Backed

Nov. 18 (UPI) — A federal court ordered Texas on Tuesday to throw out its redrawn Republican-friendly congressional maps for the 2026 election after finding it constituted an illegal racial gerrymander.

The 2-1 order by the three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas is a significant setback for Republicans after they pushed through an unusual redistricting of Texas’ congressional seats to insulate their slim House majority ahead of next year’s midterms.

President Donald Trump openly urged Texas state lawmakers to adopt the new congressional map in order to help the party’s prospects in Washington. Democratic lawmakers responded by fleeing the state in what was ultimately an unsuccessful attempt to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass the new maps.

State Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat who led the quorum break, welcomed the court’s ruling in a post on X.

“Texas House Dems stood up to Abbott & Trump,” he wrote. “We broke quorum & we fought in the courts! We did not back down.”

However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He criticized what he called partisan gerrymandering in Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and New York. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats, and the now-scrapped redistricting was expected to give the party an edge by diluting Democratic strongholds.

But U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, instead focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

In his ruling, Brown cited a July letter from U.S. Department of Justice officials to Paxton and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, directing the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown wrote that the letter was difficult to assess because it contained “so many factual, legal and typographical errors.” But Brown pointed out that Abbott cited the letter as the reason he added congressional redistricting to the legislature’s special session earlier this year.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and others accused of backing the Republican’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The “full, complete, and unconditional” pardon for dozens of Trump allies are largely symbolic. It applies only to federal crimes, and none of the people named in the proclamation were charged federally over the bid to subvert the election won by Democrat Joe Biden. It doesn’t affect state charges, though state prosecutions stemming from the 2020 election have hit a dead end or are just limping along.

The move, however, underscores Trump’s continued efforts to promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though courts around the country and Trump’s own attorney general at the time found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. Reviews, recounts and audits of the election in the battleground states where Trump contested his loss also affirmed Biden’s victory.

Trump’s recent action follows the sweeping pardons of the hundreds of Trump supporters charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, including those convicted of attacking law enforcement.

Ed Martin, the Department of Justice’s point person on pardons and a former lawyer for the Jan. 6 defendants, linked his announcement of the pardons to a post on X that read “No MAGA left behind.”

Dozens of Trump allies received pardons

Among those also pardoned were Sidney Powell, an attorney who promoted baseless conspiracy theories about a stolen election, John Eastman, another lawyer who pushed a plan to keep Trump in power, and Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who championed Trump’s efforts to challenge his election loss.

Also named were Republicans who acted as fake electors for Trump and were charged in state cases accusing them of submitting false certificates that confirmed they were legitimate electors despite Biden’s victory in those states.

The proclamation explicitly says the pardon does not apply to the president himself, who has continued to repeat the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him, used that falsehood to argue for sweeping changes in the way the country votes and demanded his Department of Justice investigate the vote count that led to his loss.

The pardon described efforts to prosecute the Trump allies as “a grave national injustice perpetrated on the American people” and said the pardons were designed to continue “the process of national reconciliation.” Giuliani and others have denied any wrongdoing, arguing they were simply challenging an election they believed was tainted by fraud.

“These great Americans were persecuted and put through hell by the Biden Administration for challenging an election, which is the cornerstone of democracy,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an emailed statement.

Those pardoned were not prosecuted by the Biden administration, however. They were charged only by state prosecutors who operate separately from the Justice Department.

An Associated Press investigation after the 2020 election found 475 cases of potential voter fraud across the six battleground states, far too few to change the outcome.

Impact of the pardons is limited

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, was one of the most vocal supporters of Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of large-scale voter fraud after the 2020 election. He also is an example of the limited impact of the pardons.

Giuliani has been disbarred in Washington, D.C., and New York over his advocacy of Trump’s bogus election claims and lost a $148-million defamation case brought by two former Georgia election workers whose lives were upended by conspiracy theories he pushed. Since pardons only absolve people from legal responsibility for federal crimes, they’re unlikely to ease Giuliani’s legal woes.

Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for Giuliani, said the former mayor “never sought a pardon but is deeply grateful for President Trump’s decision.”

“Mayor Rudy Giuliani stands by his work following the 2020 presidential election, when he responded to the legitimate concerns of thousands of everyday Americans,” Goodman said in an emailed statement.

While the pardons may have no immediate legal impact, experts warned they send a dangerous message for future elections.

“It is a complete abdication of the responsibility of the federal government to ensure we don’t have future attempts to overturn elections,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor. “Ultimately, the message it sends is, ‘We’ll take care of you when the time comes.’”

Some pardoned were co-conspirators in Trump’s federal case

Trump himself was indicted on federal felony charges accusing him of working to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but the case brought by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith was abandoned in November after Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris because of the department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Giuliani, Powell, Eastman and Clark were alleged co-conspirators in the federal case brought against Trump but were never charged with federal crimes.

Giuliani, Meadows and others named in the proclamation had been charged by prosecutors in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin over the 2020 election, but the cases have repeatedly hit roadblocks or have been dismissed. A judge in September dismissed the Michigan case against 15 Republicans accused of attempting to falsely certify Trump as the winner of the election in that battleground state.

Eastman, a former dean of Chapman University Fowler School of Law in Southern California, was a close adviser to Trump in the wake of the 2020 election and wrote a memo laying out steps Vice President Mike Pence could take to stop the counting of electoral votes while presiding over Congress’ joint session on Jan. 6 to keep Trump in office.

Clark, who is now overseeing a federal regulatory office, also is facing possible disbarment in Washington over his advocacy of Trump’s claims. Clark clashed with Justice Department superiors over a letter he drafted after the 2020 election that said the department was investigating “various irregularities” and had identified “significant concerns” that may have affected the election in Georgia and other states.

Clark said in a social media post Monday that he “did nothing wrong” and “shouldn’t have had to battle this witch hunt for 4+ years.”

Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

Donald Trump has branded the BBC ‘100% fake news’ but Keir Starmer has backed the Corporation for being ‘internationally renowned’ and rejected the accusation that it’s journalists were ‘corrupt’

Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC over its editing of his Capitol Hill speech from 2021, as the government yesterday defended the corporation in the wake of the resignations of two top bosses. Amid the fallout from the exits of director general Tim Davie and BBC News boss Deborah Turness, the BBC yesterday confirmed it had received the letter threatening legal action from the US President and would respond in due course.

And Trump’s claim that the BBC has “corrupt journalists” was rejected by Keir Starmer as Downing Street threw its weight behind the BBC, describing it as an “internationally renowned” institution.

The developments came as BBC Chair Samir Shah finally apologised over the BBC Panorama in which two bits of a speech from Trump were edited together in a way which made him appear to support the rioters. This move has allowed Trump’s press secretary to accuse the BBC of being “100% fake news” and brand it a “propoganda machine”.

READ MORE: Strictly Come Dancing in huge show first with Britain’s Got Talent link-upREAD MORE: Alan Carr lined up for two major TV roles after Celebrity Traitors win

Shah’s apology, contained in a letter to culture, media and sport select committee chair Caroline Dinenage, said the BBC regretted its “error of judgement” that resulted in a misleading edit of a Donald Trump speech.

It came after a week of silence from the BBC, which claimed it did not comment on leaked documents. This seemingly prevented it from either defending its journalism or apologising for any mistake made, leaving many supporters baffled.

The row erupted a week ago with the publication of a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former political journalist who spent three years as an external adviser to the BBC, in which he made many complaints about issues that he claimed were not being sufficiently dealt with, notably on its coverage of the Gaza conflict and around trans issues.

But in his letter yesterday, Shah insisted that it was “simply not true” to say the BBC had done nothing to tackle the problems raised and he also defended the BBC against claims of systemic bias.

The chairman said the edit had initially been cleared to “convey the message of the speech” made by Trump, so that Panorama viewers would “better understand” how it was received by the president’s supporters, and what was happening on the ground at that time.

The edit, which drew no complaints at the time of broadcast, had been discussed by the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC) in both January and May this year. He said that while it was discussed as part of a wider review of the US election coverage, hindsight had shown “it would have been better to take more formal action”.

He said that reports suggesting Prescott had “uncovered” a list of stories and issues that the BBC have sought to “bury” were “simply not true,” explaining: “The issues raised by Mr Prescott are precisely the issues that have been considered by the EGSC and the Board.”

The chairman said it was also misleading to suggest that the BBC has done nothing to tackle these problems.”That is also simply not true,” he wrote. “Over the three years Mr Prescott was an advisor to the EGSC, the BBC has: published corrections where we have got things wrong; changed editorial guidance to make the BBC’s position on issues clearer; made changes to leadership where the problems point to underlying issues; and carried out formal disciplinary measures.”

He said it was important to remember the thousands of hours of “outstanding journalism” produced by the BBC on TV, radio and digitally, calling for “a sense of perspective” to be maintained.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “On the question of is the BBC corrupt? No. The BBC has a vital role in an age of disinformation… where there’s a clear argument for a robust, impartial British news service to deliver, and that case is stronger than ever.”

Asked if Mr Starmer believed the BBC was institutionally biased, the spokesman replied: “No, but it is important that the BBC acts to maintain trust and correct mistakes quickly when they occur, because as I say, for any public service broadcaster, accountability is vital to maintain trust.”

Elsewhere, ex-PM Gordon Brown told Sky News an “immediate” apology from the BBC over the Trump speech could have swerved the need for resignations. “I think the problem that the BBC has had is that this happened a year ago,” he said. “An apology should have been made instantly. If a mistake has been made, you’ve got to apologise instantly.”

As many media commentators and BBC alumni rushed to either defend or denigrate the BBC, there were also claims of a “coup” from within the BBC board.

David Yelland, a former editor of The Sun who now presents a podcast for the BBC, said: “It was a coup and, worse than that, it was an inside job. There were people inside the BBC – very close to the board, on the board – who have systematically undermined Tim Davie and his senior team. This has been going on for a long time. What happened yesterday didn’t happen in isolation.”

He added: “There is a reason that the BBC is the most trusted news organisation in the world – look at who is celebrating this morning, including the president of the United States. This is not a good day and I do think there was a failure of governance.”

Radio 4 presenter Nick Robinson, a former political editor for BBC News, declared that forces were at work to try and bring down the BBC. “It’s clear that there is a genuine concern about editorial standards and mistakes,” he said on Today. “There is also a political campaign by people who want to destroy the organisation. Both things are happening at the same time.”

He said the BBC had appeared “paralysed” for the past week – “unable to agree what to say not just about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech by Panorama but also wider claims of institutional bias”.

Former 5 Live Breakfast Show host Shelagh Fogarty now works in commercial radio but says the BBC needs defending. “We need the BBC as part of a broader economy in news media. I worked there for 25 years and can see its rigour has been eroded. The practice of impartiality is its highest aim. Fix that and state facts.”

But Nigel Farage seized on the crisis, claiming the BBC “has been institutionally biased for decades” as he appeared at a press conference in central London. The Reform leader said: “I actually spoke to the president on Friday. He just said to me: ‘Is this how you treat your best ally?’ It’s quite a powerful comment.”

Former Radio 4 presenter Libby Purves said that she was “glad” to see Turness had been “binned” from her job at the helm of BBC News and claimed the Trump edit should never have happened. “The trans bias is irritating and the Arabic service a problem, but what viscerally distressed us ancient BBC newsfolk was the Trump edit,” she posted on social media. “As a reporter, spent years editing tape and being vv careful NOT to risk traducing even horrible people.”

And Charles Moore, chair of The Spectator, argued that the BBC’s views were “always from a metropolitan left position”. He added: “That means it’s not serving a very large percentage of the licence fee payers. I’m not, of course, saying it should be right wing either, I’m saying it should take impartiality seriously.”

Former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said he felt “sad” that Davie had resigned as a result of the latest controversy, describing him as an “outstanding” director general. “I don’t agree that the BBC is systemically biased and that it is basted in a culture which means that its journalism can’t be trusted. I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said. “The overwhelming majority is excellent and it doesn’t happen by accident. I am here to say that the BBC is an outstanding and excellent exponent of impartial journalism and it needs to be defended.”

Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, agreed: “Across the world, the BBC is recognised as the best source of impartial news reporting. “It’s not perfect, because nothing made by people ever is. However, in these days of deliberate lies, manipulation & populism, it’s a beacon of truth. Britain should be proud of it.”

Caroline Dinenage said that Davie’s decision to quit came down to “editorial failure”, listing other recent mistakes including Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, misconduct by Gregg Wallace on MasterChef, and editorial failings in the doc Gaza: How To Survive a War Zone.

“There seems to be a muscle memory at the BBC as to how to badly respond to any kind of editorial crisis or scandal,” she complained. “The BBC seems to have dropped the ball at every opportunity. That is not a board-level problem, that is an institutional problem.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — Tesla shareholders approved an unprecedented new package for CEO Elon Musk that could see him become the world’s first trillionaire.

The firm said 75% of shareholders with voting rights on Thursday backed Musk’s 10-year pay deal, which could net him $1 trillion over that time by boosting his stake in Tesla by more than 423 million shares.

The share bonanza is contingent on him delivering on a promise to drive up Tesla’s market capitalization five-fold from is current level of around $1.5 trillion to $8.5 trillion, roughly double the size of the Japanese economy.

Shareholders at the annual general meeting at Tesla HQ in Austin, Texas, voted it through on the recommendation of Tesla’s board, arguing Musk might quit if it were rejected and that the company could not afford to lose him.

Counsel from independent advisors Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services who said the “astronomical” deal should be rejected due to “unmitigated concerns surrounding the special award’s magnitude and design,” was largely ignored.

Addressing the meeting after the result, Musk thanked the board and shareholders, saying what Tesla was poised to do was not just “a new chapter in the future of Tesla, but a whole new book.”

Under the deal, Musk will receive the stock in tranches tied to delivering financial and production targets, including 20 million new electric vehicles rolling off production lines, 10 million full self-driving subscriptions​, 1 million Optimus humanoid robots and 1 million robotaxis in service.

The first block of stock gets paid to Musk when Telsa market capitalization reaches $2 trillion with the next nine awarded each time the company’s value rises by another $500 billion, up to $6.5 trillion.

Two additional rises in market capitalization, each of $1 trillion, bringing the value to $8.5 trillion, are required for the final two stock grants to kick in.

While the deal is performance-based, it’s not set in stone — with Musk still in line to earn more $50 billion even if he fails to meet the bulk of the targets — and includes riders for so-called “covered events” with the potential to impact Tesla’s future designs, manufacturing and sales.

These include natural disasters, wars, pandemics and changes to “international, federal, state and local law, regulations or other governmental action or inaction.”

In June 2024, Musk reincorporated Tesla in Texas, the company’s headquarters and center of operations, moving from Delaware six months after a court there struck down a $56 billion pay deal the board awarded to Musk in 2018, ruling it was “unfair” and that Musk held excessive power over the rules and size of the deal.

On the same day, shareholders voted to reinstate the package, at the time the largest in corporate history.

In December 2024, the Delaware judge in the case reaffirmed her ruling in favor of the complainant, shareholder Tornetta, and ordered Musk must return what he had already received from the package.

The board eventually awarded Musk a $29 billion “good faith” package in August, aimed at keeping Musk at the helm, that would see him granted 96 million shares after two years of service in a “senior leadership role” at Tesla.

Musk’s mega-deal on Thursday came three weeks after Tesla reported Tesla reported third quarter profits down 37%, despite a jump in revenue to a record $28.1 billion on stronger sales of its electric cars in the domestic market.