ReportWire

Tag: term

  • Commentary: Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have traveled parallel paths. Will they collide in 2028?

    [ad_1]

    Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have long circled one another.

    The two moved in the same political slipstream, wooed the same set of Democratic donors and, for a time, even shared the same group of campaign advisors.

    Harris rose from San Francisco district attorney to elected positions in Sacramento and Washington before twice running unsuccessfully for president.

    Newsom climbed from San Francisco mayor to lieutenant governor to California’s governorship, where he quietly stewed as Harris leapfrogged past him into the vice presidency. While she served in the White House, Newsom tried any number of ways to insinuate himself into the national spotlight.

    Now both have at least one eye on the Oval Office, setting up a potential clash of egos and ambition that’s been decades in the making.

    Newsom, whose term as governor expires in January, has been auditioning for president from practically the moment the polls closed in 2024 and horrified Democrats realized Harris had lost to Donald Trump.

    Harris, who’s mostly focused on writing and promoting her campaign autobiography — while giving a political speech here and there — hasn’t publicly declared she’ll seek the White House a third time. But, notably, she has yet to rule out the possibility.

    In a CNN interview aired Sunday, Newsom was asked about the prospect of facing his longtime frenemy in a fight for the Democratic nomination. (California’s gallivanting governor is embarked on his own national book tour, promoting both the “memoir of discovery” that was published Tuesday and his all-but-declared presidential bid.)

    “Well, I’m San Francisco now, she’s L.A.,” Newsom joked, referring to Harris’ post-Washington residency in Brentwood. “So there’s a little distance between the two of us.”

    He then turned zen-like, saying fate would determine if the two face off in the 2028 primary contest. “You can only control what you can control,” Newsom told CNN host Dana Bash.

    A decade ago, Newsom and Harris swerved to keep their careers from colliding.

    In 2015, Barbara Boxer said she would step down once she finished her fourth term in the U.S. Senate. The opening presented a rare opportunity for political advancement after years in which a clutch of aging incumbents held California’s top elected offices. Between Lt. Gov. Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Harris, there was no lack of pent-up ambition.

    After a weekend of intensive deliberations, Newsom passed on the Senate race and Harris jumped in, establishing herself as the front-runner for Boxer’s seat, which she won in 2016. Newsom waited and was elected governor in 2018, succeeding Jerry Brown.

    Once in their preferred roles, the two got along reasonably well. Each campaigned on the other’s behalf. But, privately, there has never been a great deal of mutual regard or affection.

    Come 2028, there will doubtless be many Democrats seeking to replace President Trump. The party’s last wide-open contest, in 2020, drew more than two dozen major contestants. So it’s not as though Harris and Newsom would face each other in a one-on-one fight.

    But dueling on the national stage, with the country’s top political prize at stake, is something that Hollywood might have scripted for Newsom and Harris as the way to settle, once and for all, their long-standing rivalry.

    The two Californians would start out closely matched in good looks and charisma.

    Those who know them well, having observed Newsom and Harris up close, cite other strengths and weaknesses.

    Harris has thicker skin, they suggested, and is more disciplined. Her forte is set-piece events, like debates and big speeches.

    Newsom is more of a policy wonk, a greater risk-taker and is more willing to venture into challenging and even hostile settings.

    Newson is more fluent in the ecosphere of social media, podcasts and the like. Harris has the advantage of performing longer on the national stage and bears nothing like the personal scandals that have plagued Newsom.

    But Harris’ problem, it was widely agreed, is that she has run twice before and, worse, lost the last time to Trump.

    “To a lot of voters, she’s yesterday’s news,” said one campaign strategist.

    “She had her shot,” said another, channeling the perceived way Democratic primary voters would react to another Harris run. “You didn’t make it, so why should we give you another shot?”

    (Those half-dozen kibbitzers who agreed to candidly assess the prospects of Newsom and Harris asked not to be identified, so they could preserve their relationships with the two.)

    Most of the handicappers gave the edge to Newsom in a prospective match-up; one political operative familiar with both would have placed their wager on Harris had she not run before.

    “I think her demographic appeal to Black women and coming up the ranks as a Black woman working in criminal justice is a very strong card,” said the campaign strategist. “The white guy from California, the pretty boy, is not as much of a primary draw.”

    That said, this strategist, too, suggested that “being tagged as someone who not only lost but lost in this situation that has set the world on fire … is too big a cross to bear.”

    The consensus among these cognoscenti is that Harris will not run again and that Newsom — notwithstanding any demurrals — will.

    Of course, the only two who know for sure are those principals, and it’s quite possible neither Harris nor Newsom have entirely made up their minds.

    Those who enjoy their politics cut with a dash of soap opera will just have to wait.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • NBA suspends 76ers’ Paul George 25 games

    [ad_1]

    Paul George of the Philadelphia 76ers was suspended 25 games for violating the terms of the NBA’s anti-drug program, the league announced Saturday.The NBA did not disclose the nature of the violation or the substance that was involved, and George released a statement to ESPN saying he took something that was “improper.”Video above: Philadelphia 76ers player injured in hit-and-run“Over the past few years, I’ve discussed the importance of mental health, and in the course of recently seeking treatment for an issue of my own, I made the mistake of taking an improper medication,” George said in the statement released to the network.He apologized to the team and its fans, saying he takes “full responsibility for my actions.”The 25-game suspension, by terms of the agreement between the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association, indicates that this was a first violation by George. He will begin serving the suspension Saturday when Philadelphia hosts New Orleans.The suspension will cost George — a nine-time All-Star — roughly $11.7 million of his $51.7 million salary, or about $469,691.72 for each of the 25 games missed. Some of that forfeited money will turn into a credit and put Philadelphia closer to getting out of the luxury tax; the 76ers would be about $1.3 million over that line when factoring in the money George isn’t getting.George is expected to be eligible to return on March 25, when Philadelphia plays host to Chicago. The 76ers will have 10 games remaining in the regular season at that point.Philadelphia entered Saturday at 26-21, sixth in the Eastern Conference. The 76ers are 16-11 when George plays, 10-10 when he does not.Sixers coach Nick Nurse declined ahead of Saturday’s game to discuss details of the conversation he had with George after the suspension was announced. Nurse said he hadn’t noticed any personal issues with George, even as mental health concerns were addressed in the statement.“I think he’s been fine,” Nurse said. “Really fun to coach. Really good teammate. His teammates really like him. Showing some great leadership.”George has averaged 16 points in 27 games this season for the Sixers, with that scoring average third-highest on the team behind Tyrese Maxey (29.4) and Joel Embiid (25.7). He had one of his best games of the season earlier this week, a 32-point outburst fueled by nine 3-pointers in a win over Milwaukee on Tuesday.The 35-year-old George signed a $212 million, four-year contract in free agency ahead of the 2024 season. But his first year in Philly was marred by knee and adductor injuries that resulted in the forward having one of the worst years of his NBA career.George averaged 16.2 points in just 41 games, easily his lowest scoring average in a full season since he averaged 12.1 points for Indiana in his second NBA season.“I think there’s been a lot of circumstances that have been really unfortunate,” Nurse said. “I also feel like he’s played pretty well this year. Borderline very well, considering he’s played such a critical role for us. Kind of slotted in like a really good role player on this particular team. I think he’s done what we’ve need him to do.”Last season was so miserable that George called his first year in Philly “rock bottom” over the course of his career.It’s certainly not any better now.“As with all our players, dealing with this kind of stuff, you care about them,” Nurse said. “We’re to help him. The organization is in any way possible. And try to get past it as soon as we can, get through it the best way we can, and then go from there.”George had surgery in July on his left knee after he was injured during a workout and missed the first 12 games of this season.George and two-time NBA scoring champion Joel Embiid had been healthy enough this season to keep the Sixers in the thick of the Eastern Conference playoff race. Maxey blossomed into an All-Star starter and a strong rookie season from No. 3 overall draft pick VJ Edgecombe had the Sixers hopeful they could make some noise in the playoffs.With the Feb. 5 trade deadline approaching, George’s suspension could have a profound impact on what the Sixers do as they make a playoff push.The 76ers will go through the deadline while they are on a five-game West Coast road trip that starts Monday at the Los Angeles Clippers.“You get the punch to the gut, but listen, me, I’ve got to lead the charge here,” Nurse said. “We’ve got to get fighting and we’ve got to get to work.”

    Paul George of the Philadelphia 76ers was suspended 25 games for violating the terms of the NBA’s anti-drug program, the league announced Saturday.

    The NBA did not disclose the nature of the violation or the substance that was involved, and George released a statement to ESPN saying he took something that was “improper.”

    Video above: Philadelphia 76ers player injured in hit-and-run

    “Over the past few years, I’ve discussed the importance of mental health, and in the course of recently seeking treatment for an issue of my own, I made the mistake of taking an improper medication,” George said in the statement released to the network.

    He apologized to the team and its fans, saying he takes “full responsibility for my actions.”

    The 25-game suspension, by terms of the agreement between the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association, indicates that this was a first violation by George. He will begin serving the suspension Saturday when Philadelphia hosts New Orleans.

    The suspension will cost George — a nine-time All-Star — roughly $11.7 million of his $51.7 million salary, or about $469,691.72 for each of the 25 games missed. Some of that forfeited money will turn into a credit and put Philadelphia closer to getting out of the luxury tax; the 76ers would be about $1.3 million over that line when factoring in the money George isn’t getting.

    George is expected to be eligible to return on March 25, when Philadelphia plays host to Chicago. The 76ers will have 10 games remaining in the regular season at that point.

    Philadelphia entered Saturday at 26-21, sixth in the Eastern Conference. The 76ers are 16-11 when George plays, 10-10 when he does not.

    Sixers coach Nick Nurse declined ahead of Saturday’s game to discuss details of the conversation he had with George after the suspension was announced. Nurse said he hadn’t noticed any personal issues with George, even as mental health concerns were addressed in the statement.

    “I think he’s been fine,” Nurse said. “Really fun to coach. Really good teammate. His teammates really like him. Showing some great leadership.”

    George has averaged 16 points in 27 games this season for the Sixers, with that scoring average third-highest on the team behind Tyrese Maxey (29.4) and Joel Embiid (25.7). He had one of his best games of the season earlier this week, a 32-point outburst fueled by nine 3-pointers in a win over Milwaukee on Tuesday.

    The 35-year-old George signed a $212 million, four-year contract in free agency ahead of the 2024 season. But his first year in Philly was marred by knee and adductor injuries that resulted in the forward having one of the worst years of his NBA career.

    George averaged 16.2 points in just 41 games, easily his lowest scoring average in a full season since he averaged 12.1 points for Indiana in his second NBA season.

    “I think there’s been a lot of circumstances that have been really unfortunate,” Nurse said. “I also feel like he’s played pretty well this year. Borderline very well, considering he’s played such a critical role for us. Kind of slotted in like a really good role player on this particular team. I think he’s done what we’ve need him to do.”

    Last season was so miserable that George called his first year in Philly “rock bottom” over the course of his career.

    It’s certainly not any better now.

    “As with all our players, dealing with this kind of stuff, you care about them,” Nurse said. “We’re to help him. The organization is in any way possible. And try to get past it as soon as we can, get through it the best way we can, and then go from there.”

    George had surgery in July on his left knee after he was injured during a workout and missed the first 12 games of this season.

    George and two-time NBA scoring champion Joel Embiid had been healthy enough this season to keep the Sixers in the thick of the Eastern Conference playoff race. Maxey blossomed into an All-Star starter and a strong rookie season from No. 3 overall draft pick VJ Edgecombe had the Sixers hopeful they could make some noise in the playoffs.

    With the Feb. 5 trade deadline approaching, George’s suspension could have a profound impact on what the Sixers do as they make a playoff push.

    The 76ers will go through the deadline while they are on a five-game West Coast road trip that starts Monday at the Los Angeles Clippers.

    “You get the punch to the gut, but listen, me, I’ve got to lead the charge here,” Nurse said. “We’ve got to get fighting and we’ve got to get to work.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court sounds ready to give Trump power to oust officials of independent agencies

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.

    The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

    The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”

    A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.

    Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.

    The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.

    If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.

    It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

    But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.

    It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.

    For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.

    But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.

    Past presidents had signed those measures into law, and a unanimous Supreme Court upheld them 90 years ago in a case called Humphrey’s Executor vs. U.S.

    In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

    The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

    During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

    Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

    Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

    Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

    But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.

    “The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.

    Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.

    The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

    The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.

    “Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.

    Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

    But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.

    In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.

    At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.

    In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.

    During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.

    “Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.

    But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.

    The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.

    Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    [ad_1]

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    CRAWLING ON YOUR FRONT OR BACK PORCH. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR CATERPILLAR. DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN THEM. RUMOR HAS IT THAT THESE CATERPILLARS MAY HAVE SOMETHING UP THEIR SLEEVES IN TERMS OF FORECASTING WINTER WEATHER. FOR MORE ON THAT, LET’S TURN OVER NOW TO STORM TEAM METEOROLOGIST RYAN ARGENT, WHO HAS THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE CATERPILLARS? RYAN, IS IT TRUE? YEAH. SO SO LET’S LET’S GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF SOME CONTEXT ON THE SITUATION. SO WE’VE GOTTEN SO MANY PEOPLE REACHING OUT TO US THROUGH EMAIL, THROUGH FACEBOOK SAYING, HEY, YOU SEE THE WOOLY BEARS, IT’S ALL BLACK. OR IT’S LIKE IT’S SOME BROWN, SOME BLACK, RIGHT? LIKE, HOW’S THE WINTER GOING TO BE, RYAN? WELL, LET’S LET’S TAKE A STEP BACK. LET’S TALK ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR FOLKLORE TO BEGIN WITH. SO IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, LET’S CHAT ABOUT IT HERE. SO THESE THIS CUTE LITTLE GUY THAT YOU’VE PROBABLY BEEN SEEING ON YOUR FRONT PORCH OR BACK PORCH, LIKE THOSE ME AND MICHAEL WERE SAYING THIS. YOU CAN SEE THE FUZZ ON IT. YOU CAN SEE THERE’S SOME BLACK AND THERE’S SOME BROWN ON IT. BUT IF THERE’S MORE BLACK THAN BROWN, RUMOR HAS IT THAT MEANS IT’S GOING TO BE A HARSHER WINTER. NOW STEP ON THIS SIDE OF THE SCREEN. IF THERE’S MORE BROWN THAN BLACK, THAT MEANS THAT THERE’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. OKAY, SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM SOME FOLKS. WE DID. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM JAMIE OUT OF WRIGHTSVILLE ISLAND FROM MOUNT GRETNA. MELISSA FROM COLUMBIA GOT SOME PICTURES FROM YOU GUYS. SO THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING THOSE. BUT YOU CAN SEE IT’S A VARIATION OF THE FUR COLOR. SO IT’S NOT REALLY CONSISTENT. SO HERE’S IF YOU WANT A MORE OF LIKE AN EXPLAINER GRAPHIC. SO WE PUT THIS TOGETHER FOR YOU. SO AGAIN THE AMOUNT OF BLACK IN AUTUMN CORRELATES WITH THE SEVERITY OF THE UPCOMING WINTER. THAT’S THE FOLKLORE. IF THERE’S MORE BLACK LONGER, COLDER, SNOWY WINTER, IF YOU SEE MORE BROWN, THEN IT’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. AND ALSO THERE’S 13 SEGMENTS ON ITS BODY WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE 13 WEEKS OF WINTER. BUT THAT’S WHAT THE FOLKLORE SAYS. NOW HERE, DO GIVE ME A LITTLE DRUM ROLL HERE. WHAT IS IT? IS IT TRUE OR IS IT FALSE? IT IS. FALSE. GUYS. AND NO, THIS CATERPILLAR CANNOT FORECAST THE UPCOMING. I LOVE THAT GUY. BY THE WAY GUYS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. SO NO THIS CATERPILLAR GUYS THIS DOES NOT. THIS LITTLE GUY IS AS CUTE AS HE IS. HE CAN’T FORECAST THE WEATHER. THE THE WOOLY BEAR’S COLORING IS ALL BASED ON ITS FEEDING HABITS, ITS AGE, THE SPECIES, AND THE WIDTH OF THE BANDING INDICATES THE CURRENT OR THE PAST GROWING SEASON OF WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH LIKE EVENTUALLY TURNING INTO A I THINK IT’S A MOTH. I THINK IT IS OR A BUTTERFLY LATER AS IT, AS IT COMES UP. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HEARING ALL THE FOLKLORE AND THE AND THE RUMORS ABOUT THIS CATERPILLAR, NOPE, IT DOES NOT. IT DOES NOT FORECAST THE WEATHER. NOW ENJOY THE FOLKLORE. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FORECASTING, AS WE LIKE TO SAY

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    Updated: 9:13 PM PST Nov 22, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.Woolly bear caterpillar folkloreThese caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors. Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions. If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.Truth behind the folkloreThe woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditionsThe coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and speciesThe width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.

    Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.

    Woolly bear caterpillar folklore

    These caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors.

    Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions.

    If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.

    The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.

    Truth behind the folklore

    • The woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditions
    • The coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and species
    • The width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    [ad_1]

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    CRAWLING ON YOUR FRONT OR BACK PORCH. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR CATERPILLAR. DEFINITELY HAVE SEEN THEM. RUMOR HAS IT THAT THESE CATERPILLARS MAY HAVE SOMETHING UP THEIR SLEEVES IN TERMS OF FORECASTING WINTER WEATHER. FOR MORE ON THAT, LET’S TURN OVER NOW TO STORM TEAM METEOROLOGIST RYAN ARGENT, WHO HAS THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE CATERPILLARS? RYAN, IS IT TRUE? YEAH. SO SO LET’S LET’S GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF SOME CONTEXT ON THE SITUATION. SO WE’VE GOTTEN SO MANY PEOPLE REACHING OUT TO US THROUGH EMAIL, THROUGH FACEBOOK SAYING, HEY, YOU SEE THE WOOLY BEARS, IT’S ALL BLACK. OR IT’S LIKE IT’S SOME BROWN, SOME BLACK, RIGHT? LIKE, HOW’S THE WINTER GOING TO BE, RYAN? WELL, LET’S LET’S TAKE A STEP BACK. LET’S TALK ABOUT THE WOOLY BEAR FOLKLORE TO BEGIN WITH. SO IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, LET’S CHAT ABOUT IT HERE. SO THESE THIS CUTE LITTLE GUY THAT YOU’VE PROBABLY BEEN SEEING ON YOUR FRONT PORCH OR BACK PORCH, LIKE THOSE ME AND MICHAEL WERE SAYING THIS. YOU CAN SEE THE FUZZ ON IT. YOU CAN SEE THERE’S SOME BLACK AND THERE’S SOME BROWN ON IT. BUT IF THERE’S MORE BLACK THAN BROWN, RUMOR HAS IT THAT MEANS IT’S GOING TO BE A HARSHER WINTER. NOW STEP ON THIS SIDE OF THE SCREEN. IF THERE’S MORE BROWN THAN BLACK, THAT MEANS THAT THERE’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. OKAY, SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM SOME FOLKS. WE DID. WE DID GET SOME PICTURES FROM JAMIE OUT OF WRIGHTSVILLE ISLAND FROM MOUNT GRETNA. MELISSA FROM COLUMBIA GOT SOME PICTURES FROM YOU GUYS. SO THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING THOSE. BUT YOU CAN SEE IT’S A VARIATION OF THE FUR COLOR. SO IT’S NOT REALLY CONSISTENT. SO HERE’S IF YOU WANT A MORE OF LIKE AN EXPLAINER GRAPHIC. SO WE PUT THIS TOGETHER FOR YOU. SO AGAIN THE AMOUNT OF BLACK IN AUTUMN CORRELATES WITH THE SEVERITY OF THE UPCOMING WINTER. THAT’S THE FOLKLORE. IF THERE’S MORE BLACK LONGER, COLDER, SNOWY WINTER, IF YOU SEE MORE BROWN, THEN IT’S GOING TO BE A MILDER WINTER. AND ALSO THERE’S 13 SEGMENTS ON ITS BODY WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE 13 WEEKS OF WINTER. BUT THAT’S WHAT THE FOLKLORE SAYS. NOW HERE, DO GIVE ME A LITTLE DRUM ROLL HERE. WHAT IS IT? IS IT TRUE OR IS IT FALSE? IT IS. FALSE. GUYS. AND NO, THIS CATERPILLAR CANNOT FORECAST THE UPCOMING. I LOVE THAT GUY. BY THE WAY GUYS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. SO NO THIS CATERPILLAR GUYS THIS DOES NOT. THIS LITTLE GUY IS AS CUTE AS HE IS. HE CAN’T FORECAST THE WEATHER. THE THE WOOLY BEAR’S COLORING IS ALL BASED ON ITS FEEDING HABITS, ITS AGE, THE SPECIES, AND THE WIDTH OF THE BANDING INDICATES THE CURRENT OR THE PAST GROWING SEASON OF WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH LIKE EVENTUALLY TURNING INTO A I THINK IT’S A MOTH. I THINK IT IS OR A BUTTERFLY LATER AS IT, AS IT COMES UP. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HEARING ALL THE FOLKLORE AND THE AND THE RUMORS ABOUT THIS CATERPILLAR, NOPE, IT DOES NOT. IT DOES NOT FORECAST THE WEATHER. NOW ENJOY THE FOLKLORE. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FORECASTING, AS WE LIKE TO SAY

    Woolly bear caterpillars: Can they predict winter weather?

    Updated: 12:13 AM EST Nov 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.Woolly bear caterpillar folkloreThese caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors. Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions. If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.Truth behind the folkloreThe woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditionsThe coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and speciesThe width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    Woolly bear caterpillars, often seen crawling on porches, are rumored to have something up their sleeves in terms of forecasting winter weather.

    Meteorologist Ryan Argenti from Hearst sister station WGAL reveals the truth about these caterpillars.

    Woolly bear caterpillar folklore

    These caterpillars are hairy creatures featuring brown and black colors.

    Folklore says if these caterpillars have more black than brown color, you can expect harsh winter conditions.

    If there is more brown than black colors, you can expect a mild winter.

    The 13 segments on its body correspond to the 13 weeks of winter.

    Truth behind the folklore

    • The woolly bear caterpillar cannot forecast the upcoming winter conditions
    • The coloring on the caterpillar is based on feeding habits, age, and species
    • The width of the banding indicates the current or past growing season

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 9th Circuit rethinks ruling that bolstered Trump’s authority to deploy troops

    [ad_1]

    Three of the country’s most powerful judges met in Pasadena on Wednesday for a rare conclave that could rewrite the legal framework for President Trump’s expansive deployment of troops to cities across the United States.

    The move to flood Los Angeles with thousands of federalized soldiers over the objection of state and local leaders shocked the country back in June. Five months later, such military interventions have become almost routine.

    But whether the deployments can expand — and how long they can continue — relies on a novel reading of an obscure subsection of the U.S. code that determines the president’s ability to dispatch the National Guard and federal service members. That code has been under heated debate in courts across the country.

    Virtually all of those cases have turned on the 9th Circuit’s decision in June. The judges found that the law in question requires “a great level of deference” to the president to decide when protest flashes into rebellion, and whether boots on the ground are warranted in response.

    On Wednesday, the same three judge panel — Jennifer Sung of Portland, Eric D. Miller of Seattle and Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu — took the rare move of reviewing it, signaling a willingness to dramatically rewrite the terms of engagement that have underpinned Trump’s deployments.

    “I guess the question is, why is a couple of hundred people engaging in disorderly conduct and throwing things at a building over the course of two days of comparable severity of a rebellion?” said Miller, who was appointed to the bench in Trump’s first term. “Violence is used to thwart the enforcement of federal law all the time. This happens every day.”

    The question he posed has riven the judicial system, splitting district judges from appellate panels and the Pacific Coast from the Midwest. Some of Trump’s judicial appointees have broken sharply with their colleagues on the matter, including on the 9th Circuit. Miller and Bennett appear at odds with Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, who expanded on the court’s June ruling in a decision Monday that allowed federalized troops to deploy in Oregon.

    Most agreethat the statute itself is esoteric, vague and untested. Unlike the Insurrection Act, which generations of presidents have used to quell spasms of violent domestic unrest, the law Trump invoked has almost no historical footprint, and little precedent to define it.

    “It’s only been used once in the history of our country since it was enacted 122 years ago,” California Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt told the court Wednesday.

    Attorneys from both sides have turned to legal dictionaries to define the word “rebellion” in their favor, because the statute itself offers no clues.

    “Defendants have not put forward a credible understanding of the term ‘rebellion’ in this litigation,” Harbourt told the panel Wednesday. “We’re continuing to see defendants rely on this interpretation across the country and we’re concerned that the breadth of the definition the government has relied on … includes any form of resistance.”

    The wiggle room has left courts to lock horns over the most basic facts before them — including whether what the president claims must be provably true.

    In the Oregon case, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, called the president’s assertions about a rebellion there “untethered to the facts.”

    But a separate 9th Circuit panel overruled her, finding the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to use soldiers domestically.

    “The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts,” the court wrote in its Monday decision.

    Nelson went further, calling the president’s decision “absolute.”

    Upon further review, Sung signaled a shift to the opposite interpretation.

    “The court says when the statute gives a discretionary power, that is based on certain facts,” she said. “I don’t see the court saying that the underlying decision of whether the factual basis exists is inherently discretionary.”

    That sounded much more like the Midwest’s 7th Circuit decision in the Chicago case, which found that nothing in the statute “makes the President the sole judge of whether these preconditions exist.”

    “Political opposition is not rebellion,” the 7th Circuit judges wrote. “A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows.”

    The Trump administration’s appeal of that decision is currently before the Supreme Court on the emergency docket.

    But experts said even a high court ruling in that case may not dictate what can happen in California — or in New York, for that matter. Even if the justices ruled against the administration, Trump could choose to invoke the Insurrection Act or another law to justify his next moves, an option that he and other officials have repeatedly floated in recent weeks.

    The administration has signaled its desire to expand on the power it already enjoys, telling the court Wednesday there was no limit to where troops could be deployed or how long they could remain in the president’s service once he had taken control of them.

    “Would it be your view that no matter how much conditions on the ground changed, there would be no ability of the district court or review — in a month, six months, a year, five years — to review whether the conditions still support [deployment]?”

    “Yes,” McArthur said.

    Bennett pressed the point, asking whether under the current law the militia George Washington federalized to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 could “stay called up forever” — a position the government again affirmed.

    “There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” McArthur said. “The president’s determination of whether the exigency has arisen, that decision is vested in his sole and exclusive discretion.”

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • Commentary: Is Pelosi getting ‘Bidened’? High drama in the scramble for her congressional seat

    [ad_1]

    State Sen. Scott Wiener is a strategic and effective legislator who rarely lets emotion make his decisions — much like Nancy Pelosi, whose congressional seat he would like to take.

    It has been a wide-open secret for years that Wiener wanted to make a run for federal office when or if Pelosi retired, but he’s also been deferential to the elder stateswoman of California politics and has made it equally clear that he would wait his turn in the brutal and parochial machine of San Francisco politics.

    Until now.

    The San Francisco Standard broke the news Thursday that Wiener is running on the 2026 ballot, though he has yet to formally announce.

    It is news that shocked even those deep in the dog-eat-dog world of S.F. politics and ignited the inevitable news cycle about whether Pelosi (who was instrumental in removing President Biden from the 2024 race for age-related issues) is being Bidened herself. It also ensures a contentious race that will be nationally watched by both MAGA and the progressive left, both of which take issue with Wiener.

    Oh, the drama.

    Take it for what you will, but a few months after having hip replacement surgery, Pelosi is (literally) back in her stiletto heels and raising beaucoup dollars for Proposition 50, the ballot initiative meant to gerrymander California voting maps to counteract a GOP cheat-fest in Texas.

    Yes, she’s 85, but she’s no Joe. She is also, however, no spring chicken. So the national debate on whether Democrats need not just fresh but younger candidates has officially landed in the City by the Bay, though Wiener remains both practical and polite enough to not frame it that way.

    He’ll leave that to the journalists, who have hounded Pelosi for months to announce whether she will seek another term, a question she has declined to directly answer. Instead, her team has focused on the looming election for Proposition 50 and said any announcement on her future has to wait after the ballots are counted.

    To be fair to Pelosi, she’s gone all-in to both fundraise and campaign for the redistricting effort, and its passage is essential to Democrats having even a shot at winning back any power in the midterms.

    If Prop. 50 fails, there is no non-miracle path, except perhaps an unexpected blue wave, through which Democrats can retake a chamber. So Nov. 4 isn’t an arbitrary date. It will determine if there is any possibility of checking Trump’s power grab, and preserving democracy. Personally, I don’t fault Pelosi for being engaged in that fight.

    To also be fair to Wiener, his decision to announce now was probably driven more by money and political momentum than by Pelosi’s age.

    That’s because Pelosi already has a challenger — the ultra-wealthy progressive Saikat Chakrabarti, a startup millionaire who served as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign manager during her first upset win for Congress in 2018. Chakrabarti has long been an antagonist to Pelosi, and recently announced his candidacy, positioning himself as a disrupter.

    In 2019, before the House impeached Trump over his questionable actions involving Ukraine, Chakrabarti tweeted, “Pelosi claims we can’t focus on impeachment because it’s a distraction from kitchen table issues. But I’d challenge you to find voters that can name a single thing House Democrats have done for their kitchen table this year. What is this legislative mastermind doing?”

    Chakrabarti, who was born the year before Pelosi was first elected to Congress in 1987, has self-funded his campaign with $700,000 and has the financial ability to spend much more. Wiener, in his on-the-down-low shadow campaign, has raised a bit over $1 million, not nearly enough. The primary will be in June and it will be expensive.

    Though we have yet to reach Halloween, a stroll down the aisles of any big box store can tell you that Christmas is neigh, a season when fundraising becomes harder — putting pressure on Wiener to raise money as quickly as possible before the winter freeze.

    Add to that pressure the fact that Chakrabarti has political skills and growing popularity. He was the tech architect behind a successful push to activate volunteers for both AOC and Bernie Sanders.

    An internal poll released a few months ago (and any internal poll must be viewed skeptically) showed Chakrabarti drawing 34% of voters to Pelosi’s 47%. His numbers increased as voters learned more about him — a few have even compared him to New York’s socialist wonder-kid Zohran Mamdani, currently running for mayor against Andrew Cuomo.

    The problem with that is that Wiener is not Cuomo. He’s a progressive himself, and one with an established track record of getting stuff done, often progressive stuff.

    I’ve watched him for years push ambitious agendas through the statehouse, including bills where I would have bet against him.

    Most recently, he wrote the state’s ban on cops, including ICE, wearing masks. Although the feds have said they will ignore the new law, recently signed by Newsom, and it will almost certainly end up in court, it is a worthy message to send about secret police in America.

    Wiener also this term passed a controversial housing bill that will increase density around transit hubs, and spearheaded a bill to regulate artificial intelligence.

    In past terms, he has successfully forced insurance companies to cover mental health the same way they cover physical health; pushed large companies to disclose their climate impact; and been one of the major proponents of “YIMBY” policies that make it easier to build housing.

    He has also passed numerous laws protecting immigrant and LGBTQ+ rights, which has made him a favorite target of the far right. He has received death threats on a regular basis for years, including one from an anti-vaxxer who was convicted on seven counts in 2022 after threatening Wiener and being found in possession of weapons. Wiener doesn’t have Pelosi’s charisma, but he has receipts for getting the job done and handling the vicious vitriol of modern politics.

    Unlike Chakrabarti, Wiener has also been a part of San Francisco’s insular community for decades, and has his own base of support — though he is considered a moderate to Chakrabarti’s progressiveness. This is where San Francisco gets wonderfully weird. In nearly any other place, Wiener would be solidly left. But some of his constituents view him as too developer-friendly for his housing policies and have criticized his past policies around expanding conservatorships for mentally ill people.

    But still, a recent poll done by EMC research but not released publicly found that 61% of likely primary voters have a favorable opinion of Wiener. That vastly outpaces the 21% that said the same about Chakrabarti or even the 21% who liked Pelosi’s daughter, Christine Pelosi, who has also been mentioned as a possible successor.

    Which is all to say that Wiener is in a now-or-never moment. He has popularity but needs momentum and cash. The Democratic Party is in a mess, and the old rules are out the window, even in San Francisco.

    So waiting for Pelosi had become a little bit like waiting for Godot, a self-imposed limbo that was more likely to lead to frustration than victory.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Former California Senate leader Toni Atkins drops out of 2026 governor’s race

    [ad_1]

    Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.”That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022. “Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:Former U.S. House Rep. Katie PorterState Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony ThurmondFormer U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier BecerraFormer Los Angeles Mayor Antonio VillaraigosaCalifornia Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty YeeFormer California Assembly Majority Leader Ian CalderonU.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.| RELATED | The full list of who’s running for California governorThe two prominent Republicans are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton.According to a Berkeley IGS Poll last month, Porter held a small lead as first choice, but nearly twice as many voters were undecided.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.

    She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.

    In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.

    “That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”

    Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022.

    “Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”

    Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.

    Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.

    Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:

    • Former U.S. House Rep. Katie Porter
    • State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond
    • Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra
    • Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
    • California Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty Yee
    • Former California Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon

    U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.

    | RELATED | The full list of who’s running for California governor

    The two prominent Republicans are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton.

    According to a Berkeley IGS Poll last month, Porter held a small lead as first choice, but nearly twice as many voters were undecided.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Public defender’s office seeks removal of Trump’s top federal prosecutor in L.A.

    [ad_1]

    The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles filed a motion Friday to disqualify acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, arguing that the Trump administration’s pick to serve as the top federal prosecutor in Southern California is unlawfully occupying his post.

    Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April, and his term was set to expire in late July unless he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges. But the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term another nine months without any confirmation process.

    The federal public defender’s office filed a motion seeking to dismiss an indictment against their client and to disqualify Essayli and attorneys working under him “from participating in criminal prosecutions in this district.”

    The defendant, Jaime Ramirez, was indicted on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    In a 63-page motion filed in Ramirez’s case, James Anglin Flynn and Ayah A. Sarsour, deputy federal public defenders, argued that the Trump administration circumvented limitations that Congress has imposed on temporary service in key offices, including U.S. attorneys.

    Essayli’s term was supposed to expire on July 29. At that point the White House had not formally nominated him before the U.S. Senate, and local federal judges had taken no action to confirm Essayli, or anyone else, to the position. At the eleventh hour, the White House named Essayli as acting U.S. attorney, allowing him to hold the post for 210 more days without confirmation hearings.

    Essayli “was not lawfully acting as the United States Attorney in any capacity” on Aug. 13, when the government obtained the indictment against Ramirez, the deputy federal public defenders wrote in their motion. “And he has no such lawful authority today.”

    The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

    In their motion, Flynn and Sarsour pointed out that the Trump administration has used similar strategies to keep political allies in power in U.S. attorney’s offices in New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico and the Northern District of New York. But legal challenges are mounting. Last week, a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba has been illegally occupying her seat in New Jersey since early July, although that order was put on hold pending appeal.

    Habba was nominated for the post earlier this year but did not receive Senate or judicial confirmation. Instead, local federal judges chose Desiree Leigh Grace, a veteran Republican prosecutor within the office, to replace Habba. Bondi responded by firing Grace and naming Habba acting U.S. attorney, sparking confusion over who actually held the post and all but paralyzing the federal criminal court system in the Garden State.

    On Tuesday, the federal public defender’s office in Nevada filed a motion to do one of two things: dismiss an indictment that acting U.S. Atty. Sigal Chattah brought against one of its clients, or disqualify the U.S. attorney’s office entirely. The 59-page motion specifically challenged Chattah, stating that she is not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney.

    Echoing Judge Matthew W. Brann’s ruling on Habba, the Nevada public defenders argued that Chattah was not first an assistant U.S. attorney, as federal law required when the U.S. attorney seat became vacant.

    The motion also argues that Chattah was illegally kept in office past the 120-day limit and can’t exercise the powers of the office without Senate confirmation.

    “The Court should dismiss the indictment; at a minimum, it should disqualify Ms. Chattah from this prosecution, as well as attorneys operating under her direction; and the judges of this district should exercise their authority to appoint a proper interim U.S. Attorney,” the Nevada motion read.

    Last month, in the final days before Chattah’s interim appointment ended, more than 100 retired state and federal judges wrote Nevada’s chief federal district judge to urge him not to appoint her once her term expired. The group said Chattah’s history of “racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements” was disqualifying.

    The letter called Chattah’s interim appointment “a troubling pattern by the Trump administration of bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming U.S. Attorneys.”

    According to the letter, as of July, Trump had submitted formal nominations for only nine of his administration’s 37 interim appointees.

    “If this pattern persists, by late fall, more than one-third of the 93 U.S. Attorneys will have evaded Senate review this year alone,” the letter read. “Yet, the constitutional role of the Senate is vital regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys.”

    Each of Trump’s controversial picks has demonstrated fealty to the president. Chattah has long upheld Trump’s lie that he actually won the 2020 election. Habba — who once served as Trump’s personal attorney and has no prosecutorial experience — promised to turn New Jersey “red,” breaking with longstanding norms of federal prosecutors eschewing partisan politics. She has also filed criminal charges against two Democratic lawmakers in the state over scuffles with immigration officers at a Newark detention facility.

    Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often aping the president’s language verbatim at news conferences. His tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of prosecutors quitting in the face of his belligerent, scream-first management style.

    A Times investigation last month found that his aggressive pursuit of charges against people protesting immigration enforcement in Southern California has led to weak cases being rejected again and again by grand juries. A number of others have been dismissed.

    Even if Trump had formally nominated him to serve a full term as U.S. attorney, it is unlikely he would have ever appeared on the Senate floor. California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, both Democrats, are both opposed to Essayli’s appointment and could have derailed any nomination by withholding what is known as their “blue slip,” or acknowledgment of support for a nominee.

    The procedural blockades have drawn Trump’s ire, and the president has challenged Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to do away with honoring the blue slip tradition. Grassley has held firm, but Trump has threatened litigation.

    Legal experts called the White House’s move to keep Essayli in office unprecedented last month, and warned it could affect criminal cases.

    “These laws have never been used, as far as I can see, to bypass the Senate confirmation process or the judicial one,” Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who now serves as a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told The Times last month. “The most serious consequences are if you’re going to end up with indictments that are not valid because they weren’t signed by a lawful U.S. attorney.”

    [ad_2]

    Brittny Mejia, James Queally

    Source link

  • Early season atmospheric river to bring significant rains next week to Southern California

    Early season atmospheric river to bring significant rains next week to Southern California

    [ad_1]

    While strong winds remained a concern Thursday, meteorologists have their eye on a moisture-rich storm expected to bring significant rains to Southern California by the end of next week.

    An atmospheric river system with a “decent moisture plume” is forecast to hit Southern California as early as Wednesday, and is expected to bring up to 4 inches of rain to some areas, said David Sweet, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Oxnard.

    “We anticipate getting more than an inch, maybe as much as two inches” to much of the Los Angeles area, Sweet said. The mountains could see as much as 4 inches.

    “It will certainly tamp down any fire threat that we’re dealing with currently,” Sweet said.

    While the storm is still almost a week out, Sweet said models show slightly different timing and rain amounts for the system. But he said with confidence the “pineapple express” system will bring significant precipitation with some strong southerly winds. Rains are likely to be most significant Thursday and Friday next week.

    But in the short term, officials are still warning about dangerous fire conditions in most L.A. County valleys and mountains, as well as a the Malibu coast, with a red flag warning still in effect through Thursday evening. Gusty Santa Ana winds up to 50 mph, along with low humidity, mean that any fire start could spread rapidly, the weather service warned.

    Those winds are expected to die down by Friday, causing minor cooling, Sweet said. However, the offshore winds will have a slight resurgence over the weekend, though not to the point of further concern, he said.

    “Those Santa Ana-type winds [this weekend] will boost our temperatures back up into the 80s,” Sweet said.

    [ad_2]

    Grace Toohey

    Source link

  • A mother allegedly abducts her 8 children, flees across five states to ‘start a new life’ before her arrest

    A mother allegedly abducts her 8 children, flees across five states to ‘start a new life’ before her arrest

    [ad_1]

    A mother of eight children is accused of abducting her children, taking them from their foster care facilities, and then fleeing across five states until police caught up with her in a small town in northern California.

    Trista Fullerton, 36, allegedly violated a court order of custody for the eight children, as well as the terms of her probation for a domestic violence conviction, when she took the kids from the town of Rogers, Ark., and fled across the country while Arkansas police tried to reach her, according to court records.

    Her father told police that Fullerton planned on heading to Arizona “to start a new life,” according to a warrant for her arrest. Instead, Fullerton was found in Anderson, Calif. — 150 miles north of Sacramento — where police said they spotted her and six of her children in a pickup truck filled with trash after someone reported that Fullerton was “displaying bizarre behavior.”

    According to an arrest warrant affidavit obtained by The Times, police from Rogers began trying to contact Fullerton on Oct. 17, after receiving a report that she had “interfered with court ordered custody of eight children.”

    Rogers Police officials declined to provide additional details on the case, including who made the initial report. A spokesperson for the department said the case is still under investigation.

    According to the affidavit, police reached out to Fullerton’s father, David Fullerton, on Oct. 18, and he told police that his daughter had told him about taking the children to Arizona. Police learned the following day that she and the children were in California, according to the affidavit.

    Police had made contact with her and the children in Redding, about 15 miles north of Anderson, but she and the children were not detained because there was no warrant.

    Rogers Police filed an arrest warrant Oct. 20, and the next day, police in Anderson, Calif., spotted her and six of her children in a Dodge pickup with Arkansas plates, according to a statement from the Anderson Police Department.

    Two of her other children were located at a nearby home in Cottonwood, according to the statement, and they were taken into custody by Shasta County Children and Family Services.

    Fullerton was booked at Shasta County Jail and is being held without bail, according to jail records. She is expected to appear in court Thursday.

    Trista Fullerton, 36, allegedly violated a court order of custody for her eight children, as well as the terms of her probation for a domestic violence conviction.

    (Anderson Police Department)

    David Fullerton, said during a brief call with a reporter that his daughter had made a “mistake” and is “innocent.”

    “My daughter stands a chance, you know,” he said. “She made a mistake. She went across the line taking her babies but she didn’t know she wasn’t supposed to.”

    Court records indicate that Fullerton was on probation at the time of her arrest in Anderson. Records also show that she had been involved in at least two instances of domestic violence, twice violating court orders to stay away from the victim. In one incident, she was accused of punching the father of one of her children in the face.

    Fullerton pleaded guilty to domestic violence on July 12, 2022 in Arkansas, after she “hit the father of her child in the face, causing physical injury” in June 2021.

    The victim is only identified in the court documents as a 40-year-old Hispanic male.

    In a court record dated Aug. 9, 2021, Fullerton indicated she had seven children at the time, ages 15, 14, 11, 7, 3, 4, and 5 months.

    She also pleaded guilty to another case of domestic battery for a Feb. 5, 2020, incident in which she “punched her boyfriend in the head multiple times and scratched his face, causing redness and bleeding on his face,” according to court records.

    Fullerton pleaded guilty to both incidents, and was sentenced to two years of probation, court records show. The terms of her probation, however, required that she not drink alcohol, not break the law and not leave the state of Arkansas without the approval of her probation officer.

    The agreement stipulated that if she violated the terms of her probation, she could face a sentence of 12 years in jail.

    On Wednesday, prosecutors requested her probation be rescinded and a $50,000 warrant was issued for her arrest.

    Prosecutors said the case is currently being reviewed and it was unclear what, if any, new charge might be filed.

    [ad_2]

    Salvador Hernandez

    Source link

  • So Much for Biden the Bridge President

    So Much for Biden the Bridge President

    [ad_1]

    In retrospect, Joe Biden probably wishes he’d never uttered these words in public. Maybe it was just youthful exuberance: He was, after all, only 77 at the time.

    “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” Biden said at a rally in Detroit, one of his last pre-lockdown campaign appearances of the 2020 Democratic primaries. It was early March, and he was flanked by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and a pair of his former rivals, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker—all members of what Biden would call “an entire generation of leaders” and “the future of this country.”

    Few paid much attention to the future president’s remarks at the time. They appeared consistent with a prevailing assumption about his campaign: that Biden was running as an emergency-stopgap option. And once the emergency—Donald Trump—was dealt with, the old pro was expected to make way for that “entire generation.”

    “I view myself as a transition candidate,” Biden said during an online fundraiser shortly after he gave his bridge speech, according to The New York Times.

    Biden never explicitly said he would serve just one term, but multiple outlets reported that he and his advisers discussed making such a pledge. His allies reinforced the notion, even as Biden himself denied it. “It is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president,” Politico reported in December 2019, citing four unnamed sources who spoke regularly with Biden.

    As it would turn out, the “bridge” declaration proved to be one of Biden’s most memorable utterances of the past four years. The line has been quoted a great deal, especially lately—or hurled at him, usually by someone pointing out that this bridge seems to be stretching on much longer than anyone expected.

    Americans are plainly impatient for Biden to retire already, a point hammered home by the preponderance of poll respondents—including Democrats and independents—who say Biden should not be seeking a second term that would begin after his 82nd birthday. Elected Democrats, operatives, and donors keep saying the same in private, while an array of op-ed and cable kibitzers have exhaled a steady barrage on this subject. (The Atlantic has also explored this topic.)

    But put aside the usual questions about Biden’s age and fitness to endure another campaign or term. What’s often overlooked in these discussions is the depth of frustration behind this public skittishness. It goes beyond the hand-wringing about possible health catastrophes that could befall the president at the worst possible time (i.e., next October). The displeasure over Biden’s determination to keep going suggests that voters might perceive him as acting selfishly, or that they feel misled by a candidate who ran for president on the pretense of a short-term fix, only to remain ensconced as a long-term proposition.

    When Biden ran in 2020, several friends and aides reportedly advised him to come out and say he would serve just one term, because that was understood to be his intent anyway. But he was loath to announce himself as a lame duck earlier than he had to. This was consistent with a Biden decree, dating at least to his days as vice president, when people asked whether he would consider running to succeed Obama. “Nobody in D.C. gains influence by declaring they are playing out the string,” Politico’s Glenn Thrush wrote in a profile of Biden, headlined “Joe Biden in Winter.” That was in 2014.

    In politics, Biden would tell people around him, you are either on your way up or on your way down—and there is no reason for a leader of any age to ever deny interest in moving up unless they want to declare themselves irrelevant to the future.

    Even so, the 2020 election was less about the future than it was about surviving a ghastly present. Biden came back to do a specific job. “I think it’s really, really important that Donald Trump not be re-elected,” Biden told me during the 2020 campaign, when I asked him why on Earth he was putting himself through another race at his age. “Don’t compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative,” he was always saying.

    Biden and his aides didn’t shy from the label of “transition candidate” and typically were noncommittal on the prospect of a second term—right up until Biden transitioned himself into the White House and became much more definitive. “The answer is yes,” Biden said at a news conference in March 2021, the first time he was asked as president whether he would run again in 2024. “My plan is to run for reelection,” he continued. “That’s my expectation.”

    In fact, pollsters and focus-group facilitators report that many of their subjects still haven’t fully accepted that Biden decided to run again. “It seems pretty implicit in the way voters talk that they didn’t expect him to be a two-term president,” Sarah Longwell, the Bulwark publisher who has interviewed panels across the political spectrum, told me.

    “To insiders, a Trump-Biden rematch is a foregone conclusion,” Ben Tulchin, a Democratic pollster who worked for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, told me. But in his own focus groups—mainly of young and Latino voters—Tulchin said voters are not fully buying that, whether out of denial or distaste. “They don’t like being forced to make a choice that they don’t want to make yet,” he said.

    Biden has enjoyed perhaps the most triumphant last hurrah in American political history. Also, the longest. Start the clock in August 2008, when Barack Obama first selected him as his running mate. “I want you to view this as the capstone of your career,” Obama told Biden when he offered him the job, according to the eventual vice president. “And not the tombstone,” Biden joked in reply.

    Fifteen years later, he might suffer from a general intolerance that voters reserve for high-level government officials who grow old in office. The various freeze-ups and infirmities of Senators Mitch McConnell (81) and Dianne Feinstein (90), respectively, have drawn more sneers than sympathy. The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has come in for a great deal of posthumous scorn, even among her staunchest liberal admirers, for holding on long enough for her health to deteriorate and a Republican president (Trump) to appoint her successor.

    By appearances, Biden is in much better health than the examples cited above (especially Ginsburg, who died three years ago). But that does nothing to change the actuarial tables, or Biden’s unpopularity, or Vice President Kamala Harris’s. Nor does it stop anyone from trotting out Biden’s bridge quote and its corollaries from four years ago. The reminders carry a strong suggestion that the terms of the original “deal” have shifted, and that this is much more of Biden than anyone bargained for.

    “He has been a solid ‘transitional’ president, but transition requires transit, or a second act,” the journalist Joe Klein observed last week in a Substack column. National Review’s Jim Geraghty recently compared Biden to a relay runner who decides to “keep the baton to himself and attempt another circuit around the track, even though he’s slowing down.”

    Fairness demands a few qualifiers and caveats here. Again, Biden never said he would serve just one term. The president has every right to run again, and any serious Democrat is free to primary him. There are solid arguments that Biden still has the best chance of any Democrat to beat Trump, given the power of his incumbency, the possible fractiousness of an open primary, and the uncertainty of whoever an alternative Democratic nominee would be.

    But perhaps Biden’s best reason for running again in 2024, or defense against suggestions of a bait and switch, is this: He probably did not expect Trump to still be here. Nor did many of the rest of us. There is no precedent for a defeated one-term president to so easily resume his status as de facto standard-bearer of his party. After the January 6 insurrection, Republicans sounded more than ready to move on. This bipartisan exhale was made possible by Biden—God love ya, Joey! Beating Trump should have been the ultimate “capstone” of his career. Yet three years later, Trump is still here. And so is Biden.

    “Politicians who know Biden well say that if he were convinced that Trump were truly vanquished, he would feel he had accomplished his political mission,” the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in one of the most widely discussed recent entries to the “Please go away, Joe” cannon. In other words, meet the new justification, same as the last one. It’s probably as strong a rationale as any for Biden to attempt this.

    Except that it’s getting old, and so’s the bridge.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link