ReportWire

Tag: societal issues

  • The real revelation from the ‘Twitter Files’: Content moderation is messy | CNN Business

    The real revelation from the ‘Twitter Files’: Content moderation is messy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Before then-President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter after the Capitol riot last January, there was a debate among some employees about what to do with the company’s most prominent and controversial user.

    Some employees questioned whether Trump’s final tweets on the platform actually violated the company’s policies, according to internal documents. Others asked if the tweets could be considered veiled (or “coded”) efforts to dodge Twitter’s rules and requested research to better understand how users might interpret them.

    The high-stakes debate among several employees, including several top execs, was revealed earlier this week in the latest edition of the “Twitter Files,” a tranche of internal company documents provided to and tweeted out by several journalists unaffiliated with major news organizations. The releases so far have focused on some of the social media company’s most high-profile, and controversial, content moderation decisions.

    The Twitter Files reports appear aimed at calling into question the integrity of Twitter’s former leadership and riling up the right-leaning user base that new owner Elon Musk has increasingly courted. The latest release, for example, appeared to imply that Twitter executives had sidestepped the platform’s rules when deciding to ban Trump and instead sought a justification to support a partisan decision they’d already made. That interpretation, while not fully supported by the documents, was echoed by Musk, who has cheered and seemingly sanctioned the release of the documents. But outside of Musk’s core base, reaction to the Twitter Files, which provide little new insight into the company’s policy and decision-making, has been largely muted.

    Strip away the spectacle and partisan discord and what the Twitter Files show is something that is arguably both far less explosive but nonetheless should give all users pause, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. In the absence of meaningful coordination or government oversight, a select few powerful tech platforms are left to make incredibly impactful and difficult decisions around content moderation — and, even when well intentioned, the people at these companies often struggle with how messy that process can be.

    In moments of crisis, platforms are generally on their own to determine how to weigh sometimes competing priorities — protecting speech versus protecting users — and often under immense public scrutiny and with pressure to act quickly. These companies have created extensive platform guidelines, set up content moderation councils, partnered with fact-checkers and invested heavily in artificial intelligence, but at the end of the day, it can still just be a group of employees trying to sort through unprecedented decisions such as whether or not to ban a sitting US president.

    “There’s no decision that’s cost free,” said Matt Perault, tech policy consultant and professor at University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science. “The challenge is that any decision [social media companies] make, including the decision not to act, will have consequences and they need to figure out which consequences they’re comfortable with … I do think it is much harder than most people seem to think it would be.”

    The process doesn’t necessarily always yield the right result. Former Twitter head of trust and safety Yoel Roth has acknowledged the company may not have made the right call in how to handle the 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. And Twitter founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey reiterated in an online post Tuesday that he believes the company acted wrongly in removing Trump’s account.

    “We did the right thing for the public company business at the time, but the wrong thing for the internet and society,” Dorsey wrote, although he added, “I continue to believe there was no ill intent or hidden agendas, and everyone acted according to the best information we had at the time. Of course mistakes were made.”

    Monday’s Twitter Files released from journalist Bari Weiss appeared to present screenshots showing Twitter employees debating how to handle Trump’s tweets in the wake of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack as proof that the company’s leadership wanted to sidestep its rules to ban Trump. But the screenshots could also be interpreted as showing a group of employees challenging each other to find the best possible way to apply the company’s rules during a critical moment that no one could have perfectly prepared for.

    The process of involving multiple staffers and teams and relying on research for high-profile decisions does not appear out of line with how Twitter and other social platforms make content moderation decisions, especially in crisis situations.

    “This is how the whole process went … this is not really out of the ordinary,” one former Twitter executive told CNN, noting that the various teams involved in content decisions would push each other to consider context and information they might not have thought of as they worked through how to handle difficult issues. “I think these conversations look like people were trying to be really thoughtful and careful,” the former executive said.

    It’s not just Twitter that wrestles with tough decisions, including around Trump. Meta also had a monthslong back-and-forth with its internal team and its external oversight board about its own decision to suspend Trump on Facebook and Instagram.

    The Files also point to several instances in which Twitter leaders changed, or considered changing, the company’s policies as evidence that they had ulterior motives. For example, there was a screenshot of a Slack message from an unnamed employee the day after Trump’s ban discussing a desire to address medical misinformation and “getting to a place of improved maturity in how our policies are actualized.” But examining emergent concerns and considering whether they might require new or updated policies seems to be precisely the job of social media trust and safety teams.

    The “Twitter Files” threads appear to have been written “with a very clear agenda,” the former executive said. “What they seem to have missed … is just how much power and influence was sitting on the shoulders of a very small number of people.”

    Even Dorsey in his Tuesday night post called for a radical overhaul of how social media works that would involve taking away the power of big social media platforms, including the one he co-founded. “I generally think companies have become far too powerful,” Dorsey said. He added that he is pushing for the growth of decentralized social media that is not controlled by any one corporation or individual, and where users can choose their own forms of content moderation.

    Still, the Twitter Files reports show just how many of the company’s employees and teams were involved in the deliberations over difficult content decisions. According to the former Twitter executive, that was by design. “Twitter’s process was designed to make sure that the decision doesn’t come down to just one person,” they said. “The alternative is that you wait until Jack Dorsey decides he doesn’t like somebody and you take it down.”

    And despite the often-charged rhetoric about the people making content decisions at social media companies, “the people who do this work are thoughtful, are skilled,” Perault said. “They’re deeply connected to the technology, to the products, to the social implications of their products.”

    The process under Musk now appears to be much different — the new Twitter owner has fired many of the employees that had been responsible for safety on the platform, he’s used easily-manipulated Twitter polls to justify major content rulings, he’s done away with Twitter’s council of outside trust and safety experts and he’s based at least one decision on who to allow on the platform on his personal feelings.

    It’s hard to argue that process isn’t messy, too.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • January 6 defendant arrested for allegedly planning to kill FBI agents who had investigated him | CNN Politics

    January 6 defendant arrested for allegedly planning to kill FBI agents who had investigated him | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Tennessee man already facing charges in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was arrested for allegedly planning to kill FBI agents, including those who had been investigating him, the Justice Department announced Friday.

    Edward Kelley, who was previously charged with assaulting an officer during the Capitol riot, and Austin Carter, also from Tennessee, have been charged with conspiracy, retaliating against a federal official, interstate threats and solicitation to commit a crime of violence.

    According to an affidavit, Kelley and Carter had a list of names of 37 law enforcement members to assassinate.

    The list noted which officers were involved in Kelley’s arrest in May in Knoxville, Tennessee, on the January 6-related charges or present during the search of his home, and it included some of their phone numbers, according to the affidavit.

    An “acquaintance” of Kelley and Carter gave the list to police and began cooperating with investigators, according to the affidavit.

    CNN has reached out to Kelley’s attorney. Carter’s attorney, Joshua Hedrick, told CNN in a statement, “Our investigation is only just beginning, but we are looking forward to providing a zealous defense of Mr. Carter, who has asserted his innocence.”

    In a news release Friday, the Justice Department said Kelley not only discussed attacking law enforcement agents with Carter and their unnamed acquaintance, but also planned to attack the FBI’s Knoxville, Tennessee Field Office.

    “If I’m extradited to DC or you don’t hear about my status within 24 or 48 hours..if they are coming to arrest me again, start it,” Kelley told the acquaintance during a recorded call Wednesday, according to the affidavit. “You guys are taking them out at their office. What you and [Carter] need to do is recruit as many as you can…and you’re going to attack their office.”

    When the acquaintance asked if Carter was in support of part of Kelley’s plans, Carter told the individual that “this is the time, add up or put up” and “to definitely make sure you got everything racked, locked up and loaded.”

    Kelley and Carter will remain detained pending further hearings.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Transgender death row inmate set to be executed in January files clemency application with Missouri governor | CNN

    Transgender death row inmate set to be executed in January files clemency application with Missouri governor | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A transgender woman who is scheduled to be executed in Missouri next month for murdering a woman in 2003 has filed a clemency application with the governor, citing struggles with brain damage and childhood trauma, the petition says.

    Amber McLaughlin – listed in court documents as Scott McLaughlin – is set to be executed by lethal injection on January 3 for the 2003 murder of Beverly Guenther, according to her clemency application with Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican.

    “The lead investigating officer contemporaneously noted McLaughlin’s genuine remorse, as has every expert to evaluate McLaughlin in the years since the trial,” the application filed by her attorneys states, adding that McLaughlin has been “consistently diagnosed with borderline intellectual disability,” and “universally diagnosed with brain damage as well as fetal alcohol syndrome.”

    A spokesperson for the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-execution organization, told CNN that McLaughlin is the first transgendered prisoner to be given an execution date.

    McLaughlin was “abandoned” by her mother and placed into the foster care system, and in one placement, had “feces thrust into her face,” according to the petition.

    In one foster home, McLaughlin suffered abuse and trauma that included being tased by her adoptive father, the petition says, and she battled depression that led to “multiple suicide attempts.”

    The petition alleges that the jury in McLaughlin’s trial was not presented with evidence detailing her mental health struggles. The jury was ultimately deadlocked “after finding just one of four alleged statutory aggravating factors to be true.” The death penalty in McLaughlin’s case was imposed by a trial judge, according to the petition.

    McLaughlin’s lawyers argue she should be spared because she has expressed genuine remorse for Guenther’s death.

    The governor’s legal team will meet with McLaughlin’s attorneys on Tuesday to discuss her petition, according to Kelli Jones, communications director for the governor.

    “These are not decisions that the Governor takes lightly, and the process is underway as it relates to the execution scheduled for January,” Jones said.

    McLaughlin’s federal public defender, Larry Komp, told CNN his client’s execution “would highlight all the flaws of the justice system and would be a great injustice on a number of levels.”

    “It would continue the systemic failures that existed throughout Amber’s life where no interventions occurred to stop and intercede to protect her as a child and teen. All that could go wrong did go wrong for her. There is so much hate out there, so I admire Amber and her courage as she embraces who she is,” Komp wrote in a statement.

    According to Komp and the governor’s office, McLaughlin has not initiated a legal name change or transition and as a death-sentenced person, is kept at Potosi Correctional Center near St. Louis, which houses male inmates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Carolina voter ID law had racially discriminatory intent, state Supreme Court says | CNN Politics

    North Carolina voter ID law had racially discriminatory intent, state Supreme Court says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the state’s 2018 voter ID law, agreeing with the lower court that it had been passed with the intent of targeting Black voters who were unlikely to vote for Republicans.

    “We hold that the three-judge panel’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence showing that the statute was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose,” the Democratic-majority court said, adding that the lower court also correctly applied the relevant precedent.

    The state Supreme Court’s three Republican members dissented from the ruling Friday.

    The law, known as SB 824, was passed in 2018 after Republicans lost their supermajority in the legislature but before the new legislature took over. The law was put on hold under a preliminary injunction, after North Carolina’s Court of Appeals said in 2020 that voter ID provisions could negatively impact Black voters. A three-judge state court panel then permanently blocked the law in September 2021.

    Republicans will regain control of the North Carolina Supreme Court in the coming weeks, after the party flipped two seats on the court in last month’s midterm elections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republican congressman falsely claims Democratic congresswoman said pedophilia isn’t a crime | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republican congressman falsely claims Democratic congresswoman said pedophilia isn’t a crime | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    On Thursday afternoon, Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas accused Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of California of having said that “pedophilia isn’t a crime.”

    But Porter did not say that. Jackson, like some conservative Twitter personalities, was wrongly describing Porter’s remarks.

    Jackson has more than 500,000 followers on Twitter. Here’s what he tweeted: “Katie Porter just said that pedophilia isn’t a crime, she said it’s an ‘identity.’ THIS IS THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL! The sad thing is that this woman isn’t the only VILE person pushing for pedophilia normalization. This is what progressives believe!”

    Facts First: Jackson’s claim is false. Porter did not say that pedophilia isn’t a crime. Full video from a congressional hearing on Wednesday shows that Porter actually said that LGBTQ people are being falsely smeared on social media as being a “groomer” or “pedophile” merely because of their gender identity and sexual orientation. She did not defend pedophilia itself.

    In other words, Porter is being baselessly described as a supporter of pedophilia over comments in which she was denouncing how other people are being baselessly described as pedophiles.

    Jackson’s spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday afternoon.

    Porter made her remarks during a Wednesday hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee that was focused on violence and hate directed at lesbian, gay and transgender Americans. Porter was speaking to Kelley Robinson, president of an advocacy group called the Human Rights Campaign, about the group’s report on tweets the group said “mention the LGBTQ+ community alongside slurs such as ‘groomer’, ‘predator’ and ‘pedophile’.”

    Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange, which can be viewed at the 2:49:30 mark of this video.

    Porter: I wanted to start with Ms. Robinson, if I could. Your organization recently released a report analyzing the 500 most viewed, most influential tweets that identified LGBTQ people as so-called ‘groomers.’ The ‘groomer’ narrative is an age-old lie to position LGBTQ+ people as a threat to kids. And what it does is deny them access to public spaces, it stokes fear, and can even stoke violence. Ms. Robinson, according to its own hateful content policy, does Twitter allow posts calling LGBTQ+ people ‘groomers’?

    Robinson: No. I mean, Twitter, along with Facebook and many others, have community guidelines. It’s about holding users accountable to those guidelines, and acknowledging that when we use phrases and words like ‘groomers’ and ‘pedophiles’ to describe people – individuals in our communities that are mothers, that are fathers, that are teachers, that are doctors – it is dangerous. And it’s got one purpose. It is to dehumanize us. And make us feel like we are not a part of this American society. And it has real-life consequences. So we are calling on social media companies to uphold their community standards. And we’re also calling on any American that’s seeing this play out to hold ourselves and our community members accountable. We wouldn’t accept this in our families, we wouldn’t accept this in our schools. There’s no reason to accept it online.

    Porter: So – I mean, I think you’re absolutely right. And it’s not – this allegation of ‘groomer’ and of ‘pedophile,’ it is alleging that a person is criminal somehow, and engaged in criminal acts, merely because of their identity, their sexual orientation, their gender identity. So this is clearly prohibited under Twitter’s content. Yet you found hundreds of these posts on the platform.

    Nowhere did Porter say that pedophilia isn’t a crime. And the context of the exchange makes clear that she was criticizing false accusations of pedophilia that are based on a person’s identity, not saying that pedophilia is itself an identity.

    Inaccurate descriptions of Porter’s remarks spread on Twitter on Thursday with the help of videos that left out key parts of what she said.

    Jackson’s tweet used similar language as tweets earlier in the day from some other prominent accounts. For example, an account called Libs of TikTok, which has more than 1.6 million Twitter followers, wrote: “Rep Katie Porter (D) says pedophilia isn’t a crime – it’s an identity.”

    But the video that Libs of TikTok posted in support of this claim, which came from yet another conservative account, did not show the full exchange between Porter and Robinson. Specifically, it omitted Porter’s key initial comments – the ones in which she said she was talking about tweets “that identified LGBTQ people as so-called ‘groomers’” and in which she described the “groomer” accusation as “an age-old lie to position LGBTQ+ people as a threat to kids.” It also left out Robinson’s reply, in which Robinson also made clear that they were talking about groundless smears.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sources: As DPS investigation of Uvalde response nears end, two officials face increased scrutiny | CNN

    Sources: As DPS investigation of Uvalde response nears end, two officials face increased scrutiny | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Austin, Texas
    CNN
     — 

    Texas Department of Public Safety investigators looking into the botched response at Robb Elementary School have become increasingly troubled by the actions of two officials – former Uvalde schools police chief Pedro “Pete” Arredondo and former Uvalde Police Lt. Mariano Pargas – according to law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation.

    The officials told CNN that this assessment comes after investigators reviewed hours of police body camera footage and interviewed hundreds of law enforcement personnel and witnesses.

    The DPS investigation is nearly complete and expected to be in the hands of Uvalde County’s district attorney any day, DPS Director Col. Steven McCraw told CNN Thursday. The district attorney, who will ultimately decide on any charges against law enforcement, has been meeting with victims’ families to update them on the investigation and autopsy results.

    Arredondo was fired as school police chief in August following criticism of his actions during the massacre on May 24, in which law enforcement waited more than an hour before entering the adjoining classrooms where the gunman was holed up. Nineteen students and two teachers were killed in the attack.

    Arredondo is seen on body-worn cameras giving orders and receiving information during the response, but he has said he did not see himself as the incident commander.

    CNN confronts Chief Pete Arredondo. See the interaction

    Pargas, who was acting city police chief that day, was placed on leave in July when videos from body-worn cameras raised questions about whether he had taken any action to assume command. CNN’s reporting demonstrated Pargas was aware students were alive and needed rescue during the shooting but failed to organize help. Pargas ultimately resigned.

    CNN has reached out to both Pargas and Arredondo this week to address questions about their roles and has not received responses.

    On Monday, Pargas, who is also a county commissioner, told a reporter at the commission meeting: “All I can say is a lot of the stuff that’s been put out there, that is not the way it happened.” When pressed by CNN for specifics, he would not explain what he meant.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Stephen Miller led-group emerges as top legal foe of Biden initiatives | CNN Politics

    Stephen Miller led-group emerges as top legal foe of Biden initiatives | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A conservative legal group led by former top Trump aide Stephen Miller has emerged as a frequent opponent to several Biden administration initiatives by mounting court challenges, succeeding in blocking policies they say are examples of reverse discrimination.

    Miller touts America First Legal as “the long-awaited answer to the (American Civil Liberties Union),” and his group has garnered several legal victories against the Biden administration in the past few weeks and months, most notably on issues of racial discrimination.

    The group has aired advertisements criticizing the Biden administration’s policies on LGBTQ rights and has filed a class-action lawsuit against Texas A&M University, claiming the college has “engaged in a discriminatory hiring practice, choosing which candidates to hire based on their race or sex.” That lawsuit is ongoing.

    In 2021, America First Legal was also successful in halting some Covid-19 relief funds under the Small Business Administration’s Restaurant Revitalization Fund to women, veterans and minority business owners who could apply for grants during a priority period in its initial rollout, a move Miller argued was an “unconstitutional and racially discriminatory scheme.”

    Perhaps most notably, the organization was involved in legal challenges that forced the Biden administration to create a work-around on getting debt relief for farmers of color. An effort passed as part of the Covid-19-related American Rescue Plan in 2021 was challenged in court by a litany of lawsuits by some White farmers who complained that the effort to remedy longstanding inequities by wiping the debt of only farmers of color was itself discriminatory.

    America First Legal filed a lawsuit against the effort, representing Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and a group of White farmers in the state who also argued that the program is unconstitutional because of racial discrimination. The lawsuits led to an injunction that blocked the debt relief payments.

    Attorneys argued that the USDA’s definition of “socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher” that excludes Whites is “patently unconstitutional.” They also said the agency was violating the Constitution by “discriminating on the grounds of race, color, and national origin” in the program and that the court should prohibit the clause from being enforced.

    Ultimately, the administration abandoned the effort and quietly tucked a couple provisions into the Inflation Reduction Act that passed over the summer to allocate debt relief that is eligible to farmers of all backgrounds, regardless of race.

    CNN has reached out to America First Legal for comment.

    Several Black farmers and social justice advocates have said Miller’s actions are harmful.

    “I want to set the record straight – no one is against White farmers in this country,” John Boyd Jr., 57, a fourth-generation farmer who is founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association, told CNN. He added that what Miller is doing to Black farmers through the legal challenges is “humiliating and the worst thing you can do for race-relations in this country.”

    Dorian Spence, a lawyer whose firm represented the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, a group of southern cooperatives that has been advocating for Black farmers in litigation brought by White farmers, told CNN that Miller’s group uses “grievance politics through the rule of law to try to exclude people of color broadly, but in certain pockets Black people specifically from areas of opportunity.”

    “America First sees an America that is increasingly White, White male-driven,” Spence said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Shame on you’: Club Q survivors blame GOP rhetoric for mass violence | CNN Politics

    ‘Shame on you’: Club Q survivors blame GOP rhetoric for mass violence | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Survivors of the Club Q mass shooting directly tied Republicans’ rhetoric to the massacre at the Colorado LGBTQ nightclub and detailed their experiences on the night of the shooting, in prepared testimony read before the House Oversight and Reform committee Wednesday.

    “To the politicians and activists who accuse LGBTQ people of grooming children and being abusers: shame on you,” said Michael Anderson, who survived the shooting. “As leaders of our country, it is your obligation to represent all of us, not just the ones you happen to agree with. Hate speech turns into hate action, and actions based on hate almost took my life from me, at 25 years old.”

    Survivor James Slaugh gave emotional testimony, describing getting shot and watching his loved ones bleed. He also placed direct blame on lawmakers’ hateful rhetoric, saying it was “the direct cause” of the Club Q massacre. He also warned of the damage caused by hateful rhetoric that does not explicitly call for violence, including rhetoric on which bathrooms LGBTQ people can use and whether they can join certain sports teams.

    “Hate rhetoric from politicians, religious leaders, and media outlets is at the root of the attacks like at Club Q, and it needs to stop now. Rhetoric that seeks to silence what sports we can play, what bathrooms we can use, how we define our family and who I can marry,” Slaugh said.”The hateful rhetoric you have heard from elected leaders is the direct cause of the horrific shooting at Club Q. We need elected leaders to demonstrate language that reflects love and understanding, not hate and fear.”

    In her opening remarks, Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, said, “My heart breaks for those who endured this ruthless act of violence. The Club Q shooting represents an attack on all sacred places for LGBTQI+ people across the country that offer the promise of community and refuge from rampant bigotry,” adding, “The attack on Club Q and the LGBTQI community is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader trend of violence and intimidation across our country.”

    Maloney told the survivors that “Their testimony will serve as a tremendous public service for their community and for our nation. Thank you. Let us honor them by recommitting to the bold action necessary to ensure that every person in the United States can experience to live authentically and safely regardless of who they love or how they identify.”

    Ranking Republican member James Comer – who is expected to takeover the committee when Republicans retake the majority next year – sharply pushed back on those remarks and defended Republicans against claims they were contributing to any violence.

    Comer said his “thoughts and prayers” are with survivors, victims and their families, and said, “No one should have to experience what you all have experienced. Let me state clearly, as we have consistently said, Republicans condemn violence in all forms. Unfortunately, Democrats are using committee time and resources today to blame Republicans for this horrendous crime. This is not an oversight hearing. This is a ‘blame Republicans so we don’t have to take responsibility for our own defund the police and soft on crime policies.’”

    “On this committee, we should be using our time and resources to conduct oversight into the rise of violent crimes committed against all Americans and organizations. Every day, Americans no matter what the, what side of the aisle, are living in a high-crime environment,” Comer said.

    When Club Q owner and survivor Matthew Haynes read his prepared remarks, he seemed to push back directly at Comer, saying, “I know that we, our Club Q community, are in the thoughts and prayers of so many of you. Unfortunately these thoughts and prayers alone are not saving lives. They’re not changing the rhetoric of hate.”

    “We need safe places like Club Q more than ever. And we need you, our leaders, to support and protect us.” Haynes said, before reading some of the hate messages he received celebrating the deaths of gay people.

    Haynes blasted Republicans for voting against the Respect for Marriage Act, saying by doing so they were sending a message that it “is OK to disrespect and not support our marriages. We are being slaughtered and dehumanized across this country in communities you took oaths to protect,” Haynes said directly toward lawmakers. “LGBTQ issues are not political issues. They are not lifestyles. They are not beliefs. They are not choices. They are basic human rights.”

    “And so I ask you today, not simply what are you doing to safeguard LGBTQ Americans; but rather, what are you or other leaders doing to make America unsafe for LGBTQ people,” he said.

    President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law on Tuesday, after Congress passed it last month. The House vote was 258 to 169 with 39 Republicans joining the Democrats voting in favor. The bill passed the Senate with support of all members of the Senate Democratic caucus and 12 Republicans.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As House January 6 committee winds down, it is abandoning efforts to subpoena phone records | CNN Politics

    As House January 6 committee winds down, it is abandoning efforts to subpoena phone records | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The House select committee investigating the Capitol riot is dropping several of its pursuits for January 6-related phone records, according to court filings this week, as the panel winds down before it expires at the end of this year.

    The committee sent out dozens of subpoenas seeking call logs, including to major phone companies, as part of its investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result. But several Trump allies sued, contesting the committee’s authority, and Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile agreed not to turn over any data to the House while those lawsuits were litigated in court. Few of the cases have been resolved.

    That means the House select committee will not be able to incorporate in its final report without some of the information it long sought about the communications of top witnesses around Donald Trump and the White House in late 2020 and January 2021. The panel plans to release the report next week.

    This week, the committee withdrew its phone-records subpoenas related to Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, White House aide Stephen Miller, elections attorney Cleta Mitchell, conservative political activist Roger Stone, some January 6 Capitol riot defendants and Amy Harris, a photojournalist who spent time with top members of the Proud Boys around January 6, 2021, according to filings in seven House subpoena challenges that were pending in the DC District Court.

    “On December 12, 2022, Plaintiffs were informed by counsel for the Select Committee that the Select Committee will be withdrawing the subject subpoena issued by the Committee,” one court filing, from lawyers representing members of the Oath Keepers extremist group, wrote in one recent request to drop a lawsuit.

    Some of the subpoenas were issued a year ago.

    The committee declined to comment.

    While these witnesses and some others successfully blocked the committee from obtaining their phone records, the panel was able to access unprecedented amounts of information in their investigation, including through other phone records subpoenas, other document requests and witness interviews. Some of that information was on display in a series of public hearings over the summer.

    Even after the public hearings, the committee tried to collect more data as it wrapped up its work this year. For example, the committee won access to Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward’s phone data after she lost a challenge in court and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.

    But they never got all of the phone records they sought from former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who over the past year became one of the committee’s top pursuits.

    After turning over some 2,000 text messages to the committee, Meadows lost a court case challenging committee subpoenas for his phone records and for his testimony. Yet Meadows is still trying to challenge those subpoenas in court, leaving the House with little ability to force him to testify before the end of the Congress.

    Another subpoena target, Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander, said in a statement the committee had informed his lawyer it is withdrawing a subpoena for his phone records. He has been challenging the subpoena to Verizon for his phone logs since last December. Alexander noted that he did testify for hours before the committee and later before a federal grand jury investigating January 6 and efforts to overturn the election.

    “I did nothing wrong except to exercise my First Amendment rights to protest the fraud that occurred in the 2020 election,” Alexander said in the statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Airbnb finds people have more trouble booking stays if hosts think they are Black | CNN Business

    Airbnb finds people have more trouble booking stays if hosts think they are Black | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Airbnb on Tuesday said it has found a “meaningful difference” in the booking success rate for users who are perceived to be White compared to those who are perceived to be Black. The findings come after the company launched an initiative to uncover and remedy race-based discrimination on its platform.

    While all users successfully had their reservations confirmed by hosts more than 90% of the time in 2021, Airbnb said it found a notable gap in user experiences during that time depending on their apparent racial identity. Users who were perceived to be White had a booking success rate of 94.1% while users who were thought to be Black had a success rate of 91.4%, according to the company. (Those perceived as Asian and Latino/Hispanic had booking success rates sitting in between.)

    “It is a meaningful difference, and it’s unacceptable,”Janaye Ingram, Airbnb’s director of community partner programs and engagement, told CNN. “It is something that we obviously are not okay with and we are doing a lot to address.”

    The findings are part of Project Lighthouse, an effort launched by Airbnb in 2020 to collect data on racial discrepancies on its service. The project was developed in partnership with Color of Change, the nation’s largest online racial justice organization, and with the support of other national privacy and civil rights organizations like the NAACP and Asian Americans Advancing Justice.

    Airbnb’s efforts to address racial disparity on its platform come after the company repeatedly faced scrutiny on the issue. A 2015 study from Harvard found that Airbnb hosts were less likely to rent to guests with names that sounded African American. The next year, Airbnb was hit with a lawsuit accusing it of discriminatory housing practices. (A federal judge later blocked the suit.) And in 2019, the company settled a lawsuit from several Black women in Oregon alleging customers were discriminated against based on their race.

    The company said Tuesday that information collected through the Project Lighthouse initiative is being used to inform the company’s approach to bookings and reviews in an effort to minimize racial discrimination for prospective guests.

    “You can’t fix what you don’t measure,” Ingram said.

    Airbnb has taken a number of steps in recent years to address concerns about racial disparities on its platform, including getting rid of guests’ profile pictures prior to booking, making more people eligible for the “Instant Book” feature that bypasses host approval, auditing booking rejections and making it easier for all guests to receive reviews, according to the company.

    On Tuesday, Airbnb said Project Lighthouse revealed another potential issue in need of tweaking: guests with more reviews have higher booking success rates than those without, and guests perceived to be White or Asian have more reviews than others. In response, Airbnb plans to make it easier for all guests to receive a review when they travel, an effort that it hopes will have a large impact on the Black and Latino or Hispanic communities.

    The findings released on Tuesday come after Airbnb conducted two racial audits in 2016 and 2019.

    “Racial audits work, as long as corporations make the changes necessary to address what they expose,” said Rashad Robinson, president of Color Of Change. “Six years after Airbnb’s first racial audit, and two years after Color Of Change negotiated Project Lighthouse, Airbnb is now a leading example of what it looks like to back up the rhetoric of racial justice with the policy, practice and personnel that can prevent rampant racial discrimination.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress has so much to do before Christmas | CNN Politics

    Congress has so much to do before Christmas | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    It is the most productive time of year on Capitol Hill – after the election and before Republicans take over the House of Representatives – when the current Congress tries to cram some of its most vital work into a few short weeks.

    The US government is up against some hard deadlines, a narrow timeline and a whole lot of unfinished business.

    Lawmakers need to avert a government shutdown, authorize Pentagon policy, decide what to do with former President Donald Trump’s tax returns and wrap up the work of the House January 6, 2021, committee.

    If they can find the time, lawmakers could also raise the debt ceiling and safeguard future elections.

    Here’s what to watch for in the twilight of 2022:

    First, the government runs out of authority to spend money on Friday, December 16. The House and Senate will have to act before then to avert a government shutdown.

    Second, the newly elected Congress will be sworn in on January 3. Republicans will then be in charge of the House, and Democrats will have a narrow 51-49 majority in the Senate. Everything resets in the new Congress, and lawmakers will have to start from scratch on anything they don’t finish up this month.

    Rather than pass a dozen funding bills in turn, lawmakers are poised to roll all the spending bills for the massive federal government into one bill that could approach or exceed $1.5 trillion.

    The problem is that they’re still negotiating, and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have not reached an agreement on how much the government can spend, much less the specifics. They’re still $26 billion apart, according to Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The most likely current scenario is the House and Senate each pass short-term, one-week funding bills to keep the lights on while they continue to hash out the larger funding bill.

    While officials have emphasized a government shutdown is unlikely, federal agencies have been warned to prepare for one per standard procedure.

    One major looming question is whether Senate Republicans and Democrats can agree on a bill to fund the government for a full year or whether they have to punt to the next Congress. Democrats will want to avoid that fate since the GOP-controlled House will likely insist on spending cuts as soon as it can. Read more in CNN’s full report that includes reporting from Capitol Hill and the White House.

    It’s not yet clear who will lead Republicans in the House next year, much less how they would react to an immediate funding fight if only a short-term spending bill can get through by January.

    The current GOP leader, Kevin McCarthy, does not yet have the votes of many of the most conservative Freedom Caucus Republicans, and he’s being encouraged to take more concrete stands against spending. Finding a funding agreement that can pass through the House and the Senate and get President Joe Biden’s signature gets much more difficult starting January 3.

    In addition to writing checks, Congress authorizes government activity through policy bills, including the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes $858 billion in annual defense spending.

    It’s a sprawling endeavor, and this year’s version passed by the House gives members of the military a 4.6% pay raise, gives new support to Ukraine and NATO, and retools US air power and land defense efforts. It also rescinds a Covid-19 vaccine requirement for service members, a move that Biden has opposed.

    Senators are expected to take up the bill this week. It should get bipartisan support, but will also eat up valuable time on the Senate floor, where Democrats also want to push through judicial nominees. Read more about the defense bill.

    One thing Democrats would like to do – but probably, at this point, cannot – is raise the debt ceiling.

    Republicans, particularly in the House, plan to use the nation’s borrowing limit as a bargaining chip to force spending cuts next year. The current debt ceiling of $31.4 trillion will likely be reached in the coming weeks, which means raising it will be a major fight early in 2023.

    How much more does the government spend than it takes in? This is from a CNN Business report Monday: “For fiscal year 2023, which started in October, the government is running a deficit of $336 billion, which is $20 billion narrower than the comparable year-ago period.”

    Republicans will shut down the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection when they take control in January. GOP lawmakers plan to flip the script and investigate the committee’s activity.

    But first, the committee, which features Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans, will issue its much-anticipated report on December 21. Also look for the committee to recommend the Department of Justice prosecute Trump or members of his inner circle.

    Meanwhile, Jack Smith, the newly appointed special counsel, has been busy ramping up a pair of criminal probes involving the former president, all of which could explode into public view if charges are ultimately brought. Read the latest on Smith’s work.

    Now that the House Ways and Means Committee has six years of Trump’s tax returns, it must figure out what to do with them in just a few weeks.

    There’s probably no time for a thorough review, and Republicans will have little appetite for a Trump tax investigation when they take control of the House.

    Democrats could move to make some of Trump’s tax information public – on top of what was already published by The New York Times in 2020. But there could be a political cost to simply releasing the returns since Democrats obtained them in order to scrutinize IRS audit policy. Read more about Trump’s taxes.

    It’s a bipartisan idea to make some major clarifications to election law and cut down on the possibility of another January 6, 2021. Read here about what’s in the bill, which is specifically designed to guard against Insurrection 2.0.

    But there may be no time to pass the proposal – there are similar but competing versions in the House and Senate. The Senate version, in particular, has bipartisan support. Republicans in the House may not be interested in the legislation once they take control in January.

    If the Electoral Count Act can pass, it could be slipped into that massive spending bill. It hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves, but this could be a good example of lawmakers working together.

    But that’s a very open question, since that massive spending bill has not yet been put together.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter disbands its ‘Trust and Safety Council’ that tackled harassment and child exploitation | CNN Business

    Twitter disbands its ‘Trust and Safety Council’ that tackled harassment and child exploitation | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Twitter on Monday night announced it was disbanding its “Trust and Safety Council,” according to an email the company sent to the councils’ members that was obtained by CNN.

    The company said in the email that it was “reevaluating how best to bring external insights into our product and policy development work. As part of this process, we have decided that the Trust and Safety Council is not the best structure to do this.”

    The move comes as Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk is undoing many of the policies and practices put in place before he took over the social media company.

    A page on Twitter’s website, which has now been removed, explained that the council was made up of external expert organizations that advised on issues including online safety, human and digital rights, suicide prevention, mental health, child sexual exploitation, and dehumanization.

    “Together, they advocate for safety and advise us as we develop our products, programs, and rules,” Twitter previously explained.

    Three members of the council resigned in protest last week, writing in a statement that “contrary to claims by Elon Musk, the safety and wellbeing of Twitter’s users are on the decline.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • State documents appear to indicate Uvalde Sheriff Nolasco has not completed active shooter training | CNN

    State documents appear to indicate Uvalde Sheriff Nolasco has not completed active shooter training | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Uvalde, Texas
    CNN
     — 

    Uvalde County Sheriff Ruben Nolasco does not appear to have completed an active shooter training course, according to documents CNN obtained Monday from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, the regulatory agency for peace officers in Texas.

    The information comes on the heels of a contentious Uvalde County Commission meeting, during which Richard Carter, an attorney with expertise in police actions, presented the results of an independent review – which the county hired him to conduct – of the Sheriff’s Office policies at the time of the Robb Elementary School massacre.

    According to Carter, the sheriff’s office did not have an active shooter policy on May 24, when a teenaged gunman with a semi-automatic rifle stormed the school and killed 19 students and two teachers.

    Active shooter training is not required by county or state rules for people who aren’t school-based law enforcement officers. And an active shooter response policy is not required by Texas law of law enforcement agencies, according to the report.

    County commissioners met behind closed doors for more than 90 minutes to review the report and meet with victims’ family members. Community members called for Nolasco’s ouster at the meeting following CNN’s reporting last week about his failure to mount a response at the school and his failure to share critical information about the shooter.

    Nolasco was one of the senior law enforcement officials on the scene of the massacre.

    After the meeting, Carter also appeared to indicate Nolasco hadn’t received active shooter training.

    “He has not taken the course that his officers – all but three of his officers – have. He plans on doing that in the immediate future,” Carter said. “What I understood was, he wanted to make sure that all of his people that might go out were trained,” before he received his own training.

    In an email to CNN that included Nolasco’s records, law enforcement commission spokesperson Gretchen Grigsby said that “active shooter training is only required for school-based law enforcement officers as part of a one-time certification,” but she expected the topic would be a subject of discussion during the next legislative session.

    CNN has reached out to Nolasco about the contents of the report but has not received a response.

    CNN has also reached back out to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement to clarify the contents of Nolasco’s training history, and has not received a response.

    The conclusion of Carter’s review comes after months of reporting by CNN about the law enforcement response to the shooting, including that Nolasco had vital information about the shooter that was not shared as the incident unfolded. It was just the latest revelation of senior law enforcement officers not taking command or following protocol to stop an active shooter and get swift treatment to victims.

    Carter’s inquiry, which was conducted over about two months, dealt strictly with the sheriff’s office’s policies, he said Monday.

    The office has since adopted an active shooter policy, Carter said during the public portion of Monday’s meeting.

    But at the time of the shooting – the worst at a K-12 school in the US in nearly a decade – its handbook only defined “active shooter,” Carter said. And while there were “portions that dealt with critical incidences and how officers would respond,” it did not constitute an active shooter policy, he added.

    Whether the sheriff’s office had an active shooter policy, however, is “no excuse for what happened” the day of the shooting, one community member said in a public comment portion of the meeting Monday.

    “Our officers in Uvalde County, including the city, school, and county, don’t live under a rock,” Diana Olvedo-Karau said. “Active shooter incidents happen across our nation all too often… so to step back and give the impression that because there was no policy there’s no accountability, is unacceptable, inexcusable, and shameful.”

    Carter did not examine the actions of the agency’s personnel on the scene of the shooting, he said, which, along with the broader law enforcement response, have been highly scrutinized.

    The grandmother of shooting victim Amerie Jo Garza said she was in “total shock” the Sheriff’s Office didn’t have an active shooter policy in place.

    “I could not believe that with all the mass shootings that have taken place, just in Texas alone, that there was no policy in place. It was a total shock,” Berlinda Irene Arreola said on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360.

    Arreola said it was difficult seeing Mariano Pargas, acting Uvalde police chief on the day of the shooting, at the meeting.

    “It was very hard, and It was very sad,” she said of Pargas, who has since resigned but is still a county commissioner.

    Arreola said that she believes he had plenty of time to take control of the incident but that “instead he ran in the other direction.”

    “So, seeing him for the first time was very, very hurtful,” she said.

    Arreola said the upcoming holidays are going to be a difficult time for her family without Amerie.

    “My son and my daughter-in-law just can’t keep it together to be able to enjoy the holidays. So it’s going to be different, definitely different this year and very sad. Very sad,” she said.

    In the months since the shooting, criticism of law enforcement’s response has focused on its failure to follow the main tenets of post-Columbine policies to immediately take down an active shooter. Instead, acting on the early and erroneous assessment that the gunman was barricaded, as opposed to an active shooter with his victims surrounding him inside two adjoining classrooms, police waited 77 minutes before confronting him.

    Much of the initial criticism focused on Uvalde School Police Chief Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, who had said he never considered himself in charge the day of the shooting. He was ultimately fired in August.

    In the months since the shooting, however, it’s become clear the failures that day went far beyond the scope of the small school police force. According to a preliminary report by a Texas House of Representatives investigative committee, 376 officers from local, state and federal agencies were on the scene of the massacre.

    Pargas, who remains an elected county commissioner, resigned from the police department after CNN reported he knew children needed rescuing and did not organize help.

    Separately, a Texas Ranger and a state police captain are under review for their actions or inaction the day of the shooting, and a state police sergeant was terminated. Another officer who quit the state police force and took a job with the Uvalde school district was also fired after CNN reported she was under investigation for her actions during the shooting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The mass unbanning of suspended Twitter users is underway | CNN Business

    The mass unbanning of suspended Twitter users is underway | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Thousands of previously banned Twitter users, including members of the far-right and users sharing blatant misinformation, have begun to have their accounts restored to the platform, according to an independent analysis.

    The mass restoration of accounts comes after new owner Elon Musk said late last month that he would offer “general amnesty” to many who had been removed from the platform. In following through on that commitment, however, Musk risks further alienating other users and advertisers, and exacerbating concerns among watchdog groups about the rise of hate speech on the platform under his ownership (a fact Musk has attempted to refute).

    Among those recently unbanned are a range of large and small accounts, including users promoting NFTs and cryptocurrencies, users tweeting about sports, many users tweeting in languages other than English, as well as both users that appear to be left-leaning and pro-Trump, according to observations by CNN.

    But the restored accounts also include far-right figures such as Andrew Anglin, a self-professed white supremacist who founded the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, and Patrick Casey, who is associated with the far-right group “America First” and was subpoenaed by the House January 6 committee for his involvement in the Capitol riot.

    A number of accounts restored in recent days, including many with thousands of followers, used their first tweets in years to thank Musk for allowing them back on the platform, according to a review of their posts by CNN. Some also quickly began sharing conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid-19 and the 2020 US Presidential election.

    A data set of many of the unbanned accounts compiled by researcher and software developer Travis Brown, who worked for Twitter for a year in 2014 and last year began a project tracking hate speech on the platform, shows dozens of users who have had their bans reversed are using QAnon-related phrases or hashtags in their account bios. The dataset was built using Twitter’s API and a tool Brown had originally built to observe and track high-profile Twitter suspensions.

    The accounts that have been restored includes “a really strange mix of accounts” that includes apparent far-right extremists and QAnon adherents, but also, for example, a Miley Cyrus fan account that has been repeatedly suspended and appears aimed mostly at growing a large following, Brown said.

    But Brown added that other accounts he has observed as part of his hate speech tracking project have yet to be reinstated, raising questions about the criteria Twitter is using to restore previously banned accounts, although it’s possible Musk’s reinstatement process will take time. Many users on Twitter have also raised questions about Musk’s move last week to again suspend Kanye West, who has made numerous antisemitic comments, while restoring the accounts of other white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. In another instance, Musk tweeted that he would not restore Alex Jones’s account because of a personal preference.

    “I’ve found it really hard … to generalize about how and why certain accounts are allowed back,” Brown said.

    Twitter, which has made substantial cuts to its public relations team, did not immediately respond to a request for comment and questions on the number of previously banned accounts restored or its process for doing so.

    Musk said last month that he would begin restoring most previously banned accounts to the platform, after having polled his Twitter followers about whether to offer “general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam.” The poll, which garnered more than three million votes, finished with more than 72% voting in favor of the proposition. It is not clear how Musk and Twitter’s remaining staff are sorting out which accounts were banned for spam or illegal activity.

    The new Twitter owner had already begun to restore the accounts of some prominent, controversial users that had previously been banned or suspended from the platform, most notably former President Donald Trump, as well as conservative Canadian podcaster and all-beef diet promoter Jordan Peterson and the right-leaning satire website Babylon Bee.

    Some of the accounts restored in the latest wave have already raised concerns from civil rights groups. The Anti-Defamation League on Monday described as “deeply disturbing” Twitter’s decision to allow Anglin back on the platform.

    “The return of extremists to the platform has the potential to supercharge the spread of extremist content and disinformation, and this in turn could lead to the increased harassment of users,” Yael Eisenstat, vice president of ADL’s Center for Technology and Society said in a statement to CNN. “Musk’s actions to date show that he is not committed to a transparent process that incorporates the best practices we have learned from civil society groups.”

    Before taking over Twitter, Musk said he disagreed with the platform’s policy of permanent bans, which were typically doled out only after a user had received a number of “strikes” for repeatedly violating Twitter’s policies, including those against Covid-19 or civic integrity misinformation.

    Shortly after acquiring the company, Musk said he would create a “content moderation council” prior to making major changes, but there is no evidence such a group was ever formed or involved in the decisions to bring back violative accounts. Instead, Musk has appeared to make the decisions himself.

    Musk and Twitter have repeatedly stressed that the platform’s rules have not changed, despite restoring accounts that had repeatedly violated its rules and ceasing enforcement of the company’s policy prohibiting Covid-19 misinformation. In a blog post last month, Twitter said that its trust and safety team “remains strong and well-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.” Content that violates Twitter’s rules, it added, will be demoted on the platform.

    Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety who left the company following Musk’s takeover, criticized the billionaire Twitter owner’s top-down approach to content decisions in an interview with journalist Kara Swisher last month, suggesting that the platform had started to be run by “dictatorial edict rather than by a policy.” He also raised concerns about layoffs that hit Twitter’s safety teams.

    Restoring additional, previously banned accounts could exacerbate several big issues Twitter is currently facing. It could further alienate Twitter’s advertisers, many of whom have fled the platform in the wake of the chaos since Musk took over and out of fear that their ads could end up running alongside objectionable content. Musk has said the departure of key Twitter advertisers in recent weeks has led to a “massive drop in revenue” for the company.

    Ads for major brands, including Kia, Amazon, Snap and Uber, have already begun to appear alongside tweets from reinstated accounts such as Anglin’s, according to reporting from the Washington Post and observations by CNN. (Kia told CNN it “continues to monitor the evolving Twitter environment and work closely with their teams on advertisement placement and usage.” The other brands did not immediately respond to CNN’s requests for comment.)

    It could also draw more attention from Apple, which Musk previously tweeted had threatened to remove Twitter from its app store. Musk later said that the concern had been resolved following a meeting with Tim Cook, but Apple has previously shown a willingness to remove social media platforms from its app store over concerns about their ability to moderate hate speech and other potentially harmful content. Getting booted from Apple’s app store would be detrimental to Twitter’s business by making it harder for the iPhone maker’s more than one billion global customers to access the app, and difficult if not impossible for iPhone users to receive app updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Second known protest-related execution carried out in Iran | CNN

    Second known protest-related execution carried out in Iran | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Iran has executed a second man allegedly involved in the nationwide anti-government protest movement after he was convicted of fatally stabbing two security officials last month, Mizan Online, a news agency affiliated with Iran’s judiciary, and the semi-official Tasmin news agency reported on Monday.

    Mizan Online named the man as Majidreza Rahnavard. He was convicted of “waging war against God” for reportedly killing two members of the Basij paramilitary force, and injuring four others on November 17, the outlet said. The charge of “waging war against God” carries the death penalty under the theocracy of the Islamic Republic since 1979.

    Rahnavard was hanged in a public execution in the northeastern city of Mashhad early Monday morning, it said.

    He is the second known person to be executed in connection to the 2022 protests. His death comes less than a week after Mohsen Shekari – the first known protester to be executed – who was hanged last Thursday.

    Several more Iranians have been sentenced to death by execution during the nationwide protests, which were sparked by the case of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who died after being apprehended by the state’s morality police for allegedly not wearing her hijab properly.

    Public anger over Amini’s death has combined with a range of grievances against the Islamic Republic’s oppressive regime to fuel the demonstrations even in the face of harsh punishments, and possibly the death sentence.

    CNN cannot independently verify the number of people facing executions in Iran, or the latest arrest figures or death tolls related to the protests – precise numbers are impossible for anyone outside the Iranian government to confirm.

    Last week, Amnesty International said it had identified at least 17 others, in addition to Rahnavard and Shekari, who are at risk of execution in connection to the recent protests.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • January 6 committee ends meeting on criminal referrals | CNN Politics

    January 6 committee ends meeting on criminal referrals | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection concluded its meeting on Sunday where members discussed criminal referrals, multiple sources told CNN.

    The subcommittee tasked with investigating criminal referrals presented its recommendations to the full panel at a 1 p.m. ET virtual meeting, but it is unclear if those recommendations were officially adopted. A source described the meeting as “successful” but did not elaborate.

    “We are as a subcommittee, several of us that were charged with making the recommendations about referrals, going to be making that recommendation to the full committee today,” panel member Rep. Adam Schiff said prior to the meeting on CBS “Face the Nation.” Members on the committee would then need to approve the recommendations.

    The panel is weighing criminal referrals for former President Donald Trump and a number of other individuals, sources say, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, right wing lawyer John Eastman, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani, as CNN previously reported.

    While the referrals would largely be symbolic in nature – as the Justice Department has already undertaken a sprawling investigation into the US Capitol attack and efforts to overturn the 2020 election – committee members have stressed that the move serves as a way to document their views for the record.

    The decision has loomed large over the committee. Members of the panel have been in wide agreement that Trump and some of his closest allies have committed a crime when he pushed a conspiracy to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, as they’ve laid out in their hearings. But they have long been split over what exactly to do about it.

    “We are in common agreement about what our approach should be. I’m not ready or authorized at this point to tell you what that is,” Schiff, a California Democrat, said. “I think we are all certainly in agreement that there is evidence of criminality here. And we want to make sure that the Justice Department is aware of that.

    Committee Chair Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, told reporters Friday he expected to reach a decision on criminal referrals at Sunday’s virtual meeting. But Schiff reiterated on Sunday that the committee will wait to announce its decision until December 21, when it plans to present the rest of its report.

    Schiff stressed his view on Sunday that criminal referrals from the committee make “an important statement, not a political one, but a statement about the evidence of an attack on the institutions for our democracy and the peaceful transfer of power that Congress – examining an attack on itself – is willing to report criminality.”

    “So I think it’s an important decision in its own right if we go forward with it,” he said. “And one that the Department ought to give due consideration to.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • At least 20 injured as protesters and police clash in Peru days after president’s ouster | CNN

    At least 20 injured as protesters and police clash in Peru days after president’s ouster | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    At least 20 people, including four police officers, were injured on Saturday in clashes between protesters and police in the southern Peruvian city of Andahuaylas in the Andes.

    The Ombudsman’s Office said on Twitter it was working with health personnel to verify if the injured had received “adequate medical care in the city hospital” but did not give details of the injuries.

    It said a number of people had been detained but did not say say how many.

    Meanwhile, the National Police reported that two police officers who were taken captive by the protesters had now been released and were being evaluated by medical personnel.

    The reason for Saturday’s protest is not yet clear, but Andahuaylas is one of several towns in the country where residents took to the streets this Friday in support of former President Pedro Castillo who was ousted earlier this week, according to information provided to the media by the Ministry of Interior.

    Castillo was removed from power on Wednesday after he attempted to dissolve Peru’s Congress and call for new elections. He was arrested for the alleged crime of rebellion and impeached by lawmakers in a single day.

    Peruvian lawmakers described the move as a coup, and a majority of the 130-person Congress voted to impeach Castillo on the same day, which ended with the swearing in of Dina Boluarte to the top position.

    Peru’s new President ruled out early elections on Thursday on her first day in office following the dramatic ousting and arrest of her predecessor.

    Castillo is also currently under a seven-day preliminary arrest ordered by the Supreme Court on Thursday after considering him as a flight risk.

    Castillo has faced a cascade of investigations on whether he used his position to benefit himself, his family and closest allies by peddling influence to gain favor or preferential treatment, among other claims.

    He has repeatedly denied all allegations and reiterated his willingness to cooperate with any investigation. He argues the allegations are a result of a witch-hunt against him and his family from groups that failed to accept his election victory.

    The Ombudsman Office reiterated its “call to the population not to resort to violent means during their protests” and asked the National Police that “any action to restore public order must be carried out within the framework of the law of use of force.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Buffalo grocery store mass shooter willing to plead guilty to federal charges if death penalty off the table, attorneys say | CNN

    Buffalo grocery store mass shooter willing to plead guilty to federal charges if death penalty off the table, attorneys say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The gunman who killed 10 people and wounded three in a racist attack at a grocery store in a predominantly Black neighborhood of Buffalo, New York, would be willing to plead guilty to federal charges – including hate crimes – if prosecutors agree to take the death penalty off the table, his attorneys said Friday.

    Attorneys representing Payton Gendron made their statements during a court hearing on Friday, seven months after Gendron used an illegally modified semiautomatic rifle to carry out the mass shooting.

    Gendron, a 19-year-old White man, had faced multiple federal hate crime charges, which carry the potential for the death penalty, in addition to several firearms charges. He had pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.

    He pleaded guilty in a state court last month to one count of a domestic act of terrorism motivated by hate, 10 counts of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and a weapons possession charge in the mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14. Those charges come with a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the chance of parole.

    “Just as Payton Gendron entered a plea of guilty to the indictment in county court, he is prepared to enter a plea of guilty in federal court in exchange of the same sentence, which is the sentence of life in prison, without parole,” said his defense attorney Sonya Zoghlin.

    Magistrate Judge Kenneth Schroeder in court on Friday balked at giving attorneys more time to review the voluminous evidence connected with the case since Gendron has already pleaded guilty to state charges.

    Gendron’s defense team said in court they plan to take the first steps to meet with the US Attorney in Buffalo and the Assistant Attorney General from Washington so that they can make a formal presentation to as to why Gendron should not get the death penalty.

    The first meetings are scheduled after the new year, attorneys said in court on Friday.

    “There’s a lot to go through and I think that mitigation presentation, obviously, is highly important for them, in addition to the facts of the case, so that’s why we consented this time,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Tripi.

    Judge Schroeder scheduled the next hearing for March 10, during which attorneys will give an update on how much of the evidence they’ve been able to review and if they can work out a deal with prosecutors.

    Meanwhile, Gendron will be sentenced on his state conviction on similar charges in February.

    The victims, including customers, employees and an armed security guard, ranged in age from 20 to 86. Eleven of the 13 people shot were Black and two were White, officials said.

    Social media posts and a lengthy document written by the gunman reveal he had been planning his attack for months and had visited the Tops supermarket several times previously. He posted that he chose Tops because it was in a particular ZIP code in Buffalo that had the highest percentage of Black people close enough to where he lived in Conklin, New York.

    The document outlined his goals for the attack, according to Flynn: “To kill as many African Americans as possible, avoid dying and spread ideals.”

    Gendron shot four people outside the grocery store and nine more inside before surrendering to Buffalo Police officers who responded to the scene, according to an indictment.

    New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said following the attack that the AR-15 style rifle used in the shooting was legally purchased in New York State, but was modified with a high-capacity magazine, which is not legal in the state.

    The earlier guilty plea ensured there will be no state trial and Gendron will not appeal, defense attorney Brian Parker said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Big Oil has engaged in a long-running climate disinformation campaign while raking in record profits, lawmakers find | CNN Politics

    Big Oil has engaged in a long-running climate disinformation campaign while raking in record profits, lawmakers find | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Big Oil companies have engaged in a “long-running greenwashing campaign” while raking in “record profits at the expense of American consumers,” the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee has found after a year-long investigation into climate disinformation from the fossil fuel industry.

    The committee found the fossil fuel industry is “posturing on climate issues while avoiding real commitments” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Lawmakers said it has sought to portray itself as part of the climate solution, even as internal industry documents reveal how companies have avoided making real commitments.

    “Today’s documents reveal that the industry has no real plans to clean up its act and is barreling ahead with plans to pump more dirty fuels for decades to come,” House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney told CNN in a statement.

    For example, lawmakers reported, BP has stated it strives to “be a net zero company by 2050 or sooner,” but the committee found internal BP documents that show the company’s recent plans do not align with the company’s public comments.

    In a July 2017 email between several of the company’s high-level officials about whether to invest in curbing emissions from one of its gas projects off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, BP’s vice president of engineering stated that BP had “no obligation to minimize GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions” and that the company should only “minimize GHG emissions where it makes commercial sense,” as required by code or if it fits into a regional strategy.

    The committee said documents uncovered also showed the fossil fuel industry has presented natural gas as a so-called “bridge fuel” to transition to cleaner sources of energy, all while doubling down on its long-term reliance on fossil fuels with no clear plan of action to full transition to clean energy.

    A strategy slide presented to the Chevron Board of Directors from CEO Mike Wirth and obtained by the committee states that while Chevron sees “traditional energy business competitors retreating” from oil and gas, “Chevron’s strategy” is to “continue to invest” in fossil fuels to take advantage of consolidation in the industry.

    In a 2016 email from a BP executive to John Mingé, then-Chairman and President of BP America, and others, about climate and emissions, an employee assessed that the company often adopted an obstructionist strategy with regulators, noting, “we wait for the rules to come out, we don’t like what we see, and then try to resist and block.”

    “The fossil fuel industry has of late been involved in extensive “greenwashing”—misleading claims in advertisements, particularly on social media, claiming or suggesting that they are “Paris aligned,” and that they are committed to meaningful solutions,” Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor who has studied the fossil fuel industry’s rebuke of climate science, told CNN. “Numerous analyses shows that these claims are untrue.”

    BP, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were the focus of Democratic lawmakers’ investigation. The companies have denied engaging in a disinformation campaign surrounding climate change and the role the industry has played in fueling it for decades. CNN has reached out to the companies and organizations for comment on the committee’s findings.

    Todd Spitler, a spokesperson for Exxon, said in a statement the committee took internal company communications out of context.

    “The House Oversight Committee report has sought to misrepresent ExxonMobil’s position on climate science, and its support for effective policy solutions, by recasting well intended, internal policy debates as an attempted company disinformation campaign,” Spitler said. “If specific members of the committee are so certain they’re right, why did they have to take so many things out of context to prove their point?”

    Democratic lawmakers had hoped the committee’s hearings would be the fossil fuel industry’s “Big Tobacco” moment — a nod to the famous 1994 hearings when tobacco CEOs insisted that cigarettes were not addictive, triggering accusations of perjury and federal investigations.

    The impact of House Oversight’s investigation into Big Oil will not be as immediate, but Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat and the chair of Oversight’s environmental subcommittee, said the findings have added to the historical record for the industry and its role in global warming.

    “These hearings and reports have been historic because we succeeded in bringing in the heads of Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, API, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to testify under oath for the first time ever about efforts to mislead the public on climate and forced them to provide explosive internal documents” Khanna told CNN in a statement. “I have no doubt that this work will be analyzed for years to come and help deepen our understanding about the entire industry’s role in funding and facilitating climate disinformation.”

    Democratic lawmakers said the oil and gas industry obstructed their investigation throughout the more than year-long process. Many of their requests for internal documents were heavily redacted by the companies, which did not specify reasons for withholding the information.

    In other cases, documents were heavily redacted because companies like Exxon said the information was “proprietary and confidential,” though the lawmakers noted that is not a valid reason to withhold information in a committee subpoena.

    “These companies know their climate pledges are inadequate but are prioritizing Big Oil’s record profits over the human costs of climate change,” Maloney said. “It’s time for the fossil fuel industry to stop lying to the American people and finally take serious steps to reduce emissions and address the global climate crisis they helped create.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link