New York Post

Federal judge awards $314 million to 3 Americans allegedly tourtured in Venezuelan ‘criminal enterprise’ led by Maduro

14 days agoRight

Last year, the three Americans sued several top Venezuelan officials, including now acting President Delcy Rodríguez, claiming they were subjected to physical and psychological torture.

Read Full Story at Source

Compare Perspectives

Found 8 stories

Americans support Netanyahu arrest by 22-point margin: Survey

The Hill News

1 hour ago

Americans support Netanyahu arrest by 22-point margin: Survey

Nearly half of Americans believer the U.S. should arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his actions in Israel’s war in Gaza, according to a new poll from The Economist/YouGov. When asked if the U.S. should enforce an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Netanyahu, 49 percent of respondents in the poll said “yes,”…

Center

Read →

The Hill News

1 hour ago

Just 1 in 3 support Iran war: Survey

The latest polling on the Iran war shows that only 1 in 3 Americans support the ongoing U.S. military operation in the Middle East. The Reuters/Ipsos survey, released Tuesday, found that 33 percent of Americans approve of U.S. attacks on Iran, with 62 percent who said they disapprove. Nearly 70 percent of Americans also said…

Center

Read →

Judge humiliates Trump's DOJ in key legal case

Alternet.org

2 hours ago

Judge humiliates Trump's DOJ in key legal case

President Donald Trump’s subpoenas of The New York Times has been widely criticized for potentially violating the First Amendment, to the point where the prosecutors trying to force out the publication’s sources on weaknesses with Trump’s Qatari-gifted jet have been threatened with losing their Bar license. Now a recent report reveals a judge presiding over that case has humiliated a prosecutor trying to win it.“The Times swiftly moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that they were issued in a bad faith effort to harass and intimidate the journalists,” reported Lawfare's Anna Bower on Tuesday. “What’s more, the newspaper contended that the government hadn't come close to meeting the standard set out in New York Times v. Gonzales, the Second Circuit precedent establishing that prosecutors seeking a reporter's confidential sources must show, among other things, that the information can't be obtained by other means.”Bower added, “The Justice Department, in response, didn't ask the court to deny the motion outright. Instead, it asked the court to hold the subpoenas in abeyance for two weeks while it pursued additional investigative steps—steps that, the government suggested, might bear on the scope of the subpoenas and on whether the Gonzales factors could ultimately be satisfied.”She then discussed Judge Arun Subramanian, who blasted the government for failing to rise to the Gonzales standards. “Given that the government has asked to hold the subpoenas in abeyance while it pursues further investigative steps, is the government willing to just withdraw them?” Bowers asked U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Sean Buckley. But Buckley said the government believes the ‘appropriate measure’ is to hold the subpoenas in abeyance while it takes unspecified additional investigative steps. In other words: the government wants to put enforcement of the subpoenas on pause rather than withdraw them entirely.Subramanian then reportedly interjected, “[Let me] stop you right there. So the answer to my question is 'no'?” After some back and forth with Buckley, the government conceded it could not rise to that standard.Subramanian then quoted from the Justice Department’s own filing, that to overcome the qualified reporter’s privilege recognized in Gonzales, the government must show that the information it wants is not obtainable from other sources. "You agree, right?" the judge asked aloud. But Buckley had to acknowledge that Subramanian was correct, adding that he believed the steps have now been achieved even though they had not when the subpoenas were first issued.“It’s the kind of admission that tends to end an argument before it starts, and Subramanian treats it that way,” Bowers reported. “‘Seems like you've got two options,’ he says to Buckley. ‘Either we can quash the subpoenas or you could withdraw the subpoenas.’”The judge was similarly dismissive of the rest of the government's position because of its failure on that key question.“Asked if he has anything to add, Buckley allows himself one small act of defiance: the government disputes any suggestion of bad faith, he says.And that's where Buckley left it, Bowers reported.

Left

Read →

Data reveals the number of American casualties during a single day of Trump's Iran war

Raw Story

2 hours ago

Data reveals the number of American casualties during a single day of Trump's Iran war

A recent Freedom of Information Act request for Pentagon records revealed the department never disclosed that 70 American troops were wounded in a single day during Trump's Iran war.The War Horse filed the request and published its findings, revealing over 400 casualties in the first six weeks of conflict. The data was logged between Feb. 28 and April 8, with head trauma being the most common among 170 cases. Troops also suffered shrapnel wounds, broken bones, and smoke inhalation, according to the data. Army soldiers comprised most casualties, with over 270 troops, including roughly one-third reservists. The largest casualty day occurred on March 18, following a U.S.-Israeli airstrike killing senior Iranian official Ali Larijani. The Pentagon subsequently reorganized its Defense Casualty Analysis System, Task & Purpose found. Additionally, the Washington Examiner reported the Pentagon split the war into separate operational lists to circumvent the 60-day War Powers Act requirement for congressional authorization. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) condemned the situation on social media, "Let me explain this absurd ruse: The Pentagon is pretending there have been two Iran wars separated by a brief cease-fire," he added, "The reality: By going more than 90 days without congressional authorization, War Secretary Pete Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable."Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.

Far Left

Read →

Federal Judge Halts Minnesota's Prediction Market Ban, Signaling Other States' Efforts Might Be Illegal Too

Reason.com

2 hours ago

Federal Judge Halts Minnesota's Prediction Market Ban, Signaling Other States' Efforts Might Be Illegal Too

A preliminary injunction will keep Kalshi and Polymarket active in the state after a district judge found federal law preempts the state's ban.

Center Right

Read →

Judge explodes over tampered evidence in disastrous Trump-linked trial

Alternet.org

3 hours ago

Judge explodes over tampered evidence in disastrous Trump-linked trial

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro made a significant enough mistake that one legal expert says was incredibly stupid. A bombshell report on Monday revealed that the government's own witness in the David Hearn case over the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn is being accused of grabbing the pool lining with both hands and ripping it up. The DOJ's witness revealed that the damage the DOJ alleges came from Hearn was already there before Hearn arrived. An even bigger bungle, however, comes from an observation from writer and lawyer Amee Vanderpool, who runs the "Shero" Substack. Citing an NBC News report about the case, saying that the person who indicated the pool was already damaged spoke to the grand jury about the damage prior to Hearn. Beyond the fact that it sinks the DOJ's case, Vanderpool explained that by "using this" information, lawyers for Hearn "can now get all of the Reflecting Pool repair documents (and all documentation that is missing) in disclosure."Hearn's lawyers are asking for information about the disclosure and legal instructions grand jurors were given. They want to see the trial minutes, which will detail the dialogue line by line. In a different case involving six activists and politicians who protested outside of an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, it was discovered that the grand jury was being given conflicting information that wasn't factual and that the prosecutors were talking about defendants as if they were already found to be guilty. Anyone who looked to be wavering was excused from the jury. It's unclear whether the DOJ did the same in this case, but Hearn's lawyers having access to all of the information may reveal what happened in the grand jury as well as a slate of other details. Hearn's lawyers will be able to see documents involving the Reflecting Pool contractors, why they were chosen in a no-bid contract and why the costs were so much higher than President Donald Trump said they would be. "Jeanine Pirro is an idiot to pursue this," said Vanderpool. Last week, the judge in the case warned the DOJ that all of the workers looking at fixes to the pool and tearing up the liner were tampering with evidence. “Non-preservation,” the judge told the DOJ, “the government does it at its own peril.”One of Hearn's long-time friends, Adam Van Grack, who once served as chair of the U.S. Olympic governing body for canoe and kayak sports, said that going after Hearn was a mistake."The U.S. government could not have picked a worse person to be the headliner felony defendant in this trial," Van Grack told The Atlantic.

Left

Read →

Judges smack Trump with unexpected threat on 'unlawful' election meddling

Raw Story

3 hours ago

Judges smack Trump with unexpected threat on 'unlawful' election meddling

A federal appeals court ruled in President Donald Trump's favor but warned him that his mail voting order may be impossible to carry out and could be swiftly blocked if he tries.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that the lawsuit was not yet ready for court review, according to Democracy Docket.The Democratic groups had not yet suffered enough concrete harm to sue, the court found.The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to withhold mail ballots from anyone not on citizenship lists compiled by the Department of Homeland Security, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.The Brennan Center said that millions of eligible voters could have their ballots go undelivered, with no notification that they had been blocked. The court insisted that it could intervene if Trump went too far."If the federal agencies were to take the actions the Plaintiffs fear and if they were to attempt to impose those massive changes on the States' voting systems on the threshold of the upcoming election," the court wrote, going further than its ruling required."Those actions (if found unlawful) could be enjoined without implicating any federalism or reliance interests because the injunction would preserve the States' existing electoral status quo," the judges added — meaning courts could halt the order cleanly and quickly, with no legal complications standing in the way.The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a coalition of Democratic organizations and congressional leaders filed the lawsuit in April, court records show.They argued the Constitution gives election authority to Congress and the states, not the White House.A separate federal appeals court, the First Circuit in Boston, had already blocked the order in 23 states over the weekend, according to Democracy Docket.Roughly three-quarters of the 1.3 million active-duty troops are eligible to vote by mail, and critics warn the order would put those ballots at risk."Donald Trump is desperately trying to rig our elections by making it harder to vote for seniors, Americans with disabilities, members of the military, rural communities, and other working families who rely on vote-by-mail," the Democratic leaders said in a joint statement. "This move is blatantly unconstitutional, and we will fight against it."Trump offered a different view when he signed the order in March."Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It's horrible. Democrats want to use it for cheating," he said.The Department of Justice filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to allow the order to take effect before November's midterm elections, Democracy Docket reported.

Far Left

Read →