crisis and they must be held accountable.”

    Eight additional attorneys general sued Meta on Tuesday in various state courts around the country, making similar claims as the massive multi-state federal lawsuit.

    And the state of Florida sued Meta in its own separate federal lawsuit, alleging that Meta misled users about potential health risks of its products.

    Tuesday’s multistate federal suit — filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California — accuses Meta of violating a range of state-based consumer protection statutes, as well as a federal children’s privacy law known as COPPA that prohibits companies from collecting the personal information of children under 13 without a parent’s consent.

    “Meta’s design choices and practices take advantage of and contribute to young users’ susceptibility to addiction,” the complaint reads. “They exploit psychological vulnerabilities of young users through the false promise that meaningful social connection lies in the next story, image, or video and that ignoring the next piece of social content could lead to social isolation.”

    The federal complaint calls for court orders prohibiting Meta from violating the law and, in the case of many states, unspecified financial penalties.

    “We share the attorneys generals’ commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online, and have already introduced over 30 tools to support teens and their families,” Meta said in a statement. “We’re disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use, the attorneys general have chosen this path.”

    The wave of lawsuits is the result of a bipartisan, multistate investigation dating back to 2021, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said at a press conference Tuesday, after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen came forward with tens of thousands of internal company documents that she said showed how the company knew its products could have negative impacts on young people’s mental health.

    “We know that there were decisions made, a series of decisions to make the product more and more addictive,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told reporters. “And what we want is for the company to undo that, to make sure that they are not exploiting these vulnerabilities in children, that they are not doing all the little, sophisticated, tricky things that we might not pick up on that drive engagement higher and higher and higher that allowed them to keep taking more and more time and data from our young people.”

    Tuesday’s multipronged legal assault also marks the newest attempt by states to rein in large tech platforms over fears that social media companies are fueling a spike in youth depression and suicidal ideation.

    “There’s a mountain of growing evidence that social media has a negative impact on our children,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, “evidence that more time on social media tends to be correlated with depression with anxiety, body image issues, susceptibility to addiction and interference with daily life, including learning.”

    The suits follow a raft of legislation in states ranging from Arkansas to Louisiana that clamp down on social media by establishing new requirements for online platforms that wish to serve teens and children, such as mandating that they obtain a parent’s consent before creating an account for a minor, or that they verify users’ ages.

    In some cases, the tech industry has challenged those laws in court — for example, by claiming that Arkansas’ social media law violates residents’ First Amendment rights to access information.

    New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella said the states expect Meta to mount a similar defense but that the company will not succeed because the multistate suit targets Meta’s conduct, not speech.

    Formella added that in addition to consumer protection claims, New Hampshire is also bringing negligence and product liability claims as part of the federal suit.

    The complaints filed in state courts allege violations of various state-specific laws. For example, the complaint from District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb accuses Meta of violating the district’s consumer protection statute by misleading the public about the safety of company platforms.

    Tuesday’s lawsuits come days before a federal judge in California is set to consider a slew of similar allegations against the wider tech industry. In a hearing Friday morning, District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is expected to hear arguments by Google, Meta, Snap and TikTok urging her to dismiss nearly 200 complaints involving private plaintiffs that have accused the companies of addicting or harming their users.

    It is possible that Tuesday’s multistate suit could be merged with the consumers’ cases, said Weiser, adding that the main difference of the multistate case is that it could lead to nationwide relief.

    “The coordination that we bring across the AG community, we believe is invaluable to this,” Weiser said.

    Participating in Tuesday’s multistate federal suit are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

    The additional suits filed in state courts were brought by the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jeff Sessions Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Jeff Sessions Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Jeff Sessions, former US attorney general and former Republican senator of Alabama.

    Birth date: December 24, 1946

    Birth place: Selma, Alabama

    Birth name: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

    Father: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions Jr., business owner

    Mother: Abbie (Powe) Sessions

    Marriage: Mary Blackshear Sessions (1969-present)

    Children: Mary Abigail, Ruth and Samuel

    Education: Huntingdon College, B.A., 1969; University of Alabama, J.D., 1973

    Military service: US Army Reserve, 1973-1986, Captain

    Religion: Methodist

    Is an Eagle Scout.

    Served on the Senate Budget, Judiciary, Armed Services, and Environment and Public Works Committees.

    Voted against both of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    Supported building fencing along the US border, saying in 2006 that “good fences make good neighbors.”

    Was an opponent of the 2013 “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill.

    1973-1975 – Practices law in Alabama.

    1975-1977 – Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

    1981-1993 – US Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.

    1986 – President Ronald Reagan nominates Sessions to become a federal judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee opposes the nomination following testimony that Sessions made racist remarks and called the NAACP and ACLU “un-American.”

    1995-1997- Alabama Attorney General. During this time, an Alabama judge accuses Sessions of prosecutorial misconduct related to the handling of evidence in a case but ultimately, Sessions is not disciplined for ethics violations.

    1996 – Elected to the US Senate. Reelected in 2002, 2008 and 2014.

    1997–February 2017 – Republican senator representing Alabama.

    February 2, 2009 – Votes in favor of the confirmation of Eric Holder as attorney general.

    April 23, 2015 – Votes against the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general.

    February 28, 2016 – Becomes the first sitting US senator to endorse Donald Trump’s presidential bid.

    November 18, 2016 – President-elect Trump announces he intends to nominate Sessions to be the next attorney general.

    January 3, 2017 – An NAACP sit-in to protest the nomination of Sessions as US attorney general ends when six people are arrested at Sessions’ Mobile, Alabama, office.

    February 8, 2017 – After 30 hours of debate, the US Senate confirms Sessions as attorney general by a 52-47 vote.

    March 1, 2017 – The Washington Post reports that Sessions failed to disclose pre-election meetings with the top Russian diplomat in Washington. Sessions did not mention either meeting during his confirmation hearings when he said he knew of no contacts between Trump surrogates and Russians.

    March 2, 2017 – Sessions recuses himself from any involvement in a Justice Department probe into links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

    March 10, 2017 – The DOJ abruptly announces the firing of 46 US attorneys, including Preet Bharara of New York. Bharara said that during the transition, Trump asked him to stay on during a meeting at Trump Tower.

    April 3, 2017 – The Department of Justice releases a memorandum ordering a review of consent decrees and other police reforms overseen by the federal government in response to complaints of civil rights abuses and public safety issues. During his confirmation hearing, Sessions expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Justice Department interventions in local police matters.

    July 21, 2017 – The Washington Post reports that Sessions discussed policy-related matters with Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak before the 2016 election, according to intelligence intercepts. Sessions had previously claimed that he did not talk about the campaign or relations with Russia during his meetings with Kislyak.

    October 4, 2017 – In a memo to all federal prosecutors, Sessions says that a 1964 federal civil rights law does not protect transgender workers from employment discrimination and the department will take this new position in all “pending and future matters.”

    November 14, 2017 – During a House judiciary committee hearing, Sessions says he did not lie under oath in earlier hearings regarding communications with Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign, and denies participating in any collusion with Russia. Sessions also says the DOJ will consider investigations into Hillary Clinton and alleged ties between the Clinton Foundation and the sale of Uranium One.

    January 4, 2018 – Sessions announces that the DOJ is rescinding an Obama-era policy of non-interference with states that have legalized recreational marijuana. The reversal frees up federal prosecutors to pursue cases in states where recreational marijuana is legal.

    March 21, 2018 – Sessions issues a statement encouraging federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for certain drug-related crimes, as mandated by law. Seeking capital punishment in drug cases is part of the Trump administration’s efforts to combat opioid abuse.

    May 7, 2018 – Sessions announces a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal border crossings, warning that parents could be separated from children if they try to cross to the United States from Mexico. “If you cross the border unlawfully, even a first offense, we’re going to prosecute you. If you’re smuggling a child, we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child to be separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.” On June 20, Trump signs an executive order that will keep far more families together at the border.

    May 30, 2018 – Trump again expresses regret for choosing Sessions to lead the Justice Department. In a tweet, he quotes a remark from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who said that the president could have picked someone else as attorney general. “I wish I did!,” Trump tweets. He had first said that he was rethinking his choice of Sessions as attorney general during a July 2017 interview with the New York Times.

    June 2018 – More than 600 members of the United Methodist Church issue a formal complaint against Sessions, arguing that the US government’s “zero tolerance” policy on immigration, which was separating migrant parents from their children at the US-Mexico border, violates church rules and may constitute child abuse. On August 8, church officials confirm that the charges filed against Sessions have been dropped.

    August 23, 2018 – In response to Trump saying during a Fox News interview that Sessions “never took control” of the Justice Department, Sessions issues a rare statement, saying, “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in…While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations…”

    November 7, 2018 – President Trump asks Sessions to resign, effectively firing him. “At your request I am submitting my resignation,” Sessions writes in a letter delivered to White House chief of staff John Kelly.

    November 7, 2019 – Announces he is running for his former Alabama Senate seat.

    July 14, 2020 – Sessions loses the Alabama Senate GOP primary runoff to former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Displaced Afghan students face uncertain future as they await approval to come to US | CNN Politics

    Displaced Afghan students face uncertain future as they await approval to come to US | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    For a group of roughly two dozen displaced Afghan university students, the future feels uncertain.

    They’ve already uprooted their lives once, fleeing Kabul – where they were studying at the American University of Afghanistan (AUAF) – when Afghanistan fell back under Taliban rule and the university was shuttered two years ago.

    They were among the 110 AUAF students who were able to evacuate to Iraqi Kurdistan to continue studies at the American University of Iraq-Sulaimani with the help of both universities, former Iraqi President Barham Salih, and a group called the Afghan Future Fund.

    Now, the 23 students are awaiting approval to come to the United States, where they have been accepted into universities and received scholarships through the Qatar Scholarship for Afghans Project to finish their undergraduate degrees or pursue graduate ones.

    “It’s been a year since my graduation. I’m still here, waiting,” one student in Iraq told CNN.

    “I am left with uncertainty now,” a second student said, telling CNN that they fear they will be left “in limbo.”

    CNN is not using the names of the students to protect their safety.

    More than 100 displaced Afghan students – 80 of whom were in Iraq – have already come to the US, where they are studying at more than 45 universities, according to sources familiar with the situation.

    The sources told CNN that most of the students are coming to the US as Priority 1 (P-1) refugees – a program they qualify for because of their affiliation with AUAF. The university received significant funding from the US government over the course of a decade and was targeted by suspected Taliban militants in a deadly 2016 attack. Its campus was seized by the Taliban almost immediately after the US military completed its withdrawal in August 2021.

    The 23 students who remain in Iraq have not received P-1 approval yet. Sources say this is likely due to a security review process.

    The students told CNN they don’t have any clear sense of when they will get approval to come to the US, and they are worried about what the continued delay means for their future.

    Those who spoke to CNN have already had to defer their enrollment once, and likely will have to do so again as the start of fall semester looms. The second student said they had lost admission at their first university in the US because they were unable to travel there and enroll.

    “This is basically my last hope,” this student said, noting they do not want to lose admission again.

    “I do not want to lose another year of my life,” the first student said.

    “I really want to study. I have worked really hard when I was in Afghanistan to get the chance of going to AUAF,” they said.

    “I’m never going to give up on education,” they added.

    “We Afghans lost almost everything, and this scholarship in the US is a very big opportunity for us,” a third student told CNN.

    Going back to Afghanistan is not an option for these students, particularly those who are female. This is why they have sought the P-1 refugee status, which would give them a pathway to settle in the US after university.

    The Taliban has enacted harsh restrictions against women and girls since coming back into power in two years ago. Girls and women have been barred from higher education and numerous work sectors; have been refused access to public spaces; have been ordered to cover themselves in public; and have had their travel abroad restricted.

    “Anything that women do in Afghanistan is banned right now. You cannot exist as a woman,” the first student said.

    For now, there are substantial efforts underway to try to get the students cleared to come to the US as soon as possible, with students reaching out to their prospective future members of Congress and advocates engaging with various agencies of the US government.

    A US State Department spokesperson said they are “aware of the Afghan students at the American University of Iraq-Sulaimani,” but could not comment on individual cases.

    “Case processing in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program can be lengthy, however, we continue to prioritize processing cases of our Afghan allies and are working hard to speed up case processing across the USRAP,” the spokesperson said.

    Vance Serchuk, an Afghan Futures Fund board member, said that his organization and others like Education Above All, Qatar Fund For Development, and the Institute of International Education “are committed to helping displaced Afghan students from the American University complete their education and realize their potential in safety.”

    “These young people made the choice to attend the American university in Afghanistan at great risk to themselves; Americans now cannot be indifferent to their fate,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fulton County district attorney is likely to present her case against Trump to grand jury next week | CNN Politics

    Fulton County district attorney is likely to present her case against Trump to grand jury next week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Atlanta-area district attorney investigating former President Donald Trump and his allies has been lining up witnesses to appear before a grand jury in order to craft a narrative around how Trump and his supporters tried to reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election in the Peach State, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to spend two days presenting her case before a grand jury next week.

    Willis could seek several indictments as she eyes a sweeping racketeering case that could cast Trump and several of his associates as operating as a criminal enterprise in their endeavors to upend Georgia’s election results.

    If Willis proceeds with racketeering charges, “I think she is going to tell a story,” said Georgia State law professor Clark D. Cunningham. “The story of how one person at the top – the former president – really marshaled an army of people to accomplish his goal which was to stay in power through any means.”

    The witnesses Willis has subpoenaed include former Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, former Georgia Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan and independent journalist George Chidi. All of them previously testified before a special purpose grand jury that was tasked with investigating the Trump case and heard from more than 75 witnesses.

    But Georgia law is unusual in that special purpose grand juries – which have broad investigative powers – are not permitted to issue indictments. When the subpoenaed witnesses appear before the regular grand jury, those grand jurors will hear the witnesses’ testimony for the first time with a narrower purpose at hand: to approve or reject indictments.

    The witnesses that have been summoned to testify speak to various prongs of Willis’ investigation, from conspiracy-laden presentations that Trump’s associates – including former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani – made before Georgia lawmakers in 2020, to the convening of fake electors to try to thwart President Joe Biden’s victory in the state. She can also rely on her internal investigators to present evidence that was previously collected by the special purpose grand jury.

    In a case of this magnitude, “probably the indictment has been drafted and reviewed for months,” Michael J. Moore, former US attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, told CNN.

    If there’s anything left to be done, Moore said it was likely final tweaks and finishing touches.

    “The indictment, word-for-word, is going to be flyspecked. You’re making sure there are no errors in it,” Moore said. “And you’re making sure you have enough pieces to prove each count.”

    Willis’ office declined to comment.

    Willis launched her investigation into Trump in early 2021, soon after he called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and pressured the Republican to “find” the votes necessary for Trump to win the state of Georgia. At a campaign event Tuesday, Trump continued to insist it was a “perfect phone call.”

    Her investigation has steadily expanded, and Willis has been weighing racketeering charges in the Trump case. RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – is a statute the district attorney has spoken fondly of and used in unorthodox ways to bring charges against teachers as well as musicians in the Atlanta area.

    In 2015, Willis was thrust into the national spotlight as a Fulton County prosecutor when she used Georgia’s racketeering statute to charge teachers, principals and other education officials in an Atlanta Public School cheating scandal.

    After a 7-month trial, Willis secured convictions for 11 of the 12 defendants charged with racketeering and other crimes related to cheating that was believed to date to early 2001, when scores on statewide skills tests began to rise in the 50,000-student school district.

    “The reason that I am a fan of RICO is, I think jurors are very, very intelligent,” Willis told reporters in 2022 at a press conference about a gang-related indictment. “They want to know what happened. They want to make an accurate decision about someone’s life. And so, RICO is a tool that allows a prosecutor’s office and law enforcement to tell the whole story.”

    Soon after Willis embarked on her Trump investigation, she retained attorney John Floyd – known for his depth of knowledge in racketeering cases – to assist her office.

    In addition to allowing prosecutors to weave a narrative, Georgia’s racketeering statute allows investigators to pull a broader array of conduct into their indictments, including activities that took place outside of the state of Georgia but may have been part of a broader conspiracy.

    Those convicted of racketeering charges also face steeper penalties, a point of leverage for prosecutors if they are hoping to flip potential co-conspirators or encourage defendants to take plea deals.

    Willis’ team has forged ahead with plans to make charging announcements in the coming weeks, even as special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with four federal counts related to his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.

    A hefty chunk of the conduct in the indictment was related to efforts to flip the election results in Georgia. Trump has pleaded not guilty in that case.

    The former president’s legal team believes he is likely to face his fourth indictment in the coming days, people familiar with the matter told CNN.

    At a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Trump complained about the cases stacking up against him, adding, “I probably have another one.”

    He also railed against the Fulton County district attorney’s case.

    “I challenge the election in Georgia – which I have every right to do, which I was right about frankly – and they want to indict me because I challenge the election,” Trump told the crowd, even though his efforts to challenge the election results in court failed and no evidence of widespread voter fraud has ever emerged.

    Still, the biggest risk Willis runs at the moment may be in public perception if she moves ahead with a Trump indictment, said Moore, the former US attorney.

    “It starts to look like she’s just piling on because the same things that are in her indictment are also in the federal indictment,” Moore predicted, though he has not been privy to drafts of Willis’ potential indictments. “I’m not sure she’s got anything new to talk about.”

    At an event last week at Atlanta Technical College, Willis told reporters she had reviewed the special counsel’s federal indictment against Trump for election interference but said it would not affect her plans in Georgia.

    Asked what she would say to critics who question the purpose of her case in the wake of the federal indictment, Willis said, “That I took an oath. And that oath requires that I follow the law. And if someone broke the law in Fulton County, Georgia, that I have a duty to prosecute and that’s exactly what I plan to do.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Trump falsely claims polls show his Black support has quadrupled or quintupled since his mug shot | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Trump falsely claims polls show his Black support has quadrupled or quintupled since his mug shot | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Wednesday that polls show his support among Black Americans has quadrupled or quintupled since his mug shot was released.

    The booking photo was taken on August 24, when Trump was arrested in Fulton County, Georgia, on charges connected to his efforts to overturn his defeat in the state in the 2020 election.

    On Wednesday, Trump claimed in a falsehood-filled interview with conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt that “many Democrats” will be voting for him in the 2024 election because they agree with him that the criminal charges against him in four cases are unfair. He then made this assertion: “The Black community is so different for me in the last – since that mug shot was taken, I don’t know if you’ve seen the polls; my polls with the Black community have gone up four and five times.”

    Facts First: National public polls do not show anything close to an increase of “four and five times” in Black support for Trump since his mug shot was taken, either in a race against President Joe Biden or in his own favorability rating; Trump’s campaign did not respond to CNN’s request to identify any poll that corroborates Trump’s claim. Most polls conducted after the release of the mug shot did find a higher level of Black support for Trump than he had in previous polls – but the increases were within the polls’ margins of error, not massive spikes, so it’s not clear whether there was a genuine improvement or the bump was just statistical noise. In addition, one poll found a decline in Trump’s strength with Black voters in a race against Biden, while another found a decline in his favorability with Black respondents even as he improved in a race against Biden.

    Because Black adults make up a relatively small share of the overall population, they tend to have small sample sizes in national public polls. That means the margins of error for this group are big and the results tend to bounce around from poll to poll. And even if Trump’s recent polling improvement captures a real change in voter sentiment, there is no evidence that change has anything to do with his mug shot, which no poll asked about; it could just as well have to do with, say, the summer increase in the price of gas or any of numerous other factors affecting perceptions of Biden.

    Regardless, Trump greatly exaggerated the size of the recent uptick seen in some polls. Here’s a look at what polls actually show about his recent standing with the Black population, plus a fact check of three of Trump’s many other false claims from the Hewitt interview.

    CNN identified five national public polls that: 1) included data on Black respondents in particular; 2) were conducted after Trump’s mug shot was released on August 24; 3) were conducted by pollsters who had also released polls in the recent past.

    Four of the polls showed gains for Trump among Black respondents, though much smaller gains than the quadrupling or quintupling he claimed to Hewitt.

    Trump gained 3 percentage points with Black respondents in polling by The Economist and YouGov, though within the margin of error – going from 17% against Biden in mid-August to 20% in late August. (The earlier poll asked the Trump-versus-Biden question of Black adults regardless of whether they are registered to vote, while the later poll asked the question to Black registered voters, so the results might not be directly comparable.) At the same time, Trump’s favorability with Black respondents was down 9 percentage points to 18%.

    Trump gained 3 percentage points with Black registered voters between a Messenger/Harris X poll in early July and a survey by the same pollster in late August, edging up from 22% against Biden to 25%. Trump gained 6 percentage points among Black adults in polling by the firm Premise, going from 12% against Biden in an Aug. 17-21 poll to 18% in an Aug. 30-Sept. 5 poll. He gained 8 percentage points among Black registered voters in polling by Republican firm Echelon Insights, going from 14% against Biden in late July to 22% in late August. Based on the sample sizes reported for Black respondents in each poll, all of those changes are within the margin of error.

    One of the five polls, by Emerson College, showed Trump’s standing with Black registered voters worsening after the mug shot was released, though this change was also within the margin of error. In Emerson’s mid-August poll, Trump had about 27% Black support in a race against Biden; in its late-August poll, he had about 19% support.

    In addition to looking at those five polls, we contacted The Wall Street Journal about an Aug. 24-30 poll, conducted jointly by Republican and Democratic pollsters, for which the newspaper has not yet released detailed demographic-by-demographic results. Aaron Zitner, a Journal reporter and editor who works on the poll, told us that Trump’s level of support with Black voters “didn’t change at all” between the paper’s April poll and this new poll, though Biden’s standing declined slightly within the margin of error.

    Exit polls estimated that Trump received 12% of the Black vote in the 2020 election. A post-election Pew Research Center analysis found that he received 8%.

    Mike Pence’s standing in 2016

    Trump made another false polling-related claim to Hewitt.

    This one was about how Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president and his current opponent for the Republican nomination, had performed in polls during his 2016 campaign for reelection as governor of Indiana. Pence ceased his Indiana campaign when Trump selected him as his running mate in July 2016.

    Trump said Wednesday: “I’m disappointed in Mike Pence, because I took Mike from the garbage heap. He was going to lose. You know, he was running for governor, reelection. He was running for governor again, to continue his term, and he was absolutely, you know – he was down by 10 or 15 points.”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim that Pence was trailing by “10 or 15 points” in his 2016 race is false. It’s true that Pence had faced a tough battle for reelection as governor before he ended the campaign to run nationally with Trump, but no public poll had shown him down big.

    A May 2016 poll (commissioned by a Republican group that was founded by an opponent of Pence’s right-wing stance on gay rights and other issues) had showed Pence with 40% support and his Democratic opponent, John Gregg, with 36% support; the Indianapolis Star called this a “virtual dead heat” because of the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, but nonetheless, Pence certainly wasn’t “down by 10 or 15 points” like Trump said. An April 2016 poll had showed Pence with 49% support to Gregg’s 45%, again within the margin of error but not with Pence trailing.

    “There would not be any poll that would show Pence down 10-15 points to John Gregg at that time or frankly at any point even if Pence had stayed for the reelection campaign,” Christine Matthews, the president of Bellwether Research & Consulting and a Republican pollster who conducted surveys during that 2016 race in Indiana, including the May 2016 poll mentioned above, told CNN on Wednesday. Matthews said Pence could possibly have lost the race if he had remained in it, “but no poll would have shown him down by 10-15 points in that process.”

    Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina in 2020

    Trump repeated his usual lies about the 2020 election – saying, among other things, that “it was rigged and stolen.” In support of those lies, he said: “One of the top people in Alabama said you don’t win Alabama by 45 points or whatever it is I won, and then win South Carolina in a record, nobody’s ever gotten that many votes, and then you lose Georgia by just a couple of votes. It doesn’t work that way.”

    Facts First: Trump hedged his claim that he won Alabama by “45 points,” adding the “whatever it is I won,” but the “45 points” claim is not even close to correct no matter what “one of the top people” told him; he won Alabama by about 25.5 percentage points in 2020. He lost Georgia by far more than “just a couple of votes”; it was 11,779 votes. And while he did earn a record number of votes in South Carolina, he did not win the state with anything close to a “record” margin of victory; his roughly 11.7-point margin in 2020 was about 2.6 points smaller than his own margin in 2016 and also smaller than the margins earned by numerous previous winners.

    In addition, Trump’s claim that “it doesn’t work that way” – winning some states big while losing a nearby state – is also baseless. Even neighboring states are not the same. Georgia, which Trump lost fair and square, has key demographic and social differences from South Carolina and Alabama, as we explained in a previous fact check.

    Polls and election results weren’t the only things Trump exaggerated about in the interview.

    He invoked the price of bacon while criticizing the Biden administration for speaking positively about the state of inflation, which has declined sharply over the last year but remains elevated. “They try and say, ‘Oh, inflation’s wonderful.’ What about for the last three years, where bacon is five times higher than it was just a few years ago?”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim that the price of bacon has quintupled over the last few years is grossly inaccurate. The average price of bacon is higher than it was three years ago, but it is nowhere near “five times higher.” The average price for a pound of sliced bacon was $6.236 per pound in July 2023, up from $5.776 in July 2020, according to federal data – an increase of about 8%, nowhere near the 400% increase Trump claimed.

    You can come up with a larger percentage increase if you start the clock at a different point in 2020; for example, the July 2023 average price is a 13.4% increase from the February 2020 average price. But even that larger increase is way smaller than Trump claimed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics

    Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Around the country, politicians are waging high-stakes battles over new congressional lines that could influence which party controls the US House of Representatives after the 2024 election.

    In North Carolina, the Republicans who control the state legislature have crafted a map that could help them flip at least three seats. Democrats, meanwhile, could pick up seats in legal skirmishes now playing out in New York, Louisiana, Georgia and other states.

    In all, the fate of anywhere from 14 to 18 House seats across nearly a dozen states could turn on the results of these fights. Republicans currently hold just a five-seat edge in the US House. That razor-edge majority has been underscored in recent weeks by the GOP’s chaotic struggle to elect a new speaker.

    “Given that the majority is so narrow, every outcome matters to the fight for House control in 2024,” said David Wasserman, who follows redistricting closely as senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

    And with fewer competitive districts that swing between the political parties, Wasserman added, “every line change is almost existential.”

    Experts say several other factors have helped lead to the slew of consequential – and unresolved – redistricting disputes, just months before the first primaries of the 2024 cycle.

    They include pandemic-related delays in completing the 2020 census – the once-a-decade population count that kicks off congressional and state legislative redistricting – as well as a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that threw decisions about partisan gerrymandering back to state courts.

    In addition, some litigation had been frozen in place until the US Supreme Court’s surprise ruling in June, which found that a Republican-crafted redistricting plan in Alabama disadvantaged Black voters in the state and was in violation of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

    That decision “is functionally reanimating all of these dormant cases,” said Adam Kincaid, the president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, which supports the GOP’s redistricting efforts.

    Kincaid said it’s too soon to tell whether Republicans or Democrats will emerge with the advantage by Election Day 2024. In his view, either party could gain or lose only about two seats over redistricting.

    In many of the closely watched states where action is pending, just a single seat hangs in the balance, with two notable exceptions: North Carolina and New York, where multiple seats are at stake. Republicans control the map-drawing in the Tar Heel State, while the job could fall to Democrats in New York, potentially canceling out each party’s gains.

    “Democrats kind of need to run the table in the rest of these states” to gain any edge, said Nick Seabrook, a political scientist at the University of North Florida and the author of the 2022 book “One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America.”

    Here’s a state-by-state look at recent and upcoming redistricting disputes that could shape the 2024 race for control of the US House:

    In one of the cycle’s highest-profile redistricting cases, a three-judge panel in Alabama approved a map that creates a second congressional district with a substantial Black population. Before the court action, Alabama – which is 27% Black – had only one Black-majority congressional district out of seven seats.

    The fight over the map went all the way to the Supreme Court – which issued a surprise ruling, affirming a lower-court opinion that ordered Alabama to include a second Black-majority district or “something quite close to it.” Under the map that will be in place for the 2024 election, the state’s 2nd District now loops into Mobile to create a seat where nearly half the population is Black.

    The high court’s 5-4 decision in June saw two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, side with the three liberals to uphold the lower-court ruling. Their action kept intact a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act: that it’s illegal to draw maps that effectively keep Black voters from electing a candidate of their choice.

    The ruling has reverberated around the country and could affect the outcome of similar court cases underway in Louisiana and Georgia that center on whether Republican-drawn maps improperly diluted Black political power in those states.

    Given that Black voters in Alabama have traditionally backed Democrats, the party now stands a better chance of winning the newly reconfigured district and sending to of its members to Congress after next year’s elections.

    The new map – approved in recent days by the lower-court judges – also could result in two Black US House members from Alabama serving together for the first time in state history.

    A state judge in September struck down congressional lines for northern Florida that had been championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, ruling that the Republican governor’s map had improperly diluted Black voting power.

    This case, unlike the Alabama fight decided by the US Supreme Court, centers on provisions in the state constitution.

    The judge concluded that the congressional boundaries – which essentially dismantled a seat once held by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, that connected Black communities across a northern reach of the Florida – violated the state’s Fair Districts amendments, enacted by voters. One amendment specifically bars the state from drawing a district that diminishes the ability of racial minorities “to elect representatives of their choice.”

    Arguments before an appeals court are slated for later this month, with litigants seeking a decision by late November. The case is expected to land before the all-Republican state Supreme Court, where DeSantis appointees hold most seats.

    A separate federal case – which argues that the map violates the US Constitution – is pending.

    But observers say the outcome of the state litigation is more likely than the federal case to determine whether Florida lawmakers must restore the North Florida district, given the state constitution’s especially strong protections for the voting rights of racial minorities and the lower burden of proof required to establish that those rights were abridged.

    A redistricting case now before a federal judge could create a more competitive seat for Democrats in the Atlanta suburbs.

    The plaintiffs challenging the congressional map drawn by Georgia Republicans argue that the increasingly diverse population in the Peach State should result in an additional Black-majority district, this one in the western Atlanta metro area. A trial in the case recently concluded and awaits a final ruling by US District Judge Steve Jones.

    In 2022, Jones preliminarily ruled that some parts of the Republicans’ redistricting plan likely violated federal law but allowed the map to be used in that year’s midterm elections.

    A separate federal case in Georgia challenges the congressional map on constitutional grounds and is slated to go to trial next month.

    Currently, Republicans hold nine of the 14 seats in Georgia’s congressional delegation. Black people make up a majority, or close to it, in four districts, including three in the Atlanta area.

    The Kentucky Supreme Court could soon decide whether a map drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature amounts to what Democrats assert is an “extreme partisan” gerrymander in violation of the state’s constitution.

    Much of the case focuses on disputes over state legislative maps, but the congressional lines also are at stake, with critics saying lawmakers moved Kentucky’s capital city – Democratic-leaning Frankfort – out of the 6th Congressional District and into an oddly shaped – and solidly Republican – 1st District to help shore up Republican odds of holding the 6th District.

    The 6th District, represented by GOP Rep. Andy Barr, was one of the more competitive seats in Kentucky under its previous lines. (Democrat Amy McGrath came within 3 points of beating Barr in 2018; last year, Barr won a sixth term under the new lines by 29 points.)

    A lower-court judge already has ruled that the Republican-drawn map does not violate the state’s constitution.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama could pave the way for a new congressional map in Louisiana ahead of the 2024 election, but the case has quickly become mired in appeals.

    Although Black people make up roughly a third of the state’s population, Louisiana has just one Black lawmaker in its six-member congressional delegation.

    A federal judge threw out the state’s Republican-drawn map in 2022, saying it likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Republican officials in the state appealed to the US Supreme Court, which put the lower-court ruling on hold until it decided the Alabama case, which it did in June this year.

    Once the high court weighed in on the Alabama case, the legal skirmishes again lurched to life in Louisiana.

    Louisiana Republicans have filed an appeal with the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and successfully halted a district court hearing to discuss imposing a new, court-ordered map.

    On Thursday, the US Supreme Court declined to allow the federal district judge to move forward with discussions about drawing a new map while the appeal advances through the courts.

    GOP state officials say, among other things, that they are seeking time to redraw the map themselves. Critics of the state’s original map argue that Republicans are using legal maneuvers to delay a new redistricting plan, which could result in a second Democratic-leaning seat.

    Legal battles that drag on risk judges invoking the so-called Purcell Principle, a doctrine that limits changing voting procedures and boundaries too close to Election Day to guard against voter confusion.

    “Some of the reason it becomes too late is because, in many of these cases, the state is prolonging the litigation … and buying more time with an illegal map,” said Kareem Crayton, senior director for voting and representation at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.

    Republicans in New Mexico say the congressional lines drawn by the Democrats who control state government amount to an illegal gerrymander under the state’s constitution.

    At stake: a swing district along the US border with Mexico. If Republicans prevail, the seat – now held by a Democratic Rep. Gabe Vasquez – could become more favorable to Republicans.

    A state judge recently upheld the map drawn by Democrats, but the New Mexico Supreme Court is expected to review that order on appeal.

    Republicans flipped four US House seats in New York in the 2022 midterm elections, victories that helped secure their party’s majority in the chamber.

    Current legal fights in the Empire State over redistricting, however, could erase those gains.

    A state court judge oversaw last year’s process of drawing the current map following a long legal battle and the inability of New York’s bipartisan redistricting commission to agree on new lines. But Democrats scored a court victory earlier this year when a state appellate court ruled that the redistricting commission should draw new lines.

    Republicans have appealed that decision, and oral arguments are set for mid-November before New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. The commission’s map-making also is on hold.

    If Democrats prevail, it could make it easier for their party to pick up as many as six seats now held by Republicans.

    North Carolina’s legislature, where Republicans hold a supermajority, has drawn new congressional lines that observers say could prove a windfall for the GOP and boost the party’s chances of retaining its House majority next year.

    The state’s current House delegation is split 7-7 between Democrats and Republicans.

    A map that state lawmakers recently approved puts three House Democrats in what one expert called “almost impossible to win” districts.

    The affected Democrats are Reps. Jeff Jackson, who currently represents a Charlotte-area district; Wiley Nickel, who holds a Raleigh-area seat; and Kathy Manning, who represents Greensboro and other parts of north-central North Carolina.

    A fourth Democrat, Rep. Don Davis, saw his district retooled to become more friendly toward Republicans while remaining competitive for both parties.

    State-level gains in the 2022 midterm elections have given the GOP new sway over redistricting in this swing state. Last year, Republicans flipped North Carolina’s Supreme Court, whose members are chosen in partisan elections. The new GOP majority on the court this year tossed out a 2022 ruling by the then-Democratic leaning court against partisan gerrymandering.

    A map that had been created after the Democratic-led high court’s ruling resulted in the current even split in the state’s House delegation.

    Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper does not have veto power over redistricting legislation.

    A redistricting case pending before the US Supreme Court centers on the future of a Charleston-area seat held by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, who made headlines recently for joining House GOP hard-liners in voting to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker.

    Earlier this year, a three-judge panel concluded that lines for the coastal 1st Congressional District, as drawn by state GOP lawmakers, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

    The Republican lawmakers appealed to the US Supreme Court. And, during oral arguments earlier this month, several justices in the court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism that South Carolina officials had engaged in an improper racial gerrymander and seemed inclined to reinstate the lawmakers’ map.

    The state Supreme Court, in a case it heard in July, is considering whether it even has the authority to weigh in on map-drawing decisions by the GOP-controlled state legislature.

    Republican state officials argue that the court’s power over redistricting decisions is limited.

    Advocacy groups and a handful of voters are challenging a congressional map that further carved up Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County between four decidedly Republican districts.

    Doing so, the plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit, “takes a slice of Salt Lake County and grafts it onto large swaths of the rest of Utah,” allowing Republican voters in rural areas and smaller cities far away from Salt Lake to “dictate the outcome of elections.”

    Redistricting fights over congressional maps are ongoing in several other states – ranging from Texas to Tennessee – but those cases might not be resolved in time to affect next year’s elections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dennis Hastert Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Dennis Hastert Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at the life of Dennis Hastert, former Republican speaker of the House. Hastert was sentenced to 15 months in prison in a hush money case that revealed he was being accused of sexually abusing young boys while he was a teacher in Illinois.

    Birth date: January 2, 1942

    Birth place: Aurora, Illinois

    Birth name: John Dennis Hastert

    Father: Jack Hastert, former restaurant owner

    Mother: Naomi (Nussle) Hastert

    Marriage: Jean (Kahl) Hastert (1973-present)

    Children: Ethan and Joshua

    Education: Wheaton College, B.A., 1964; Northern Illinois University, M.S., 1967

    Religion: Protestant

    Goes by the nickname “Denny.”

    Hastert is diabetic.

    Was named Illinois Coach of the Year after leading the Yorkville High School wrestling team to the state championship.

    Instituted the so-called “Hastert Rule,” an informal guideline where only legislation supported by “the majority of the majority” party is brought to a vote on the House floor.

    1964-1980 – Wrestling and football coach and government/history teacher at Yorkville High School.

    1980-1986 – Member of the Illinois House of Representatives.

    January 3, 1987-November 26, 2007 – US representative from Illinois’ 14th congressional district.

    1995-1999 – House chief deputy minority whip.

    January 6, 1999 – Is elected speaker of the House, replacing Newt Gingrich.

    November 22, 2003 – Hastert fights hard to secure passage of a Medicare bill in the House. The vote takes three hours and lasts well into the night. It is signed into law by US President George W. Bush on December 8 after also being passed by the Senate.

    January 3, 2006 – Donates $70,000 of campaign contributions from companies associated with lobbyist Jack Abramoff to charity after Abramoff pleads guilty to corruption charges.

    June 1, 2006 – Surpasses Joe Cannon to become the longest-serving Republican speaker of the House in US history.

    October 3, 2006 – Appears on “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and says he has no intention of resigning due to the controversy over Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) sexually explicit emails to underage pages.

    November 7, 2006 – Is reelected to his eleventh term in Congress. Republicans lose their majority in the House, so Hastert loses his position as speaker of the House when the new Congress begins on January 4, 2007.

    August 17, 2007 – Announces that he will not run for reelection in 2008.

    November 15, 2007 – Announces his resignation on the House floor. He formally resigns on November 26 after 20 years in office.

    June 2008 – Joins the Washington lobbying firm of Dickstein Shapiro as a senior adviser.

    June 8, 2009 – Hastert’s son, Ethan, announces he will run for his father’s former congressional seat but later loses in the GOP primary.

    May 7, 2010 – Hastert is conferred the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun by Emperor Akihito of Japan.

    May 28, 2015 – Federal officials indict Hastert for lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed subject to “cover up past misconduct.” The Justice Department alleges that Hastert paid the subject a total of about $1.7 million over a period of years beginning in 2010 and ending in 2014. Hastert resigns from the lobbying firm Dickstein Shapiro.

    May 29, 2015 – Sources with knowledge of the federal investigation tell CNN Hastert was paying a former student to keep quiet about allegations of sexual misconduct from the time when Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois.

    June 9, 2015 – Pleads not guilty to all charges related to lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed subject.

    October 28, 2015 – Hastert pleads guilty to structuring money transactions in a way to evade requirements to report where the money was going.

    December 17, 2015 – A statement is released announcing that Hastert was admitted to the hospital in the first week of November 2015. He was treated for a stroke and sepsis. This was followed by two back surgeries.

    April 8, 2016 – Documents released by prosecutors allege Hastert sexually abused at least four boys when he coached high school wrestling in Illinois.

    April 25, 2016 – Hastert is sued by a former student in Illinois Circuit Court. The former student seeks to collect $1.8 million. This is the remainder of the $3.5 million promised him for covering up Hastert’s past misconduct.

    April 27, 2016 – Hastert is sentenced to 15 months in prison. He is ordered to pay $250,000 to a victims’ fund, must serve two years of supervised release once he finishes his prison term, and enter a sex offender treatment program.

    June 22, 2016 – Hastert begins serving his 15-month sentence at a federal medical prison in Rochester, Minnesota.

    July 18, 2017 – Is released from prison and is placed under the supervision of a residential reentry management field office in Chicago.

    November 20, 2017 – A judge in Kendall County, Illinois, throws out a lawsuit brought by a man who claims Hastert abused him when he was a child, saying the statute of limitations had passed.

    December 12, 2017 – New court-ordered restrictions ban Hastert from having contact with anyone under 18 unless an adult is present who’s aware that he pleaded guilty in the hush money case.

    September 10, 2019 – A judge in Kendall County, Illinois, rules that a lawsuit over the terms of a $3.5 million hush money deal can go to trial. One of Hastert’s former students filed the lawsuit in April 2016.

    September 29, 2021 – A Kendall County judge finalizes an out-of-court settlement between Hastert and a former student who alleged that Hastert sexually abused him, ending the lawsuit filed in April 2016 that was set to go to trial.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google update makes it easier for US users to remove some unwanted search results | CNN Business

    Google update makes it easier for US users to remove some unwanted search results | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Google unveiled new privacy updates this week that lets US users have a wee bit more control over the search results that pop up about themselves online.

    The tech giant said that it was rolling out a new dashboard that will let you know if web results with your contact information are showing up on its search engine. “Then, you can quickly request the removal of those results from Google — right in the tool,” Danielle Romain, the vice president of Trust at Google, said in a blog post Thursday.

    Romain added that Google will also notify you when new results from the web containing your contact info appear, for added “peace of mind.”

    Google also said it was enabling people to remove any of their personal, explicit images that they no longer wish to be visible in its search engine. For example, if you uploaded explicit content to a website and then subsequently deleted it, you can request its removal from Google’s Search if it’s being published elsewhere without your approval. The policy doesn’t apply, however, to content you are commercializing.

    “More broadly, whether it’s for websites containing personal information, explicit imagery or any other removal requests, we’ve updated and simplified the forms you use to submit requests,” Romain said Thursday.

    “Of course, removing content from Google Search does not remove it from the web or other search engines, but we hope these changes give you more control over private information appearing in Google Search,” she added.

    The moves by Google are essentially limited, but a step toward a US-version of Europe’s legally mandated “right to be forgotten” laws. The US updates do not currently, however, go beyond the scope of personal explicit images or contact information. Digital privacy advocates have long lamented how US policy lags far behind the European Union’s approach. An EU court established the right to be forgotten via a ruling in 2014, though the same court said in 2019 that Google does not have to honor the right outside of the EU.

    The privacy updates unveiled by Google this week, however, notably lack any mention of the latest privacy battleground in Big Tech: generative AI. As companies scramble to create large language models, the technology that underpins generative AI tools, many users and privacy advocates are now imploring tech companies to give users a way to opt-out of having their digital data used to train AI tools.

    [ad_2]

    Source link