ReportWire

Tag: trial and procedure

  • Fact check: McCarthy’s false, misleading and evidence-free claims since becoming House speaker | CNN Politics

    Fact check: McCarthy’s false, misleading and evidence-free claims since becoming House speaker | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Since winning a difficult battle to become speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican Kevin McCarthy has made public claims that are misleading, lacking any evidence or plain wrong.

    Here is a fact check of recent McCarthy comments about the debt ceiling, funding for the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s resort and residence in Florida, President Joe Biden’s stance on stoves and Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.

    McCarthy’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

    McCarthy has cited the example of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, his Democratic predecessor as House speaker, while defending conservative Republicans’ insistence that any agreement to lift the federal debt ceiling must be paired with cuts to government spending – a trade-off McCarthy agreed to when he was trying to persuade conservatives to support his bid for speaker. Specifically, McCarthy has claimed that even Pelosi agreed to a spending cap as part of a deal to lift the debt ceiling under Trump.

    “When Nancy Pelosi was speaker, that’s what transpired. To get a debt ceiling, they also got a cap on spending for the next two years,” McCarthy told reporters at a press conference on January 12. When Fox host Maria Bartiromo told McCarthy in a January 15 interview that “they” would not agree to a spending cap, he responded, “Well Maria, I don’t believe that’s the case, because when Donald Trump was president and when Nancy Pelosi was speaker, that’s exactly what happened for them to get a debt ceiling lifted last time. They agreed to a spending cap.”

    Facts First: McCarthy’s claims are highly misleading. The deal Pelosi agreed to with the Trump administration in 2019 actually loosened spending caps that were already in place at the time because of a 2011 law. In other words, while congressional conservatives today want to use a debt ceiling deal to reduce government spending, the Pelosi deal allowed for billions in additional government spending above the pre-existing maximum. The two situations are nothing alike.

    Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank, said when asked about the accuracy of McCarthy’s claims: “I’m going to steer clear of characterizing the Speaker’s remarks, but as an objective matter, the deal reached in 2019 increased the spending caps set by the Budget Control Act of 2011.”

    The 2019 deal, which was criticized by many congressional conservatives, also ensured that Budget Control Act’s caps on discretionary spending – which were created as a result of a 2011 debt ceiling deal between a Democratic president and a Republican speaker of the House – would not be extended past 2021. Spending caps vanishing is the opposite of McCarthy’s suggestion that the deal “got” a spending cap.

    Pelosi spokesperson Aaron Bennett said in an email that McCarthy is “trying to rewrite history.” Bennett said, “As Republicans in Congress and in the Administration noted at the time, in 2019, Speaker Pelosi and Democrats were eager to reach bipartisan agreement to raise the debt limit and, as part of the agreement, avert damaging funding cuts for defense and domestic programs.”

    In various statements since becoming speaker, McCarthy has boasted of how the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House “repealed 87,000 IRS agents” or “repealed funding for 87,000 new IRS agents.”

    Facts First: McCarthy’s claims are false. House Republicans did pass a bill that seeks to eliminate about $71 billion of the approximately $80 billion in additional Internal Revenue Service funding that Biden signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act – but that funding is not going to hire 87,000 “agents.” In addition, Biden has already made clear he would veto this new Republican bill even if the bill somehow made it through the Democratic-controlled Senate, so no funding has actually been “repealed.” It would be accurate for McCarthy to say House Republicans “voted to repeal” the funding, but the boast that they actually “repealed” something is inaccurate.

    CNN’s Katie Lobosco explains in detail here why the claim about “87,000 new IRS agents” is an exaggeration. The claim, which has become a common Republican talking point, has been fact-checked by numerous media outlets over more than five months, including The Washington Post in response to McCarthy remarks earlier this January.

    Here’s a summary. While Inflation Reduction Act funding may well allow for the hiring of tens of thousands of IRS employees, far from all of these employees will be IRS agents conducting audits and investigations. Many other employees will be hired for the non-agent roles, from customer service to information technology, that make up the vast majority of the IRS workforce. And a significant number of the hires are expected to fill the vacant posts left by retirements and other attrition, not take newly created positions.

    The IRS has not yet released a detailed breakdown of how it plans to use the funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, so it’s impossible to say precisely how many new “agents” will be hired. But it is already clear that the total won’t approach 87,000.

    In his interview with Fox’s Bartiromo on January 15, McCarthy criticized federal law enforcement for executing a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence in Florida, which the FBI says resulted in the recovery of more than 100 government documents marked as classified and hundreds of other government documents. Echoing a claim Trump has made, McCarthy said of the documents: “They knew it was there. They could have come and taken it any time they wanted.”

    Facts First: It is clearly not true that the authorities could somehow have come to Mar-a-Lago at any time, without conducting a formal search, and taken all of the presidential records they were seeking from Trump. By the time of the search, the federal government – first the National Archives and Records Administration and then the Justice Department – had been asking Trump for more than a year to return government records. Even when the Justice Department went beyond asking in May and served Trump’s team with a subpoena for the return of all documents with classification markings, Trump’s team returned only some of these documents. In June, a Trump lawyer signed a document certifying on behalf of Trump’s office that all of the documents had been returned, though that was not true.

    When FBI agents and a Justice Department attorney visited Mar-a-Lago without a search warrant on that June day to accept documents the Trump team was returning in response to the subpoena, a Trump lawyer “explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room,” the department said in a court filing after the August search. In other words, according to the department, the government was not even allowed to poke around to see if there were government records still at Mar-a-Lago, let alone take those records.

    In the August court filing, the department pointedly called into question the extent to which the Trump team had cooperated: “That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter.”

    McCarthy wrote in a New York Post article published on January 12: “While President Joe Biden wants to control the kind of stove Americans can cook on, House Republicans are certainly cooking with gas.” He repeated the claim on Twitter the next morning.

    Facts First: There is no evidence for this claim; Biden has not expressed a desire to control the kind of stove Americans can cook on. McCarthy was baselessly attributing the comments of a single Biden appointee to Biden himself.

    It is true that a Biden appointee on the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., told Bloomberg earlier this month that gas stoves pose a “hidden hazard,” as they emit air pollutants, and said, “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” But the day before McCarthy’s article was published by the New York Post, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a press briefing: “The president does not support banning gas stoves. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves.”

    To date, even the commission itself has not shown support for a ban on gas stoves or for any particular new regulations on gas stoves. Commission Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric said in a statement the day before McCarthy’s article was published: “I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.” Rather, he said, the commission is researching gas emissions in stoves, “exploring new ways to address health risks,” and strengthening voluntary safety standards – and will this spring ask the public “to provide us with information about gas stove emissions and potential solutions for reducing any associated risks.”

    Trumka told CNN’s Matt Egan that while every option remains on the table, any ban would apply only to new gas stoves, not the gas stoves already in people’s homes. And he noted that the Inflation Reduction Act makes people eligible for a rebate of up to $840 to voluntarily switch to an electric stove.

    Defending his plan to bar Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff from sitting on the House Intelligence Committee, a committee Schiff chaired during the Democratic majority from early 2019 to the beginning of this year, McCarthy criticized Schiff on January 12 over his handling of the first impeachment of Trump. Among other things, McCarthy said: “Adam Schiff openly lied to the American public. He told you he had proof. He told you he didn’t know the whistleblower.”

    Facts First: There is no evidence for McCarthy’s insinuation that Schiff lied when he said he didn’t know the anonymous whistleblower who came forward in 2019 with allegations – which were subsequently corroborated – about how Trump had attempted to use the power of his office to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, his looming rival in the 2020 election.

    Schiff said last week in a statement to CNN: “Kevin McCarthy continues to falsely assert I know the Ukraine whistleblower. Let me be clear – I have never met the whistleblower and the only thing I know about their identity is what I have read in press. McCarthy’s real objection is we proved the whistleblower’s claim to be true and impeached Donald Trump for withholding millions from Ukraine to extort its help with his campaign.” Schiff also made this comment to The Washington Post, which fact-checked the McCarthy claim last week, and has consistently said the same since late 2019.

    The New York Times reported in 2019 that, according to an unnamed official, a House Intelligence Committee aide who had been contacted by the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed a formal complaint did not inform Schiff of the person’s identity when conveying to Schiff “some” information about what the person had said. And Reuters reported in 2019 that a person familiar with the whistleblower’s contacts said the whistleblower hadn’t met or spoken with Schiff.

    McCarthy could have fairly repeated Republican criticism of a claim Schiff made in a 2019 television appearance about the committee’s communication with the whistleblower; Schiff said at the time “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower” even though it soon emerged that the whistleblower had contacted the committee aide before filing the complaint. (A committee spokesperson said at the time that Schiff had been merely trying to say that the committee hadn’t heard actual testimony from the whistleblower, but that Schiff acknowledged his words “should have been more carefully phrased to make that distinction clear.”)

    Regardless, McCarthy didn’t argue here that Schiff had been misleading about the committee’s dealings with the whistleblower; he strongly suggested that Schiff lied in saying he didn’t know the whistleblower. That’s baseless. There has never been any indication that Schiff had a relationship with the whistleblower when he said he didn’t, nor that Schiff knew the whistleblower’s identity when he said he didn’t.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Snapchat video sent by Paul Murdaugh the night he was killed considered critical part of case, prosecutors say | CNN

    Snapchat video sent by Paul Murdaugh the night he was killed considered critical part of case, prosecutors say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Paul Murdaugh sent a Snapchat video to several friends just minutes before he was killed, according to a motion filed by the South Carolina state attorney prosecuting Alex Murdaugh, the disgraced former lawyer standing trial starting this week in the killing of his wife and son.

    Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, 52, and their youngest son, Paul Murdaugh, 22, were found shot to death on the family’s property in June 2021.

    Alex Murdaugh has denied he was involved in their deaths and pleaded not guilty to the murder charges.

    Jury selection began Monday. The trial could last up to three weeks, attorneys for the defense and prosecution have said.

    Three generations of the Murdaugh family had served as prosecuting attorneys in coastal South Carolina, but a series of deaths and allegations of embezzlement and insurance fraud brought the family legacy crashing down, capturing the nation’s attention.

    The reference to the video in the filing, obtained by CNN affiliate WCSC, appears to be the first mention of the Snapchat video from prosecutors who intend to use it as evidence in their case against Murdaugh.

    Snapchat provided the recording as part of a search warrant, the filing said.

    “Amongst other things, critical to the case is a video sent out to several friends at approximately 7:56 PM on the night of the murders,” said the filing.

    “The contents of this video is important to proving the State’s case in chief,” reads the document, written by state prosecutors.

    The document does not describe what the contents of the video are, and its importance to the case is unclear.

    In October, CNN reported, prosecutors in court documents said the mother and son were killed between 8:30 p.m. and 10:06 p.m. in court documents. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division previously reported the deaths occurred between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.

    Prosecutor Creighton Waters asked in the motion that a representative from Snapchat, the social media platform which provided the video, “testify in person that the video is a true and accurate record kept in the normal course of business activity.”

    Judge Clifton Newman ruled in favor of the motion and issued a request to a Los Angeles, district court to compel a representative of Snapchat to attend the Murdaugh trial starting the first day of jury selection.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK’s Crown Estate sues Twitter over alleged non-payment of rent in London offices | CNN Business

    UK’s Crown Estate sues Twitter over alleged non-payment of rent in London offices | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    The Crown Estate, a British commercial property portfolio historically belonging to the monarch, began court proceedings against Twitter over the tech giant’s alleged non-payment of rent in its London offices, a spokesperson of the property business told CNN on Monday.

    The Crown Estate is run by an independent board and boasts a collection of commercial buildings and land which generate profits that are collected by the British government for public spending.

    According to the Crown Estate spokesperson, the legal action follows previous contact with Twitter regarding the rental arrears on its office space at 20 Air Street, London. Discussions between the companies are ongoing, the spokesperson added.

    CNN has reached out to Twitter for comment.

    Twitter currently faces at least one other lawsuit over unpaid rent. A commercial landlord is suing Twitter for breach of contract after the company allegedly failed to pay rent for one of its offices in San Francisco.

    The lawsuit concerns Twitter’s office space at 650 California Street, not its main headquarters on Market Street. But it came after media reports said Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, had stopped paying rent on Twitter’s office space globally — including for its headquarters — and had told employees not to pay company vendors, in an apparent effort to cut costs.

    Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion, including a substantial amount of debt financing.

    – CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former high-level FBI official pleads not guilty in alleged schemes to help sanctioned Russian oligarch | CNN Politics

    Former high-level FBI official pleads not guilty in alleged schemes to help sanctioned Russian oligarch | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The former head of counterintelligence for the FBI’s New York field office was charged in two separate indictments Monday for allegedly working with a sanctioned Russian oligarch after he retired and concealing hundreds of thousands of dollars he received from a former employee of an Albanian intelligence agency while he was a top official at the bureau.

    Charles McGonigal, a 22-year veteran of the FBI until he retired in 2018, was arrested Saturday at John F. Kennedy International Airport when returning from international travel, a source familiar with the arrest told CNN. The charges, announced by the US attorney’s offices in the Southern District of New York and Washington, DC, mark a dramatic fall for McGonigal, who has surrendered his passport and is currently prohibited from any international travel.

    He entered a plea of not guilty via his attorney at an arraignment Monday afternoon in New York on charges in connection with violating US sanctions, conspiracy, and money laundering for working in 2021 with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who was sanctioned for interfering in the 2016 US presidential election.

    Prosecutors allege McGonigal and Sergey Shestakov, a former Russian diplomat who has most recently worked as an interpreter in New York federal courts in Manhattan and Brooklyn, violated US sanctions by digging up dirt on Deripaska’s rival at the time he was already sanctioned.

    In Washington, McGonigal is charged with concealing connections he had with the person who decades earlier worked for an Albanian intelligence agency, including receiving $225,000 in payments. A prosecutor for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York indicated that federal prosecutors in Washington, DC, set a remote initial appearance for Wednesday on those charges.

    Prosecutors allege McGonigal, as an employee of the FBI, was required to disclose overseas travel and contacts with foreign nationals, which he failed to do.

    On Monday, Southern District of New York prosecutors told Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave that they had reached a bail package agreement with McGonigal’s attorney. Cave granted the agreed-upon package to release McGonigal on $500,000 personal recognizance bond co-signed by two undisclosed individuals.

    McGonigal must disclose any domestic travel outside of the southern or eastern districts of New York to the court except court appearances in Washington. Defense attorney Seth DuCharme told the court that McGonigal’s work involves international travel and said he might at some point ask for a bail modification.

    Prosecutors allege that during several trips overseas to Albania, Austria, and Germany, McGonigal failed to disclose on US government forms that he met with the prime minister of Albania, a Kosovar politician and others.

    In one meeting, prosecutors allege McGonigal urged the prime minister of Albania to be “careful about awarding oil field drilling licenses in Albania to Russian front companies.” The former employee of Albanian intelligence who paid him $225,000 had a financial interest in the government’s decision about the contracts.

    One of the cash payments – $80,000 – was allegedly given to McGonigal while he sat in a parked car outside of a restaurant in New York City.

    Under McGonigal’s direction, the FBI opened an investigation into a US citizen’s foreign lobbying effort based on information he received from the former employee of Albanian intelligence, according to the indictment. McGonigal never disclosed his financial relationship.

    The charges out of New York allege that he first met the Russian interpreter, Shestakov, in 2018 while at the FBI through a Russian intelligence officer, known to be a diplomat previously for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Soviet Union and Russian Federation.

    After he retired from the FBI in 2018, McGonigal was brought on as a consultant for a New York law firm working on Deripaska’s sanctions, the court filing says. McGonigal traveled to London and Vienna around 2019 to meet with Deripaska and others about getting the Russian oligarch “delisted” from the US sanctions list.

    In 2021, they allegedly removed the law firm from the picture and McGonigal and Shestakov worked directly for Deripaska.

    The former FBI agent and Shestakov attempted to hide their involvement with Deripaska, using shell companies and forged signatures to receive payments from the Russian oligarch.

    In 2021, McGonigal was allegedly working to obtain “dark web” files for Deripaska that he said could reveal “hidden assets valued at more than 500 million us $” and other information that McGonigal believed would be valuable to Deripaska.

    That effort was abruptly halted when the FBI seized their personal electronic devices in November of that year.

    Shestakov faces one count of false statements for attempting to hide his relationship to the former FBI agent during an interview with FBI agents after the search warrant was executed.

    Deripaska, an ally of Putin, was sanctioned by the US in 2018 in response to Russian interference in the 2016 election and was charged with violating US sanctions in September.

    He is one of the most well-known oligarchs in Russia and, and his name came up during the Trump-Russia investigation. He was mentioned dozens of times in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which says he is “closely aligned” with Putin.

    This headline and story have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta, Twitter, Microsoft and others urge Supreme Court not to allow lawsuits against tech algorithms | CNN Business

    Meta, Twitter, Microsoft and others urge Supreme Court not to allow lawsuits against tech algorithms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    A wide range of businesses, internet users, academics and even human rights experts defended Big Tech’s liability shield Thursday in a pivotal Supreme Court case about YouTube algorithms, with some arguing that excluding AI-driven recommendation engines from federal legal protections would cause sweeping changes to the open internet.

    The diverse group weighing in at the Court ranged from major tech companies such as Meta, Twitter and Microsoft to some of Big Tech’s most vocal critics, including Yelp and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Even Reddit and a collection of volunteer Reddit moderators got involved.

    In friend-of-the-court filings, the companies, organizations and individuals said the federal law whose scope the Court could potentially narrow in the case — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — is vital to the basic function of the web. Section 230 has been used to shield all websites, not just social media platforms, from lawsuits over third-party content.

    The question at the heart of the case, Gonzalez v. Google, is whether Google can be sued for recommending pro-ISIS content to users through its YouTube algorithm; the company has argued that Section 230 precludes such litigation. But the plaintiffs in the case, the family members of a person killed in a 2015 ISIS attack in Paris, have argued that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm can be held liable under a US antiterrorism law.

    In their filing, Reddit and the Reddit moderators argued that a ruling enabling litigation against tech-industry algorithms could lead to future lawsuits against even non-algorithmic forms of recommendation, and potentially targeted lawsuits against individual internet users.

    “The entire Reddit platform is built around users ‘recommending’ content for the benefit of others by taking actions like upvoting and pinning content,” their filing read. “There should be no mistaking the consequences of petitioners’ claim in this case: their theory would dramatically expand Internet users’ potential to be sued for their online interactions.”

    Yelp, a longtime antagonist to Google, argued that its business depends on serving relevant and non-fraudulent reviews to its users, and that a ruling creating liability for recommendation algorithms could break Yelp’s core functions by effectively forcing it to stop curating all reviews, even those that may be manipulative or fake.

    “If Yelp could not analyze and recommend reviews without facing liability, those costs of submitting fraudulent reviews would disappear,” Yelp wrote. “If Yelp had to display every submitted review … business owners could submit hundreds of positive reviews for their own business with little effort or risk of a penalty.”

    Section 230 ensures platforms can moderate content in order to present the most relevant data to users out of the huge amounts of information that get added to the internet every day, Twitter argued.

    “It would take an average user approximately 181 million years to download all data from the web today,” the company wrote.

    If the Supreme Court were to advance a new interpretation of Section 230 that safeguarded platforms’ right to remove content, but excluded protections on their right to recommend content, it would open up broad new questions about what it means to recommend something online, Meta argued in its filing.

    “If merely displaying third-party content in a user’s feed qualifies as ‘recommending’ it, then many services will face potential liability for virtually all the third-party content they host,” Meta wrote, “because nearly all decisions about how to sort, pick, organize, and display third-party content could be construed as ‘recommending’ that content.”

    A ruling finding that tech platforms can be sued for their recommendation algorithms would jeopardize GitHub, the vast online code repository used by millions of programmers, said Microsoft.

    “The feed uses algorithms to recommend software to users based on projects they have worked on or showed interest in previously,” Microsoft wrote. It added that for “a platform with 94 million developers, the consequences [of limiting Section 230] are potentially devastating for the world’s digital infrastructure.”

    Microsoft’s search engine Bing and its social network, LinkedIn, also enjoy algorithmic protections under Section 230, the company said.

    According to New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, it is virtually impossible to design a rule that singles out algorithmic recommendation as a meaningful category for liability, and could even “result in the loss or obscuring of a massive amount of valuable speech,” particularly speech belonging to marginalized or minority groups.

    “Websites use ‘targeted recommendations’ because those recommendations make their platforms usable and useful,” the NYU filing said. “Without a liability shield for recommendations, platforms will remove large categories of third-party content, remove all third-party content, or abandon their efforts to make the vast amount of user content on their platforms accessible. In any of these situations, valuable free speech will disappear—either because it is removed or because it is hidden amidst a poorly managed information dump.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Attorneys for Keenan Anderson’s estate file $50 million claim of damages against city of Los Angeles | CNN

    Attorneys for Keenan Anderson’s estate file $50 million claim of damages against city of Los Angeles | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Los Angeles
    CNN
     — 

    Attorneys representing the estate of Keenan Anderson, who died from cardiac arrest after he was repeatedly tased by Los Angeles Police Department officers, filed a $50 million claim of damages against the city of Los Angeles for his death, they announced in a news conference Friday. 

    The claim is the first step needed to file a lawsuit against the city, attorney Carl Douglas said.

    The claim requests $35 million due to damages against Anderson’s son and $15 million for Anderson’s estate, saying the city “failed to properly train the involved officers” who ultimately used “unreasonable deadly force.” 

    Anderson, who is the cousin of Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, was tased repeatedly as officers struggled to arrest him at the scene of a traffic collision on January 3, edited body-worn camera footage released by police shows.

    The English teacher from Washington, DC was in Los Angeles visiting family.

    The Los Angeles city attorney’s office told CNN it has no comment on the lawsuit, and the Los Angeles Police Department said it does not comment on pending litigation. CNN also has reached out to the Los Angeles mayor’s office.  

    The city has 45 days to either accept or deny the claim, Douglas said, and if it denies the claim the estate’s legal team will move forward with a state lawsuit. The lawsuit would claim wrongful death and negligence, among other claims, the filing says.

    The edited video from body-worn cameras shows Anderson at first talking with one officer, and when the video resumes, he jogs into the street as the officer pursues him and orders him to lay down on his stomach.

    Anderson does not appear to comply immediately, and two other officers arrive and move him to lie prone on his stomach on the street, telling Anderson to “relax.” As officers struggle on top of him, Anderson can be heard screaming, “Help, they’re trying to kill me” and “Please, don’t do this.”

    Then, an officer deploys a taser multiple times on Anderson, who says, “I’m not resisting.”

    Later in the video, the Los Angeles Fire Department places Anderson, who appears conscious, onto a gurney near an ambulance. Police said in a news release that Anderson was given medical care at the scene before being transported to a local hospital.

    “While at the hospital, Anderson went into cardiac arrest and was pronounced deceased,” the release says. 

    A preliminary toxicology-blood screen of Anderson’s blood samples tested positive for cocaine and marijuana, police said, adding the Los Angeles County coroner’s office was expected to conduct its own independent toxicology tests.

    “Having to hear Keenan cry out for help the way he did and to watch him be hurt by the very people who are supposed to protect him is something I will never get over,” Gabrielle Hansell, the administrator of Anderson’s estate and the mother of Anderson’s 5-year-old son, said at the news conference announcing the legal action on Friday.

    Since Anderson was “an African American man,” the claimants in this case “believe that because of implicit bias, each of the unknown involved police officers assumed Mr. Anderson presented a serious threat to someone’s safety, and then assaulted, battered and tased him at least six times in response,” the claim says. 

    “Mr. Anderson had not posed any objectively reasonable threat to anyone, but was grabbed, compressed against the hardened surface, and repeatedly tased on account of his African American race,” the claim adds.  

    “We will make sure that Keenan Anderson’s name will not go away in vain,” Douglas said during the news conference.  

    The legal team is also planning to request that the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division investigate the case, attorney Benjamin Crump said.

    Anderson’s death is the third officer-involved death in Los Angeles this year.

    Detectives from the police department’s Force Investigation Division responded to the scene where Anderson was taken into custody and are investigating the use of force, police said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prosecutors say Brian Walshe searched online for, ‘Can you be charged with murder without a body?’ The law says you can | CNN

    Prosecutors say Brian Walshe searched online for, ‘Can you be charged with murder without a body?’ The law says you can | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Ana Walshe – a Massachusetts mother of three who hasn’t been seen since the new year – is still missing, even as her husband was charged this week with her murder.

    Getting a murder conviction without a body may seem next to impossible. But with strong evidence – as prosecutors have argued they have against Brian Walshe – it’s not that rare, legal experts told CNN.

    Some 86% of more than 500 so-called “no-body murder cases” that made it to trial from the 1800s to 2020 resulted in convictions, said Tad DiBiase, a former Assistant US Attorney for the District of Columbia who’s tracked such cases for years.

    Among them is a former New York City plastic surgeon serving life in prison after killing his wife and dumping her body from a plane. A mother and son also were convicted of murdering a Manhattan socialite whose body never was found. And a jury last year convicted a man of murdering Kristin Smart, whose body hasn’t been seen since she went missing in 1996.

    “Among prosecutors, the old adage was: no body, no murder. You had to have a body to prove that someone was actually killed. That has changed a lot over the years,” CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller told “CNN Tonight.”

    “We know this can be done. And in (the Walshe) case, with DNA, blood evidence, cell phone, you know, E-ZPass, all of the things that string together for circumstantial evidence that didn’t exist just a short while ago, it’s not what defense lawyers used to have the advantage on.”

    Walshe, 47, has pleaded not guilty in state court to charges of murder and disinterring a body without authority, as well as misleading investigators who were searching for his wife, for which he was jailed January 8. He is being held without bail.

    “It is easy to charge a crime and even easier to say a person committed that crime. It is a much more difficult thing to prove it, which we will see if the prosecution can do,” his defense attorney Tracy Miner said Wednesday in a statement.

    “We shall see what they have and what evidence is admissible in court, where the case will ultimately be decided.”

    Corpus delicti – Latin for “body of the crime” and a common American law principle – holds that sufficient evidence a crime occurred must be shown before someone can be convicted of it.

    But that doesn’t necessarily mean a physical body, DiBiase said.

    A murder conviction without a body can be relatively easy to prove when “circumstantial evidence is overwhelming,” criminologist Casey Jordan told “CNN Newsroom” on Wednesday.

    And it seems to be in the Walshe case, she added.

    A central example may be a key question Googled by Brian Walshe just days after he said he last saw his wife – “Can you be charged with murder without a body?” – according to prosecutors who cited his online browsing history.

    Indeed, in the days after 39-year-old Ana Walshe’s disappearance, Brian Walshe allegedly made a series of Google searches: “dismemberment and the best ways to dispose of a body,” “hacksaw best tool to dismember” and “can you identify a body with broken teeth,” according to prosecutors, including Lynn Beland on Wednesday in court.

    Brian Walshe’s phone data also shows he traveled to apartment complexes in nearby towns, where prosecutors accuse him of disposing of evidence in dumpsters, they’ve said. Surveillance video from two complexes shows his Volvo and a figure fitting his description throwing bags into the dumpsters, Beland alleged.

    Ten trash bags of evidence found at a garbage collection station contained apparent blood stains, a hacksaw, hatchet, towels, rags, gloves, a heavily stained rug and a full-body hazmat suit, Beland said. In the bags, investigators also found Ana Walshe’s Covid-19 vaccination card, a Prada purse she carried and part of a necklace consistent with one she can be seen wearing in photos, she said.

    DNA from Ana and Brian Walshe was found on some bloody items in the bags, she said.

    A search of the couple’s home uncovered blood stains and a bloody knife in the basement, prosecutors have alleged. And blood was found in Brian Walshe’s car, Beland said.

    Prosecutors also have listed items Brian Walshe allegedly bought that they believe are tied to his wife’s killing. At a Home Depot on January 2, Walshe wore a face mask and rubber gloves as he bought mops, brushes, tape, a Tyvek hazmat suit with boot covers, buckets, baking soda and a hatchet, they’ve said.

    No-body murder cases typically don’t feature witnesses but have at least one of three key types of evidence, said DiBiase, who in 2006 prosecuted the second such case in Washington, DC, according to a news release from that federal prosecutor’s office.

    The types, he said, are:

    • Forensic evidence – the gold standard and most common – can be DNA from blood or hair fibers or cell records placing a person in a particular place.

    • Specific evidence can include a defendant’s confession to friends and relatives or simply their retelling to someone of the crime.

    • Confessions to law enforcement usually come when a criminal’s conscience overwhelms them.

    The law treats confessions to friends and family very differently than confessions to law enforcement, DiBiase said, because police must advise a suspect of their rights before getting a statement, whereas friends and family don’t have to.

    Confessions to people who aren’t police – including jailhouse informants – also typically not recorded or written down, while most police confessions are, he said.

    In the Walshe case, prosecutors have not obtained a confession, but what they’ve said so far offers “a map of forensic evidence and placing Brian Walshe in the locations where that forensic evidence was found,” defense attorney Misty Marris told “CNN Newsroom” on Wednesday.

    “This all under the guise of those very, very damaging social media searches that really was that blueprint of his actions, according to prosecutors,” she said. “This really put the puzzle together to show the story, which is what was needed in a circumstantial evidence case to establish probable cause.”

    Over time, the notion a body is needed prove someone was killed has changed a lot, Miller said.

    It wasn’t until nearly 40 years after the infamous disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz that prosecutors in 2017 – using the suspect’s own words to investigators and mental health experts – secured a murder conviction. The case lacked forensic evidence tying the suspect to the crime, and Patz’s body was never found.

    To convict Smart’s killer some 26 years after she vanished, prosecutors relied on soil samples from the suspect’s father’s home that tested positive for human blood, photos of the suspect’s dorm room and the detail that cadaver dogs had been alerted to the smell of human remains while searching the building, CNN affiliate KSBY reported.

    And a New York City plastic surgeon was convicted in 2000 based entirely on circumstantial evidence – with no forensics or eye witnesses – of killing his wife, Gail Katz, whose body was never found, CNN affiliate WABC reported. The widower was serving to up life prison sentence when he made a chilling confession to the crime during a 2020 parole board hearing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Rust’ will be completed and still star Alec Baldwin as he faces involuntary manslaughter charges in death of crew member, attorney says | CNN

    ‘Rust’ will be completed and still star Alec Baldwin as he faces involuntary manslaughter charges in death of crew member, attorney says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Alec Baldwin, who is set to face involuntary manslaughter charges in the death of a crew member during a “Rust” film rehearsal, will continue starring as the lead role, a production attorney told CNN on Friday.

    As the film proceeds, operations will include “on-set safety supervisors and union crew members and will bar any use of working weapons or any ammunition,” said Melina Spadone, attorney for Rust Movie Productions.

    Spadone’s remarks come a day after prosecutors announced plans to charge Baldwin and the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, in the on-set shooting death of Halyna Hutchins in October 2021 at a ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    Hutchins, the film’s director of photography, was struck and killed by a live round of ammunition Baldwin fired from a prop gun, and director Joel Souza was wounded in the right shoulder. Souza will continue directing the film as production moves forward, Spadone said.

    Baldwin, who is also a producer of the film, did not answer reporters’ requests for comment on the charges while walking into his Manhattan home on Friday. A source close to Baldwin told CNN on Friday that he plans to complete the movie.

    Despite the fatal shooting being ruled an accident by the New Mexico chief medical investigator, prosecutors believe a crime was committed.

    “Just because it’s an accident doesn’t mean that it’s not criminal,” First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said Thursday as she explained the charging decision. “Our involuntary manslaughter statute covers unintentional killings.”

    Carmack-Altwies said she will charge Baldwin and the film’s armorer with involuntary manslaughter, accusing them of failing to perform safety procedures that could have prevented the accident.

    Formal charges are expected to be filed by month’s end, Carmack-Altwies told CNN.

    “Every person that handles a gun has a duty to make sure that if they’re going to handle that gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger, that it is not going to fire a projectile and kill someone,” Carmack-Altwies said.

    Still, prosecutors face immense challenges in attempting to try a case centering around a prominent Hollywood figure in addition to the legal thresholds they must prove to obtain a conviction.

    Baldwin has been a major film, Broadway and TV star for decades, winning Emmys for TV’s “30 Rock” and an Oscar nomination for 2003’s “The Cooler.”

    The two trials Baldwin and the film’s armorer could potentially undergo would take weeks to a month and would require expert testimony, Carmack-Altwies said.

    The district attorney requested $635,000 in “emergency” funds “to prosecute such a high-profile case,” she wrote to state officials last August.

    “I need funding for an attorney, investigator, media contact person, paralegal, expert witnesses, and general trial expenses,” she said.

    And even before any trial could be held, each defendant will attend a preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause for trial exists.

    “These hearings will take weeks to complete and will happen rather quickly once charges are filed,” Carmack-Altwies explained.

    But the case will be difficult to prosecute given that it’s unclear how live rounds got on set, according to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, adding that experts have varying opinions regarding the on-set responsibilities of actors and crew members.

    “Remember, this is a criminal case. You need all 12 jurors to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So I’m not saying that there’s no chance here, but this is a really difficult case for the prosecution,” Honig said.

    santa fe district attorney

    Santa Fe DA explains decision to charge Alec Baldwin over ‘Rust’ shooting

    Baldwin faces charges in both capacities as the person who’s accused of firing the gun and as the producer of the film, Carmack-Altwies said, arguing that Baldwin as a producer had a responsibility to ensure the set was safe.

    Gutierrez Reed, the film’s armorer who loaded the prop gun, is also responsible for not ensuring the gun’s safety, prosecutors say. Her attorney has said she believed the rounds were dummy ammunition.

    “Nobody was checking those or at least they weren’t checking them consistently,” Carmack-Altwies said. “And then they somehow got loaded into a gun handed off to Alec Baldwin. He didn’t check it. He didn’t do any of the things that he was supposed to do to make sure that he was safe or that anyone around him was safe. And then he pointed the gun at Halyna Hutchins and he pulled the trigger.”

    Baldwin has maintained that he never pulled the trigger and was not aware the gun contained live rounds.

    Gutierrez Reed and Baldwin each will face two counts of involuntary manslaughter, but each count carries a different level of punishment, Carmack-Altwies said when she announced the charges.

    A jury would decide which count would be more appropriate, and if convicted, they will only be sentenced to one count, the prosecutor said.

    Conviction for both defendants carries up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. But one charge carries an additional firearms enhancement – because a gun was involved – and would require a mandatory punishment of five years in jail, Carmack-Altwies said.

    Regarding the charges, Gutierrez Reed’s attorney Jason Bowles said Thursday, “We’re expecting the charges but they’re absolutely wrong as to Hannah – we expect that she will be found not guilty by a jury and she did not commit manslaughter. She has been emotional about the tragedy but has committed no crime.”

    Meanwhile, Baldwin’s attorney Luke Nikas said the actor was “blindsided” by the charges.

    “Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun – or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds.”

    When prosecutors announced the charges Thursday, Hutchins’ family praised their decision.

    “It is a comfort to the family that, in New Mexico, no one is above the law,” the family said in a statement released by attorney Brian J. Panish.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alec Baldwin intends to finish ‘Rust’ production despite facing involuntary manslaughter charges, source says | CNN

    Alec Baldwin intends to finish ‘Rust’ production despite facing involuntary manslaughter charges, source says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Despite facing involuntary manslaughter charges connected to the “Rust” set shooting death of a cinematographer, Alec Baldwin intends to finish the movie’s production, a source close to the actor told CNN.

    Meanwhile, the New Mexico prosecutor who is planning to charge Baldwin is gearing up for a big trial.

    First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies requested $635,000 in “emergency” money “to prosecute such a high-profile case,” she wrote to state officials last August.

    “I need funding for an attorney, investigator, media contact person, paralegal, expert witnesses, and general trial expenses.”

    She said the trials of Baldwin and another person working on the movie “Rust” would each “take weeks to a month to complete” and require expert testimony.

    And even before any trial could be held, each defendant will have a preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause for trial exists. “These hearings will take weeks to complete and will happen rather quickly once charges are filed,” she said.

    Carmack-Altwies said Thursday she will charge Baldwin and the film’s armorer with involuntary manslaughter, accusing them of failing to perform safety procedures that could have prevented the accident. Baldwin was holding the prop gun that discharged, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the New Mexico set in October 2021.

    Baldwin did not answer reporters’ requests for comment on the charges while walking into his Manhattan home on Friday.

    Melina Spadone, an attorney for Rust Movie Productions, confirmed to CNN Friday the “Rust” film is “still on track for completion” and will star Baldwin in the lead role.

    The film will include “on-set safety supervisors and union crew members and will bar any use of working weapons or any ammunition,” Spadone said, adding Joel Souza will continue to direct the film.

    Carmack-Altwies requested the extra money in a letter dated August 30. She was granted about half of the amount requested, and is expected to ask the legislature for the remainder.

    If the case goes to trial, there are few precedents for a major star being charged in the shooting death of a colleague during production of a movie. The attention would likely be enormous, particularly since the shooting happened away from Hollywood.

    In the 1980s, director John Landis and four associates were acquitted of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the deaths of actor Vic Morrow and two children during the filming of “Twilight Zone: The Movie.” The trial lasted for 10 months and gained global attention.

    Some jurors said they were not dazzled by figures from the film industry since they lived in Los Angeles. Rather, they told The New York Times that prosecutors “had not proved that anyone could have foreseen the crash of the helicopter.”

    Baldwin has been a major film and TV star for decades, winning Emmys for TV’s “30 Rock” and an Oscar nomination for “The Cooler.” He also starred in “Working Girl,” “Beetlejuice” and “The Hunt for Red October,” and on Broadway. In addition, he is known for publicly advocating for liberal political causes.

    Prosecutors will have to overcome significant challenges, including not knowing how live rounds got on set and experts’ varying opinions about the on-set responsibilities of actors and crew members, said CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

    “Remember, this is a criminal case. You need all 12 jurors to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So I’m not saying that there’s no chance here, but this is a really difficult case for the prosecution,” Honig said.

    The charges will be formally filed by the end of the month, Carmack-Altwies told CNN.

    The prosecutor said she will not request the arrests of Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed. Instead, they will be summoned to appear in court either in-person or virtually, she said.

    Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed will each face two counts of involuntary manslaughter, but each count carries a different level of punishment, Carmack-Altwies said when she announced the charges.

    A jury would decide which count would be more appropriate, and if convicted, they will only be sentenced to one count, the prosecutor said.

    In either defendant’s case, a conviction is punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. But one charge carries an additional firearms enhancement – because a gun was involved – and would require a mandatory punishment of five years in jail, the prosecutor said.

    Hutchins was killed when a prop gun Baldwin was holding fired a live round of ammunition, striking Hutchins in the chest and hitting Souza, the director, in the shoulder.

    Baldwin has maintained that he never pulled the trigger and was not aware the gun contained live rounds. Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the set armorer who loaded the prop gun, says she believed the rounds were dummy ammunition, according to her lawyer.

    Prosecutors, however, say both Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed were responsible for checking the safety of the prop.

    “Every person that handles a gun has a duty to make sure that if they’re going to handle that gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger, that it is not going to fire a projectile and kill someone,” Carmack-Altwies told CNN Thursday.

    This image from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office shows the scene of the shooting on October 21, 2021.

    Though a medical examiner determined Hutchins’ death was an accident, prosecutors argue the “fast and loose” safety standards on set and lack of caution around firearms props contributed to the fatal shooting.

    “There was such a lack of safety and safety standards on that set,” Carmack-Altwies told CNN, adding that live rounds were mixed with dummy rounds on set.

    “Nobody was checking those or at least they weren’t checking them consistently,” she said. “And then they somehow got loaded into a gun handed off to Alec Baldwin. He didn’t check it. He didn’t do any of the things that he was supposed to do to make sure that he was safe or that anyone around him was safe. And then he pointed the gun at Halyna Hutchins and he pulled the trigger.”

    Baldwin has said he did not pull the trigger before the gun fired.

    During FBI testing of the the gun’s normal functioning, the weapon could not be fired without pulling the trigger while the firearm was cocked, an FBI forensics report said. Eventually, the gun malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger, the report said.

    In addition to acting in “Rust,” Baldwin was also producing the film. Prosecutors will be charging him in both capacities, Carmack-Altwies explained, saying that as a producer, Baldwin had a responsibility to ensure the set was safe.

    Ultimately, the prosecutor said, “just because it’s an accident doesn’t mean that it’s not criminal.”

    “Our involuntary manslaughter statute covers unintentional killings,” she said. “Unintentional that means they didn’t mean to do it. They didn’t have the intent to kill. But it happened anyway, and it happened because of more than mere negligence… They didn’t exercise due caution or circumspection and that’s what happened here.”

    In September, Carmack-Altwies requested additional funding from the state, noting that her office could charge up to four people in costly cases that “look to be too big for just my office to handle.” State officials approved more than $300,000 of the $635,000 the prosecutor requested, leaving open the possibility of additional funds at a later time.

    Baldwin’s attorney Luke Nikas said the actor was “blindsided” by the charges, which Nikas called “a terrible miscarriage of justice.”

    “Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun – or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds,” Nikas said.

    The executive director of the entertainment union SAG-AFTRA called the anticipated charges against Baldwin “wrong and uninformed.”

    “The charges clearly indicate a lack of understanding about the standards and expectations of how a film set operates,” Duncan Crabtree-Ireland told CNN’s Laura Coates. “The fact is, actors are not firearms experts. Actors cannot be expected and are not expected to do final safety checks or anything of that nature.”

    Gutierrez Reed’s attorney Jason Bowles said, “We were expecting the charges but they’re absolutely wrong as to Hannah – we expect that she will be found not guilty by a jury and she did not commit manslaughter.”

    Hutchins’ family said in a statement Thursday that they support the charges and “fervently hope the justice system works to protect the public and hold accountable those who break the law.”

    “It is a comfort to the family that, in New Mexico, no one is above the law,” the statement said.

    This image released by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office shows the outside of the set building where Hayla Hutchins was shot.

    In an interview with CNN in August, Baldwin said he believes the responsibility falls on Gutierrez Reed and assistant director Dave Halls, who handed him the gun.

    However, Halls and Gutierrez Reed have repeatedly said they are not at fault and accuse Baldwin of attempting to shuffle off blame for the accident.

    Gutierrez Reed maintains she did not know there were live rounds in the ammunition on set and has sued the film’s gun and ammunition supplier and its founder, who deny wrongdoing. She claims live rounds of ammunition were mixed into the dummy ammunition purchased from the company.

    Halls has signed a plea deal on a charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, which grants him six months of probation and a suspended sentence, Carmack-Altwies’ office said.

    Hutchins’ family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Baldwin and others involved in the movie’s production, and reached an undisclosed settlement in the suit in October.

    As part of the settlement agreement, Hutchins’ husband, Matthew Hutchins, was set to be an executive producer on “Rust” when it resumed filming.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Indiana father accused of neglect after toddler caught on camera waving a gun has not guilty pleas entered in first court appearance | CNN

    Indiana father accused of neglect after toddler caught on camera waving a gun has not guilty pleas entered in first court appearance | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    An Indiana court has entered not guilty pleas for the man who prosecutors say is the father of the child captured on video waving a loaded handgun on the landing at an apartment complex, according to court records.

    Shane Osborne, 45, was charged this week with two charges of neglect of a dependent and dangerous control of a firearm after the toddler was seen waving a pistol on video aired by the Reelz series “On Patrol: Live,” during the TV show’s live broadcast Saturday.

    During a search of the home, police found a 9mm gun with 15 rounds in its magazine, but no rounds in the gun’s chamber.

    CNN has learned he will be assigned a public defender and has reached out to that office for comment.

    Police in Beech Grove, about 6 miles southeast of Indianapolis, were responding Saturday to the report of an armed person.

    Osborne “explained that he had been ill all day and did not know (the toddler had) left the apartment,” an officer said in a probable cause affidavit.

    The toddler is identified in the affidavit as “K.O.”

    Osborne let the officers perform a “cursory look throughout” the apartment, according to the affidavit, but police did not find a gun, “in plain view.” Officers left the apartment but were met by a concerned neighbor with security video of the toddler with the gun, the affidavit said.

    “The video showed K.O. walking around the upstairs landing of the apartment with a silver and black handgun,” the affidavit said. Officers returned to the apartment where Osborne was staying and questioned him again.

    Osborne told police he did not have a gun, “but indicated that a relative may have left one somewhere.”

    Officer Rainerio Comia asked K.O., “where he put his ‘pew pew,’” after another apartment search seemed to turn up empty, according to the affidavit.

    That’s when K.O. led officers to a roll-top desk where officers found a Smith & Wesson SD9VE, the affidavit said.

    Osborne told officers the gun was not his and that it belonged to a cousin “who sometimes left the weapon (there) when he felt mentally unstable,” the affidavit said.

    “He did not know the weapon was in the apartment at this time, nor that K.O. knew where it was,” the affidavit said. “He believed K.O. was inside the apartment, playing and watching television. However, he stated that he must have been very asleep, because he did not notice K.O. leave the apartment.”

    The boy was left in Osborne’s care because his primary caregiver was sicker than he was, the affidavit said.

    As of Thursday night, Osborne had not posted bail, which was set at $60,000 (10% to secure his release) and $500 cash, according to the Marion County clerk’s office and court records.

    Osborne has at least seven prior convictions in Indiana, including a felony, and was facing another felony charge at the time of Saturday’s incident, according to prosecutors and court records.

    Osborne also signed a non-contact order on Thursday, according to public records. A review of the state’s request shows he is not allowed to be in contact with the child and other individuals.

    His next hearing is scheduled for March 1, court records show.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump mistook E. Jean Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples in a photo, deposition transcripts show | CNN Politics

    Donald Trump mistook E. Jean Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples in a photo, deposition transcripts show | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Newly unsealed transcripts from Donald Trump’s deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case show that the former president mistook Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples in a photo.

    The transcripts show that during his October 2022 deposition, Trump was shown a black and white photo where he is interacting with several people, including with his then-wife Ivana, Carroll and her then-husband.

    “I don’t know who – it’s Marla,” Trump said when shown the photo. “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife,” he says when asked to clarify.

    Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, then interjected and said “no, that’s Carroll,” according to the transcript.

    Carroll first sued Trump in 2019 for defamation after he denied her rape allegation. She filed a second lawsuit against Trump in November under a new law that allowed her to sue for battery even though the statute of limitations on the crime had passed.

    Trump has denied sexually assaulting the former magazine columnist and said he never pressured a woman to have sex with him, according to a deposition transcript that was unsealed last week.

    In his deposition transcript, Trump reiterated previous comments that he didn’t know Carroll and that she isn’t his type, a claim that could be called into question after his response to being shown the photograph.

    Trump said that while it is not “politically correct” to say she isn’t his type, he said he had to defend himself. He added that it wasn’t meant to be an insult.

    When asked if he ever kissed a woman without her consent, Trump testified, “Well, I don’t … I can’t think of any complaints. But no. I mean, I don’t think so.” He also denied ever touching a woman’s breasts or buttocks.

    Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan asked Trump, “Have you ever pressured a woman to engage in sex with you?”

    “The answer is no. But you may have some people, like your client, who are willing to lie,” Trump testified.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tokyo High Court acquits three former Tepco executives over 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident: NHK | CNN

    Tokyo High Court acquits three former Tepco executives over 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident: NHK | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Tokyo
    CNN
     — 

    The Tokyo High Court on Wednesday acquitted three former Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) executives, finding them not guilty of manslaughter over the 2011 triple reactor meltdown at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Japan’s public broadcaster NHK reported Wednesday.

    The High Court’s ruling was a decision on an appeal against a 2019 judgment by the Tokyo district court that found former Tepco chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata and former executive vice presidents Ichiro Takekuro and Sakae Muto were not guilty of professional negligence on the grounds they could not have foreseen the tsunami that wrecked the plant.

    On March 11, 2011, an earthquake off Japan’s northeastern coast triggered the tsunami that flooded the plant’s reactors, causing the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl and forcing hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes.

    The High Court case focused on whether the tsunami could have been predicted and whether the accident at the nuclear plant could have been prevented.

    The criminal case against the executives follows a civil case in which a Tokyo court in July 2022 ordered the three men – along with Tepco’s former President Masataka Shimizuto – to pay 13 trillion yen ($95 billion) in damages to the operator of the wrecked plant.

    That ruling, which came after shareholders filed a lawsuit in 2012, was the first to find former Tepco executives legally responsible for the nuclear plant disaster.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Getty Images suing the makers of popular AI art tool for allegedly stealing photos | CNN Business

    Getty Images suing the makers of popular AI art tool for allegedly stealing photos | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Getty Images announced a lawsuit against Stability AI, the company behind popular AI art tool Stable Diffusion, alleging the tech company committed copyright infringement.

    The stock image giant accused Stability AI of copying and processing millions of its images without obtaining the proper licensing, according to a press release issued Tuesday. London-based Stability AI announced it had raised $101 million in funding for open-source AI tech in October and released version 2.1 of its Stable Diffusion tool in December.

    “Getty Images believes artificial intelligence has the potential to stimulate creative endeavors. Accordingly, Getty Images provided licenses to leading technology innovators for purposes related to training artificial intelligence systems in a manner that respects personal and intellectual property rights,” Getty wrote in the statement. “Stability AI did not seek any such license from Getty Images and instead, we believe, chose to ignore viable licensing options and long standing legal protections in pursuit of their stand-alone commercial interests.”

    Getty declined to comment further on the suit to CNN, but said that it requested a response from the AI firm before taking action. Stability AI did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    AI art and traditional media suppliers have struggled to coexist in recent months as computer-generated images grow more available and advanced, using human-created images and art as data training.

    Once available only to a select group of tech insiders, text-to-image AI systems are becoming increasingly popular and powerful. These systems include Stable Diffusion and DALL-E, from OpenAI.

    Shutterstock, a Getty Images competitor and fellow stock image platform, announced plans in October to expand its partnership with OpenAI, the company behind DALL-E and viral AI chat bot ChatGPT, and enhance AI-generated content while launching a fund to compensate artists for their contributions.

    These tools, which typically offer some free credits before charging, can create all kinds of images with just a few words, including those that are clearly evocative of the works of many, many artists, if not seemingly created by them. Users can invoke those artists with words such as “in the style of” or “by” along with a specific name. Current uses for these tools can range from personal amusement and hobbies to more commercial cases.

    In just months, millions of people have flocked to text-to-image AI systems which are already being used to create experimental films, magazine covers and images to illustrate news stories. An image generated with an AI system called Midjourney recently won an art competition at the Colorado State Fair, creating an uproar among artists, who are concerned that their art can be stolen by these systems without due credit.

    “I don’t want to participate at all in the machine that’s going to cheapen what I do,” Daniel Danger, an illustrator and print maker who learned a number of his works were used to train Stable Diffusion, told CNN in October.

    Stability AI founder and CEO Emad Mostaque told CNN Business in October via email that art is a tiny fraction of the LAION training data behind Stable Diffusion. “Art makes up much less than 0.1% of the dataset and is only created when deliberately called by the user,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Twitter accused of unlawful staff firings in the UK | CNN Business

    Elon Musk’s Twitter accused of unlawful staff firings in the UK | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    A law firm representing dozens of former UK Twitter employees is accusing the company of “unlawful, unfair and completely unacceptable treatment” of workers following recent mass layoffs, which the firm referred to as a “sham redundancy process.”

    In a letter sent to the company on Monday, law firm Winckworth Sherwood alleged that Twitter violated UK law by cutting off terminated employees’ access to internal systems without engaging in the required warning and consultation period. The letter also said Twitter has failed to provide information about the selection criteria used to determine the layoffs.

    The letter states that 43 affected UK employees are prepared to take the issue to an Employment Tribunal, a UK system for employees to bring legal disputes against their employers, if the company does not agree to cooperate with negotiations over the layoff process.

    The warning marks the latest challenge to Twitter from former employees affected by mass layoffs that took place after Elon Musk acquired the company in October. Twitter laid off half of its global staff in early November, and has continued to fire and push out additional employees in the months since, including through an ultimatum to work “hardcore.”

    More than 300 former US employees have filed demands for arbitration against the company, according to attorneys representing them. Twitter is also facing four proposed class action lawsuits in the United States related to the layoffs. Now, the backlash to the layoffs may be escalating in the UK.

    “Our clients have been aghast at the direction taken by their employer, whose mission they have genuinely believed in and, in a number of cases, whose growth and transformation they have supported for many years,” lawyers for Winckworth Sherwood wrote in the letter. “They remain resolved to protect their positions, professional reputations and legal claims against the Company should it now proceed to dismiss them unlawfully and unfairly.”

    Twitter, which cut much of its public relations team as part of the layoffs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

    UK trade union Prospect, which represents more than 100 UK Twitter employees, also wrote to the company this week raising concerns about its layoff process, including claims that Twitter is “choosing not to honor” its promise that employees laid off following Musk’s acquisition would receive severance with terms no less favorable than prior to his takeover.

    Prospect also said the company has given workers “an arbitrary date to sign their rights away” in order to receive better separation terms, although negotiations over the layoffs are ongoing. (Typically, negotiations over mass layoffs by UK companies involve discussions of the reasons for terminations and how to minimize their size and impact.)

    “It is to be celebrated that in the UK it is not possible to simply fire employees en masse at will as Twitter has done in other countries,” Prospect, said in the letter. “Rest assured, Prospect will continue to lobby the Government and raise public awareness about employers who treat their workers like commodities to be discarded on a whim.”

    In the United States, there have also been concerns among Twitter employees after they began receiving their severance packages last weekend. The offers promise one month’s pay in exchange for agreeing to various terms, including a non-disparagement agreement and waiving the right to take any legal action against the company, according to Lisa Bloom, a lawyer representing dozens of former Twitter employees affected by the layoffs.

    Many were dissatisfied by the offer, according to public posts and attorneys representing ex-employees, raising concerns about the terms and saying it falls short of what the company has previously promised to provide to affected employees.

    The amount is also significantly less than provided at rivals like Facebook-parent Meta, which laid off thousands of workers around the same time and guaranteed them 16 weeks of base pay plus two additional weeks for each year they were employed at the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Victory smoke in the Capitol, boys,’ Proud Boys member said on Jan. 6, prosecutors say as trial begins | CNN Politics

    ‘Victory smoke in the Capitol, boys,’ Proud Boys member said on Jan. 6, prosecutors say as trial begins | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Dozens of messages, social media posts and videos show that leaders of the far-right Proud Boys not only planned for the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack but recruited others to help stop Joe Biden from becoming president, federal prosecutors said Thursday during opening statements in the seditious conspiracy trial.

    “Let’s bring this new year with one word in mind…revolt,” defendant and then-Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio wrote to others in the group on January 1, 2021, according to prosecutors. “New year’s revolution.”

    Prosecutor Jason McCullough told the jury that Proud Boys leaders were afraid a Biden presidency would mean the end of the organization and that, after President Donald Trump infamously said in a presidential debate in 2020, to “stand back and stand by,” the organization reached a turning point.

    “In that moment, some battle lines were drawn. President Trump was for the proud boys, and Joe Biden was for antifa,” McCullough said.

    “The defendants’ mission threatened the very foundations of our government,” McCullough told the jury. “These five defendants had agreed – by any means necessary including use of force – to stop Congress” from certifying the election for Biden.

    The defendants – Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola and Ethan Nordean – have all pleaded not guilty to charges, including seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct and obstructing an official proceeding.

    According to McCullough, the five defendants planned to stop the transfer of power to Biden that day and communicated and organized through messaging apps. McCullough played video of several defendants allegedly tearing down police barricades, attacking officers and ultimately being the first to break into the Capitol, celebrating along the way.

    Why did some Proud Boys dress up like Antifa on January 6?


    09:50

    – Source:
    CNN

    “Victory smoke in the Capitol, boys,” Pezzola, who prosecutors say was the first to break into the Capitol using a riot shield he stole from a police officer, said inside the building, according to a video shown in court. “This is f**king awesome. I knew we could take this mother**ker over [if we] just tried hard enough. Proud of your motherf**king boy.”

    “Don’t f**king leave,” Tarrio allegedly wrote in a public post during the riot.

    Prosecutors played a video of Nordean allegedly celebrating the riot.

    “I was part of f**king storming the Capitol of the most powerful country in the f**king world,” Nordean said.

    On January 7, Rehl allegedly wrote to other Proud Boys: “I’m proud as f**k at what we accomplished yesterday.”

    In their opening statements, defense attorneys repeatedly told jurors that the Proud Boys had no plan to storm the Capitol building on January 6, and were instead caught up in a mob mentality.

    “You will see at trial no evidence that supports the government’s conspiracy claim that these defendants plotted before January 6 to do what the government alleges,” Nordean’s attorney Nick Smith told the jury.

    “It’s only human to say something phenomenal must have caused this,” Smith said of the deadly riot. “But as we often see, that’s not true.”

    But because it is “emotionally unsatisfying” to admit that a mob mentality took over, Smith said, prosecutors “selectively presented messages” to make the Proud Boys a “scapegoat.”

    Tarrio’s attorney Sabino Jauregui also said that his client, who was not in Washington, DC, on January 6, is being blamed for other people’s actions.

    “You see Trump, President Trump, told them the election was stolen,” Jauregui said. “It was Trump that told them to go [to the Capitol]. And it was Trump that unleashed them on January 6. He’s the one that told them to march over there and ‘fight like hell.’”

    He continued: “It’s too hard to blame the politicians on the left and on the right, the ones that use us for their fundraising and their reelection., the ones that pit us against each other… Instead, they go for the easy target, they go for Enrique Tarrio.”

    Jauregui highlighted for the jury that Tarrio, according to Jauregui, had no communication with members of the group that were at the Capitol and never called for attacking the building.

    Rehl’s attorney, Carmen Hernandez, implored the jury to forget everything they had heard about the Proud Boys’ reputation, including allegations that the group is violent or racist.

    “Americans express a lot of opinion about politics, about politicians, about elections, about other public issues,” Hernandez said. “The fact that we state these opinions, I would submit to you, isn’t evidence of a crime.”

    “You all swore to the court that you would put aside any theories, any views you had about the Proud Boys,” Hernandez said, adding, “I am dependent on that.”

    Smith, Jauregui and Hernandez all said that the government has spoken to FBI informants and cooperating Proud Boys who were at the Capitol on January 6. Those witnesses repeatedly emphasized the group had no plan, the attorneys said.

    While several defense attorneys condemned the Capitol riot, Pezzola’s attorney, Roger Roots, used his opening statement to downplay the attack, repeatedly saying that the Proud Boys case is simply about a six-hour delay of Congress.

    “The government makes a big deal of this six-hour recess, from about two o’clock to eight o’clock,” Roots said of Congress’ forced recess on January 6 as rioters stormed the Capitol.

    “Some have called it an attack or even an insurrection,” Roots continued. “The evidence will show that if it was an attack, it might have been one of the lamest attacks that you can imagine.”

    Roots also said his client didn’t “steal” a riot shield from a police officer, as prosecutors have alleged, and suggested that “someone chose not to” fortify the Capitol windows, one of which Pezzola allegedly broke open with the shield.

    Roots closed by asking the jury to question whether Pezzola’s motivation that day was truly to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election, and to look closely at what his client saw as the “victory” that day.

    “Mr. Pezzola described victory, simply, as taking this motherf**ker,” Roots said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • First weeks of Proud Boys sedition trial marked by courtroom drama and fighting | CNN Politics

    First weeks of Proud Boys sedition trial marked by courtroom drama and fighting | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The preliminary stage of the trial of five Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy related to the 2021 US Capitol attack has been a chaotic wind-up that included contentious fights during jury selection, debates over evidence and defense lawyers threatening to withdraw from the case.

    But while opening arguments are expected Thursday, the bickering in the courtroom is likely to continue.

    Tensions between federal prosecutors, defense lawyers and the judge have grown increasingly hostile and confrontational over the past three weeks, and the judge has repeatedly pushed back the start of the trial to deal with the endless fighting.

    District Judge Timothy Kelly delivered a stark warning to all the lawyers on Wednesday: “Everyone take note – you talk over me, and contempt will be coming down the line. It’s going to be a long trial.”

    The five defendants – Enrique Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Joseph Biggs – have all pleaded not guilty.

    The three weeks of courtroom drama began before Christmas with the jury selection process, which was plagued by a constant struggle for prosecutors and defense attorneys to agree on jurors who didn’t have strong opinions on the far-right Proud Boys group.

    Some defense attorneys, like Rehl’s lawyer Carmen Hernandez, fought for the dismissal of nearly every potential juror who mentioned previous knowledge, however slight, of the Proud Boys. Other attorneys, including Tarrio’s lawyers Nayib Hassan and Sabino Jauregui, said they were suspicious that people who claimed to not know much about the Proud Boys could be lying so they can get on the jury and find their client guilty.

    Wednesday, Kelly mediated fights over potential exhibits. During one heated moment, Hernandez said she would withdraw from the case if Kelly allowed prosecutors to show the jury a specific video.

    The video has not been shown publicly, but Hernandez said it was taken before January 6, 2021, and was “highly prejudicial.”

    Kelly was not pleased by the inference the lawyer would quit.

    “You, Ms. Hernandez, had said something like you were going to withdraw from the case if I didn’t make certain decisions,” Kelly said. “And I want to make it clear that I don’t really care about that… it’s not even clear if I would let you out of the case.”

    “It isn’t a threat,” Hernandez replied. “I’m not in the habit from threatening to withdraw from a case.”

    Another defense attorney, Nick Smith, said that he too would leave the case over a video the government wants to play for the jury, though Kelly did not address his threat.

    Kelly did allow prosecutors to use video of a 2020 presidential debate when then-President Donald Trump said the Proud Boys should “stand back and stand by.” The comments, Kelly said, showed “an additional motive to advocate for Mr. Trump (and) engage in the charged conspiracy” to keep Trump in power.

    Roger Roots, a defense lawyer who joined Pezzola’s legal team just before the trial, also got in hot water with the judge. Roots suggested that he planned to tell the jury Pezzola was acting in self-defense on January 6 against police officers who were high on pepper spray.

    “I know you just joined the case last week but there is no evidence of that,” Kelly said, telling Roots the time had passed to make any self-defense arguments.

    Meanwhile, Biggs’ attorney Norman Pattis had his law license suspended last week for six months.

    Pattis, representing right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in the defamation case brought by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, had improperly released court documents.

    The files included two years of Jones’ text messages, medical records from some of the Sandy Hook families and other confidential discovery items.

    Kelly has not yet ruled on Pattis’ status, but he did allow two other attorneys who had defended other Proud Boys and therefore had potential conflicts to serve on the case.

    Pattis, however, tweeted Wednesday that “six months off sounds good about now.”

    The constant turmoil has left some defense attorneys repeatedly asking for the trial to be moved to a different courthouse or further delayed, though they don’t all agree (Smith said he wouldn’t consent to delaying the trial for any reason “up to and including a zombie apocalypse”).

    Prosecutors have not been saved from the judge’s scrutiny either – most notably when they claimed they couldn’t provide evidence binders to defense lawyers because their office had run out of dividers, and they hadn’t been authorized to buy new ones.

    In the past three weeks, lawyers for the five defendants have repeatedly criticized government lawyers for how they have handled the case.

    Hernandez said the prosecutors were acting “immature” and said, “it reminds me of when my kids were little.”

    Roots told Kelly that the department was using “cutthroat strategies.”

    By Wednesday evening, Assistant US Attorney Jason McCullough asked the judge to reiterate his “order on decorum” in the courtroom.

    “We are going to be in front of a jury soon and we need to take this up a couple levels,” McCullough said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Another ‘radical’ change to the Voting Rights Act could reach the Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    Another ‘radical’ change to the Voting Rights Act could reach the Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal appeals court appears open to further shrinking the scope of the Voting Rights Act in a case that could lead to another major Supreme Court showdown over voting rights.

    The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals at a hearing on Wednesday considered whether private entities – and not just the US Justice Department – can bring lawsuits under a key provision of the law. Two of the three members of the appellate panel asked questions suggesting they were leaning against the idea that the provision, known as Section 2, could be enforced with private lawsuits.

    If those seeking a narrowing of the VRA are successful, it would significantly diminish the use of the law to challenge ballot regulations and redistricting maps that are said to be racially discriminatory.

    A vast majority of the cases that are brought under the Voting Rights Act – which prohibits election rules that have the intent or effect of discriminating on the basis of race – are brought by private plaintiffs, with the Justice Department facing strained resources and other considerations that limit the number of VRA cases it files to, at most, a few each year.

    Last year, however, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Arkansas – running counter to decades of legal practice – said that private parties do not have the ability to sue under the Section 2.

    During arguments Wednesday about whether the judge’s ruling should be upheld, Circuit Judges Raymond Gruender and David Stras questioned the attorney arguing in favor of a so-called private cause of action whether the parts of Supreme Court and 8th Circuit opinions that her clients were leaning on were “dicta,” i.e. statements that are not binding on lower courts.

    “I am dubious whether that is a holding,” Gruender, an appointee of former President George. W. Bush, said of an 8th Circuit case that ACLU attorney Sophia Lin Lakin argued pointed to the more robust interpretation of VRA enforcement.

    Stras, a Trump-appointee, grilled Lakin on more recent cases from the Supreme Court that scaled back private causes of action in other laws.

    A decision that blocked private parties’ path to court under the VRA would be a “radical” one, said David Becker, an alum of the Justice Department’s voting section who now leads the Center for Election Innovation & Research.

    “It absolutely means it’s more likely that there will be potential partisan mischief that could negatively impact the voters who are protected by the Voting Rights Act,” Becker, who signed a friend-of-the court brief favoring the broader interpretation, told CNN.

    A decision from the 8th Circuit is unlikely to come for at least several weeks.

    The February 2022 ruling by US District Judge Lee Rudofsky that private parties could not sue under Section 2 is believed to be a first-of-its-kind decision. It emerged from a VRA challenge brought by the Arkansas chapter of the NAACP to Arkansas’ state House map.

    Critics of Rudofsky’s ruling noted that it flew in the face of decades of judicial practice – including in multiple Supreme Court cases – where courts considered and decided Section 2 cases brought by private parties. They point to a 1996 Supreme Court case where five justices sanctioned the practice. They also stress that, since it was passed in 1965, the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized and amended numerous times, and never once has Congress weighed in to say that courts were getting it wrong by hearing Section 2 lawsuits brought by private individuals and organizations.

    However, those in favor of reading the VRA more narrowly have seized on a concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a 2021 VRA case that called it an “open question” whether the provision has a private cause of action. Only Justice Clarence Thomas signed on to Gorsuch’s concurrence, but it provided Rudofsky with a jumping off point to conclude the answer was no.

    The office of Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who is defending Rudofsky’s ruling, did not respond to CNN’s request for comment. Her briefs argue that Congress intended only for attorney general to bring Section 2 lawsuits and there is a lack of textual support in the Voting Rights Act for a private cause of action for the provision.

    “Despite what the practice has been, when you look at the text of the statute there is a real question as to whether there is a private right of action,” Jason Torchinsky – a GOP election law attorney who represented Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton in a friend-of-the-court brief arguing against a private cause of action – told CNN.

    At Wednesday’s 8th Circuit hearing, Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith – a George W. Bush appointee who is the chief judge of the appellate court – showed the most skepticism of Arkansas’ arguments against a private cause of action, though Stras also pushed back on some of the more sweeping claims made by Arkansas Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni.

    Those against a private cause of action argue the current interpretation of the law has spawned an ever-increasing amount of private VRA litigation that is overburdening election administrators and injecting chaos into their planning.

    “Courts have essentially assumed that there is this private right of action,” Honest Election Project executive director Jason Snead told CNN.

    “But it’s never actually been determined that there is, and in the absence of the expressed decision by Congress to create a private right of action and put it in the text of the law, courts are not empowered to create one,” said Snead, whose group favors stricter voting laws and filed a friend of the court brief supporting Arkansas.

    Without a private cause of action, enforcement of the Voting Rights Act would shrink drastically. Over the last four decades, private litigation has consistently made up the bulk of the successful Section 2 lawsuits, according to briefs filed in the case, and the number of Section 2 cases brought by the DOJ has trended downward, with the Trump administration bringing just one new lawsuit under the provision.

    Even as the judiciary – and particularly the US Supreme Court – was yanked further to the right under Trump’s makeover of the federal bench, many legal experts are viewing Arkansas’ arguments as a longshot. That the argument is being put forward is nonetheless a sign of how far conservative opponents of the VRA are willing to push the envelope in this legal environment, according to Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA School of Law.

    “In any fair reading of the Voting Rights Act, this argument is an easy loser, but we’ll see,” Hasen told CNN. “I don’t count anything out these days.”

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This company will make employees pay a hefty fine if they bother colleagues on vacation | CNN Business

    This company will make employees pay a hefty fine if they bother colleagues on vacation | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New Delhi
    CNN
     — 

    Getting urgent work emails from colleagues even during vacation? This is a common occurrence for many white-collar workers, especially in India where employees feel overworked and underpaid compared to their global peers, according to several studies over the years.

    But one Mumbai-based firm has come up with a novel way to fix this problem.

    Dream11, a fantasy gaming platform, will fine its employees 100,000 rupees ($1,200) if they contact colleagues with “work-related calls or messages” during their time off.

    This is part of the company’s efforts to ensure that its employees get to “switch off and enjoy a healthy work-life balance,” according to a statement shared by Dream11 with CNN.

    Under the policy, called Unplug, employees log off from all office work for seven days in a year.

    “Individuals who have opted for an unplugged leave are logged out of … emails, Slack and WhatsApp groups,” the statement added.

    The spokesperson did not share when the policy was first introduced. According to a December interview with CNBC, the company’s co-founders said the policy has been effective so far.

    Founded in 2008, Dream11 has more than 1,000 employees, is valued at $8 billion and includes Tiger Global and Tencent among its investors, according to to data platform Tracxn.

    Not taking a break can be dangerous for health. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), working long hours is killing hundreds of thousands of people a year through stroke and heart disease.

    In a global analysis of the link between loss of life, health and working long hours, WHO and the International Labour Organization estimated that in 2016, some 745,000 people died as a result of having worked at least 55 hours a week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lovie Smith said the NFL had ‘a problem’ about Black coaches. A year later he was fired and the league is being criticized yet again about its lack of diversity | CNN

    Lovie Smith said the NFL had ‘a problem’ about Black coaches. A year later he was fired and the league is being criticized yet again about its lack of diversity | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    When Lovie Smith was hired by the Houston Texans in February 2022 as the team’s new head coach, he said the NFL had “a problem” with hiring Black coaches and diversity.

    “I realize the amount of Black head coaches there are in the National Football League,” Smith told reporters just under a year ago.

    “There’s Mike Tomlin and I think there’s me, I don’t know of many more. So there’s a problem, and it’s obvious for us. And after there’s a problem, what are you going to do about it?”

    Smith was fired Monday at the end of his one and only season at the helm of the Texans, finishing with a record of 3-13-1.

    Smith is the second Black coach in two years to be relieved of his duties by the Texans, which fired David Culley at the end of the 2021 season.

    Smith’s time in charge wasn’t full of wins and high points – though his parting gift to the organization was a last-minute Hail Mary victory over the Indianapolis Colts, which saw them relinquish the No. 1 pick in the 2023 NFL draft to the Chicago Bears. But his Texans team showed togetherness and competence, traits often desired by outfits undergoing a rebuild.

    Houston general manager Nick Caserio said Smith’s firing was the best decision for the team right now.

    “On behalf of the entire organization, I would like to thank Lovie Smith for everything he has contributed to our team over the last two seasons as a coach and a leader,” Caserio said in a statement.

    “I’m constantly evaluating our football operation and believe this is the best decision for us at this time. It is my responsibility to build a comprehensive and competitive program that can sustain success over a long period of time. We aren’t there right now, however, with the support of the McNair family and the resources available to us, I’m confident in the direction of our football program moving forward.”

    But the firing of the 64-year-old coach, the Texans organization as a whole, and the measures implemented by the league to promote diversity have been heavily criticized by former players and TV pundits.

    “The Houston Texans have fired Lovie Smith after 1 year. Using 2 Black Head Coaches to tank and then firing them after 1 year shouldn’t sit right with anyone,” former NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III tweeted Sunday, when news of Smith’s firing broke.

    On ESPN, Stephen A. Smith and NFL Hall of Famer Michael Irvin also condemned the decision. Smith called the Texans organization an “atrocity.”

    “They are an embarrassment. And as far as I’m concerned, if you’re an African American, and you aspire to be a head coach in the National Football League, there are 31 teams you should hope for. You should hope beyond God that the Houston Texans never call you,” Smith said.

    Irvin said Black coaches are being used as “scapegoats” by the Texans.

    “It’s a mess in Houston and they bring these guys in and they use them as scapegoats. And this is what African American coaches have been yelling about for a while and it’s blatant, right in our face,” he said.

    When CNN contacted the Texans for comment, the team highlighted the moment at Monday’s news conference when Caserio was asked why any Black coach would consider working for the team, and his response was that individual candidates would have to make their own choices.

    “In the end it’s not about race. It’s about finding quality coaches,” the general manager said. “There’s a lot of quality coaches. David (Culley) is a quality coach. Lovie (Smith) is a quality coach.

    “In the end, each coach has their own beliefs. Each coach has their own philosophy. Each coach has their comfort level about what we’re doing. That’s all I can do is just be honest and forthright, which I’ve done from the day that I took this job, and I’m going to continue to do that and try to find a coach that we feel makes the most sense for this organization. That’s the simplest way I can answer it, and that’s my commitment.

    “That’s what I’m hired to do, and that’s what I’m in the position to do. At some point, if somebody feels that that’s not the right decision for this organization, then I have to respect that, and I have to accept it.”

    CNN has reached out to Lovie Smith for comment.

    At the beginning of the 2022 season, NFL.com reported Smith was one one of just six minority head coaches in the NFL, a low number in a league where nearly 70% of the players are Black.

    Since Art Shell was hired by the Los Angeles Raiders in 1989 as the first Black head coach in modern history, there have been 191 people hired as head coaches, but just 24 have been Black.

    However, the NFL has taken steps to increase diversity in the coaching ranks.

    Notably, in 2003, the NFL introduced the Rooney Rule to improve hiring practices in a bid to “increase the number of minorities hired in head coach, general manager, and executive positions.”

    But the Rooney Rule hasn’t been an unqualified success.

    In 2003, the Detroit Lions were fined $200,000 for not interviewing any minority coaches before hiring Steve Mariucci as their new head coach.

    In response to criticism, the NFL announced it was setting up a diversity advisory committee of outside experts to review its hiring practices last March. Teams would also be required to hire minority coaches as offensive assistants.

    Despite changes to the rule being implemented in recent years to strengthen it, a 2022 lawsuit alleges that some teams have implemented “sham” interviews to fulfill the league’s diversity requirements.

    Last February, former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores filed a federal civil lawsuit against the NFL, the New York Giants, the Denver Broncos and the Miami Dolphins organizations alleging racial discrimination.

    Flores, who is Black, said in his lawsuit that the Giants interviewed him for their vacant head coaching job under disingenuous circumstances.

    Two months after submitting the initial lawsuit, Flores added the Texans to it, alleging the organization declined to hire him this offseason as head coach “due to his decision to file this action and speak publicly about systemic discrimination in the NFL.”

    In response to the lawsuit, the Texans said their “search for our head coach was very thorough and inclusive.”

    The NFL called Flores’ allegations meritless.

    “The NFL and our clubs are deeply committed to ensuring equitable employment practices and continue to make progress in providing equitable opportunities throughout our organizations,” the league said in response to the lawsuit.

    “Diversity is core to everything we do, and there are few issues on which our clubs and our internal leadership team spend more time. We will defend against these claims, which are without merit.”

    But 12 months after firing their last Black head coach, the Texans have fired another one.

    “How do you hire two African Americans, leave them one year and then get rid them?” questioned NFL Hall of Famer Irvin.

    “You know the mess that Houston is,” Irvin added. “We get the worst jobs and we don’t get the opportunity to fix the worst jobs, just like this.

    “I don’t know any great White coach that would take the (Texans) job unless you give them some guarantees. ‘You’re going to have to guarantee me four years to turn this place around.’ But the African American coaches can’t come in with that power because Lovie wouldn’t have got another job.

    “This was his last chance to get back into the NFL and you have to take what’s on the table to try to change that.”

    The Texans are now searching for a new head coach under general manager Caserio. The new appointment will be Caserio’s third coach in the role: It is almost unprecedented for a general manager to get the opportunity to hire a third head coach with the same team.

    Texans chairman and CEO Cal McNair said he would take on a more active role in the hiring process. The next head coach will be the organization’s fourth in three years.

    According to the NFL, the Texans have requested to speak to five candidates already about filling Smith’s position, a list that includes two Black coaches.

    After Smith was hired in March 2021, McNair said: “I’ve never seen a more thorough, inclusive, and in-depth process than what Nick (Caserio) just went through with our coaching search.”

    At that introductory news conference, Smith spoke candidly about how to bring greater diversity to the NFL coaching ranks.

    “People in positions of authority throughout – head coaches, general managers – you’ve got to be deliberate about trying to get more Black athletes in some of the quality control positions just throughout your program. If you get that, they can move up, that’s one way to get more.”

    Smith continued: “It’s not just an interview, if you’re interviewing a Black guy. It’s about having a whole lot of guys to choose from that look like me. And it’s just not about talk. You look at my staff, that’s what I believe in. And letting those guys show you who they are. That’s how we can increase it, then it’s left up to people to choose. We all have an opportunity to choose, and that’s how I think we’ll get it done.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • They saved refugees stranded at sea. Now they’re on trial | CNN

    They saved refugees stranded at sea. Now they’re on trial | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A trial of 24 rescue workers has begun in Greece, prompting criticism from human rights groups and the European Parliament, which has called the proceedings “the largest case of criminalization of solidarity in Europe.”

    The trial of Sean Binder, Sarah Mardini and 22 other volunteers from the search and rescue NGO Emergency Response Center International began in Lesbos on Tuesday, according to Grace O’Sullivan, an EU lawmaker who said she accompanied Binder to court.

    The two highest-profile defendants, Binder and Mardini, were arrested in 2018 after they took part in several search and rescue operations around the Lesbos island to assist refugees stranded at sea.

    Binder, a trained diver, is a dual Irish and German citizen, while Mardini is a Syrian refugee who herself arrived to Europe via sea.

    Mardini gained international attention after it emerged that she and her sister saved the lives of fellow asylum seekers when the boat they were traveling on from Turkey to Greece encountered difficulty. Mardini’s sister Yusra went on to swim for the Refugee team at the Olympics. The sisters’ story was recently brought to life in the Netflix film “The Swimmers.”

    Mardini returned to Greece in 2016 to volunteer with Emergency Response Center International where she worked alongside Binder.

    The two have been charged with felonies including espionage, assisting smuggling networks, membership of a criminal organization, and money laundering and could face up to 25 years in prison if found guilty, according to a European Parliament report published in June 2021.

    Mardini’s lawyer Zacharias Kesses in 2018 called the allegations “arbitrary,” adding in a video message that the claims have “nothing to do with real evidence.” Binder has also denied the allegations, warning that their case had “frightened people away from doing this kind of work.”

    The case is “currently the largest case of criminalization of solidarity in Europe,” according to the European Parliament report.

    “All we are asking for, all our lawyers have demanded is that the rule of law is respected. That Greek laws are respected,” Binder told journalists on Tuesday after the court hearing wrapped for the day.

    “We want the rule of law, and we will find out Friday if we will get the rule of law or the rule of flaws” Binder continued, saying the prosecution had made “flaw after flaw” in their case.

    In a December 22 statement, Human Rights Watch called on the Greek prosecutor to drop the charges, saying the case “effectively criminalizes life-saving humanitarian solidarity for people on the move.”

    Nils Muižnieks, Director of Amnesty International’s European Regional Office, said in a January 5 statement that the trial “reveals how the Greek authorities will go to extreme lengths to deter humanitarian assistance and discourage migrants and refugees from seeking safety on the country’s shores.”

    “It is farcical that this trial is even taking place. All charges against the rescuers must be dropped without delay,” Muižnieks added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link