case

WASHINGTON — Late last month, an immigrant seeking asylum in the U.S. came across social media posts urging her to pay a new fee imposed by the Trump administration before Oct. 1, or else risk her case being dismissed.

Paula, a 40-year-old Los Angeles-area immigrant from Mexico, whose full name The Times is withholding because she fears retribution, applied for asylum in 2021 and her case is now on appeal.

But when Paula tried to pay the $100 annual fee, she couldn’t find an option on the immigration court’s website that accepted fees for pending asylum cases. Afraid of deportation — and with just five hours before the payment deadline — she selected the closest approximation she could find, $110 for an appeal filed before July 7.

She knew it was likely incorrect. Still, she felt it was better to pay for something, rather than nothing at all, as a show of good faith. Unable to come up with the money on such short notice, Paula, who works in a warehouse repairing purses, paid the fee with a credit card.

“I hope that money isn’t wasted,” she said.

That remains unclear because of confusion and misinformation surrounding the rollout of a host of new fees or fee increases for a variety of immigration services. The fees are part of the sweeping budget bill President Trump signed into law in July.

Paula was one of thousands of asylum seekers across the country who panicked after seeing messages on social media urging them to pay the new fee before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1.

But government messaging about the fees has sometimes been chaotic and contradictory, immigration attorneys say. Some asylum seekers have received notice about the fees, while others have not. Misinformation surged as immigrants scrambled to figure out whether, and how, to pay.

Advocates worry the confusion serves as a way for immigration officials to dismiss more asylum cases, which would render the applicants deportable.

The fees vary. For those seeking asylum, there is a $100 fee for new applications, as well as a yearly fee of $100 for pending applications. The fee for an initial work permit is $550 and work permit renewals can be as much as $795.

Amy Grenier, associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said that not having a clear way to pay a fee might seem like a small government misstep, but the legal consequences are substantial.

For new asylum applications, she said, some immigration judges set a payment deadline of Sept. 30, even though the Executive Office for Immigration Review only updated the payment portal in the last week of September.

“The lack of coherent guidance and structure to pay the fee only compounded the inefficiency of our immigration courts,” Grenier said. “There are very real consequences for asylum-seekers navigating this completely unnecessary bureaucratic mess.”

Two agencies collect the asylum fees: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the Department of Justice, which operates immigration courts.

Both agencies initially released different instructions regarding the fees, and only USCIS has provided an avenue for payment.

The departments of Homeland Security and Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment. The White House deferred to USCIS.

USCIS spokesman Matthew J. Tragesser said the asylum fee is being implemented consistent with the law.

“The real losers in this are the unscrupulous and incompetent immigration attorneys who exploit their clients and bog down the system with baseless asylum claims,” he said.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), a national membership organization, sued the Trump administration earlier this month after thousands of members shared their confusion over the new fees, arguing that the federal agencies involved “threaten to deprive asylum seekers of full and fair consideration of their claims.”

The organization also argued the fees shouldn’t apply to people whose cases were pending before Trump signed the budget package into law.

In a U.S. district court filing Monday, Justice Department lawyers defended the fees, saying, “Congress made clear that these new asylum fees were long overdue and necessary to recover the growing costs of adjudicating the millions of pending asylum applications.”

Some of the confusion resulted from contradictory information.

A notice by USCIS in the July 22 Federal Register confused immigrants and legal practitioners alike because of a reference to Sept. 30. Anyone who had applied for asylum as of Oct. 1, 2024, and whose application was still pending by Sept. 30, was instructed to pay a fee. Some thought the notice meant that Sept. 30 was the deadline to pay the yearly asylum fee.

By this month, USCIS clarified on its website that it will “issue personal notices” alerting asylum applicants when their annual fee is due, how to pay it and the consequences for failing to do so.

The agency created a payment portal and began sending out notices Oct. 1, instructing recipients to pay within 30 days.

But many asylum seekers are still waiting to be notified by USCIS, according to ASAP, the advocacy organization. Some have received texts or physical mail telling them to check their USCIS account, while others have resorted to checking their accounts daily.

Meanwhile the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) didn’t add a mechanism for paying the $100 fee for pending asylum cases — the one Paula hoped to pay — until Thursday.

In its Oct. 3 complaint, lawyers for ASAP wrote: “Troublingly, ASAP has received reports that some immigration judges at EOIR are already requiring applicants to have paid the annual asylum fee, and in at least one case even rejected an asylum application and ordered an asylum seeker removed for non-payment of the annual asylum fee, despite the agency providing no way to pay this fee.”

An immigration lawyer in San Diego, who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution, said an immigration judge denied his client’s asylum petition because the client had not paid the new fee, even though there was no way to pay it.

The judge issued an order, which was shared with The Times, that read, “Despite this mandatory requirement, to date the respondents have not filed proof of payment for the annual asylum fee.”

The lawyer called the decision a due process violation. He said he now plans to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though another fee increase under Trump’s spending package raised that cost from $110 to $1,010. He is litigating the case pro bono.

Justice Department lawyers said Monday that EOIR had eliminated the initial inconsistency by revising its position to reflect that of USCIS and will soon send out official notices to applicants, giving them 30 days to make the payment.

“There was no unreasonable delay here in EOIR’s implementation,” the filing said. “…The record shows several steps were required to finalize EOIR’s process, including coordination with USCIS. Regardless, Plaintiff’s request is now moot.”

Immigrants like Paula, who is a member of ASAP, recently got some reassurance. In a court declaration, EOIR Director Daren Margolin wrote that for anyone who made anticipatory or advance payments for the annual asylum fee, “those payments will be applied to the alien’s owed fees, as appropriate.”

The US Supreme Court has set a date on whether it will hear a case challenging same sex marriage.

Back in July, Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples – filed a petition for writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.

The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.

According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will be meeting in a private conference on 7 November.

The blog went on to reveal that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following their meeting on 7 November, an announcement can be released as soon as 10 November.

The recent update comes a week after conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett – who was appointed to the high court during Trump’s first term– addressed the possibility of Obergefell v. Hodges being overturned.

During a recent conversation with The New York Times‘s Ross Douthat, Barrett said marriage equality has “very concrete reliance interests,” making it unlikely to be taken away.

Ted Eytan on Flickr

She went on to define “reliance interests” as “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Douthat inquired if there can be “social reliance interests in the sense of people making life choices on the basis of a right being protected.”

He added: “One of the arguments for why Obergefell v Hodges is unlikely to ever be overturned is the idea that people have made decisions about who to marry and therefore where to live and children… Everything else, on the basis of that ruling.”

In response, Barrett described Douthat’s example as “absolutely reliance interests,” stating that she wouldn’t classify them as “social reliance interests.”

“That kind of sounds like in things in the air. Those are very concrete reliance interests. So those would be classic reliance interests in the terms of the law, in terms of legal doctrine… Those are financial. Those are medical,” she explained.

Another conservative Supreme Court Justice who shared a similar opinion is Samuel Alito. While speaking at an academic conference on 3 October, he said that marriage equality is “entitled to respect,” despite his dislike of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.

For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.

Four years after the “Rust” movie shooting, New Mexico officials have moved Alec Baldwin’s lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution to federal court.

This week’s filing is the latest twist in the long legal saga after the October 2021 on-set death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin, the 67-year-old star and a producer of the western film, had been facing a felony involuntary manslaughter charge for his role in Hutchins’ accidental shooting. But the judge overseeing Baldwin’s case abruptly dismissed the charge against him during his July 2024 trial after concluding that prosecutors withheld evidence that may have been helpful to his legal team.

Six months later, Baldwin sued New Mexico’s district attorney and special prosecutors, asserting malicious prosecution. The actor claimed he had been made a celebrity scapegoat because of the intense media pressure on local authorities to solve the high-profile case.

His lawsuit targeted New Mexico special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey, 1st Judicial Dist. Atty. Mary Carmack-Altwies and Santa Fe County sheriff’s deputies, who led the investigation into Hutchins’ death.

The defendants have denied Baldwin’s allegations.

Baldwin’s wrongful prosecution suit was first filed in New Mexico court in Santa Fe.

On Tuesday, the defendants, including Morrissey, exercised their legal right to shift the case to federal court. The decision was made, in part, because “Mr. Baldwin brought federal civil rights claims in his lawsuit,” said Albuquerque attorney Luis Robles, who represents the defendants.

In addition, Baldwin does not live in New Mexico, where the case was filed.

Baldwin could object to the move and petition for it to be brought back to state court. On Wednesday, his team was not immediately available for comment.

A New Mexico judge had dismissed Baldwin’s malicious prosecution claims in July, citing 90 days of inactivity in the case. Baldwin’s legal team petitioned to get the case reinstated and the judge agreed to the request.

That prompted the defendants’ move to shift the case to the higher court.

During his Santa Fe trial last year, Baldwin’s lawyers had sought to turn the focus away from whether Baldwin pulled his gun’s trigger in the accidental shooting to where the lethal bullet came from.

Baldwin’s attorneys repeatedly accused law enforcement officers and prosecutors of bungling the case, including by allegedly hiding potential evidence — a batch of bullets that they said may have been related to the one that killed Hutchins.

More than a month after he was arrested on suspicion of felony assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury, UCLA backup quarterback Pierce Clarkson has taken a major step toward being able to resolve his case while avoiding charges altogether.

After the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office referred the case to the L.A. City Attorney for possible misdemeanor consideration, the latter agency has decided to handle the matter via a city attorney hearing, according to Ivor Pine, deputy director of communications for the City Attorney.

A city attorney hearing is an informal proceeding that allows individuals who face certain misdemeanors to resolve their situation with a hearing officer without a criminal filing.

The resolution of such hearings, including conditions imposed to remediate and rehabilitate, are fact-dependent and vary matter to matter, according to Pine. If the participant successfully complies with the conditions, the case is diverted and no charges are filed. If the participant fails to comply, then criminal charges may be filed.

A UCLA athletic department spokesperson said Tuesday evening that there was no update on Clarkson’s status with the team. He had been suspended from all team activities pending the resolution of legal proceedings after his Sept. 5 arrest.

Before his suspension, Clarkson had been one of the top backups to quarterback Nico Iamaleava. The son of quarterback guru Steve Clarkson, Pierce Clarkson had transferred to UCLA this offseason after having spent last spring at Mississippi. The former St. John Bosco High standout spent his first two college seasons at Louisville, where he played sparingly.

Luke Duncan has been UCLA’s top backup in Clarkson’s absence, playing briefly at the end of the Bruins’ victory over Michigan State.

WASHINGTON — A man whose convictions for storming the U.S. Capitol were erased by President Trump’s mass pardons has been arrested on a charge that he threatened to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Christopher P. Moynihan is accused of sending a text message on Friday noting that Jeffries, a New York Democrat, would be making a speech in New York City this week.

“I cannot allow this terrorist to live,” Moynihan wrote, according to a report by a state police investigator. Moynihan also wrote that Jeffries “must be eliminated” and texted, “I will kill him for the future,” the police report says.

Moynihan, of Clinton, N.Y., is charged with a felony count of making a terroristic threat. It was unclear if he had an attorney representing him in the case, and efforts to contact him and his parents by email and phone were unsuccessful.

Moynihan, 34, was sentenced to 21 months in prison for joining a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. In January, he was among hundreds of convicted Capitol rioters who received a pardon from Trump on the Republican president’s first day back in the White House.

Jeffries thanked investigators “for their swift and decisive action to apprehend a dangerous individual who made a credible death threat against me with every intention to carry it out.”

“Unfortunately, our brave men and women in law enforcement are being forced to spend their time keeping our communities safe from these violent individuals who should never have been pardoned,” Jeffries said in a statement.

House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about the case during a news conference on Tuesday and said he did not know any details of the threat against Jeffries.

“We denounce violence from anybody, anytime. Those people should be arrested and tried,” said Johnson, a Louisiana Republican.

The New York State Police said they were notified of the threat by an FBI task force on Saturday. Moynihan was arraigned on Sunday in a local court in New York’s Dutchess County. He is due back in the Town of Clinton Court on Thursday.

Dutchess County Dist. Atty. Anthony Parisi said his office is reviewing the case “for legal and factual sufficiency.”

“Threats made against elected officials and members of the public will not be tolerated,” Parisi said in a statement on Tuesday.

On Jan. 6, Moynihan breached police barricades before entering the Capitol through the Rotunda door. He entered the Senate chamber, rifled through a notebook on a senator’s desk and joined other rioters in shouting and chanting at the Senate dais, prosecutors said.

“Moynihan did not leave the Senate Chamber until he was forced out by police,” they wrote.

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper convicted Moynihan of a felony for obstructing the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Moynihan also pleaded guilty to five other riot-related counts.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

Oct. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a decision in the case Louisiana vs. Callais that may guide how the Voting Rights Act is enforced.

The high court heard rearguments last week in the case over the Louisiana legislature’s redistricted congressional map. A decision may be weeks, if not months, away.

The legislature redrew its congressional map in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The new map included two districts where a majority of voters are Black out of six districts total.

Plaintiffs in Louisiana vs. Callais argue that the redrawn map violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because race was a guiding consideration in redistricting.

The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of this case with reargument under a supplemental question: Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act constitutional?

The collision between these two pieces of doctrine, both intended to insure equality in political participation, raises a critical question about how race and representation should be approached, one that the court is now poised to answer.

“The court is signaling that there has to be some reconciliation that happens beyond the status quo,” Atiba Ellis, Laura B. Chisholm Distinguished Research Scholar and professor of law in the Case Western Reserve School of Law, told UPI. “It’s hard to predict exactly how far that will go.”

One goal, different approaches

Section 2 and the Equal Protection Clause may share an underlying purpose but they take different approaches to meeting that goal.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in election practices.

The extremes, according to Ellis, are that the court could determine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional or it could reinterpret the test that it has long used in addressing concerns about race in redistricting cases.

Somewhere between the extremes is the court striking down the map at question but preserving Section 2.

“On the scale of possible solutions, it demonstrates that the court, informed by its colorblind jurisprudence that we saw in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard College, is wanting to further restrict if not all but abolish the use of race-conscious remedies in the elections context,” Ellis said.

Legal tests, cases

In the 2023 case Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled that using race as a factor in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The test that guides Section 2 enforcement, referred to as the Gingles test, is the criteria required to prove vote dilution under Section 2. It is based on the court’s decision in the case Thornburg vs. Gingles in 1986.

The Gingles test is a “results test,” Ellis said.

“We simply look at a practice like redistricting in its context and the results that it has,” he said. “Thornburg v. Gingles basically created a roadmap for the inquiry. Then a court can make an inquiry within the totality of the circumstances, including the impact, the history, the background and determine whether that practice violates Section 2.”

Equal Protection Clause enforcement is guided in part by a precedent established in the case Shaw vs. Reno. This case in 1993 was over an oddly shaped majority-Black congressional district drawn in North Carolina.

The Supreme Court struck down this map, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was a predominant factor in its creation.

Unlike the Gingles test, the Shaw test is based on intent, according to Ellis.

“From the Shaw line to today, legislatures have had to basically walk this balance between not making race the predominant factor in redistricting — but you also can’t use race divisively by subsuming a minority group’s political power to the majority’s advantage,” Ellis said. “The former is what the Shaw line of precedent is out to do. The latter is what Section 2 does.”

“The problem, at least according to the Callais plaintiffs bringing the suit and other political entities that are supporting their position, is that these two precedents are inherently irreconcilable,” he continued.

John Cusick, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, serves as a member of the counsel in the Louisiana vs. Callais case arguing in defense of the Louisiana congressional map. He represents the appellants in the case Robinson vs. Landry, which was the impetus for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map.

Cusick told UPI that the case is part of a broader effort to limit race-conscious remedies to Civil Rights violations.

“What’s at stake in this case is that opponents are seeking to roll back progress while there is a simple truth that remains: that Black voters in Louisiana deserve the same fair and effective representation as many other communities throughout the country,” Cusick said. “So Louisianans have organized and legislated and litigated for the promise of a fair legislative map.”

“What’s consistent here is that decades of Supreme Court precedent make clear that districts created to remedy the type of racial discrimination against Black voters that’s at the heart of this case is clear and consistent and well-settled law,” he continued. “That Louisiana creating a first and second majority minority district is constitutional and not, per se, a racial gerrymander.”

Broader issue

Based on the Supreme Court precedents at play, Cusick believes Louisiana’s congressional map will be found to be permissible. However, the supplemental question over whether the constitutionality of Section 2 as a whole could send ripples across Civil Rights law.

“The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of Civil Rights legislation,” Cusick said. “It has the greatest effect on this country’s promise of full and equal citizenship for all Americans. We are seeing efforts throughout the country to attack many of the tools that Civil Rights legislatures have relied on, whether they are constitutional protections, whether they are statutory protections, that identify racial discrimination, that root it out and provide fair and effective remedies in doing so.”

Cusick adds that attempts to peel away Section 2 can also have effects beyond Civil Rights protections against racial discrimination. Protections for people based on gender identity and disability are also at risk.

“If the court is adhering to the supplemental question presented, this case shouldn’t have a broader impact on the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, let alone other areas of the law,” Cusick said. “While we’re hopeful of that, we’re not naive.”

Ajike “AJ” Owens was a dedicated 35-year-old mother of four when she was shot and killed by her 58-year-old neighbor, Susan Lorincz, in June 2023. The tragedy, which rocked the otherwise peaceful, tight-knit community of Ocala, Fla., followed years of Lorincz making habitual calls to the police to report neighborhood kids, including Owens’, for playing in a vacant lot next to her home. Lorincz, who is white, claimed that the children — most of whom are Black and were under 12 — were a threat, citing one of the nation’s many “stand your ground” laws, which allow individuals to use deadly force to protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger.

Now award-winning filmmaker Geeta Gandbhir, with the support of producer-husband Nikon Kwantu and such nonfiction luminaries as Sam Pollard and Soledad O’Brien, has chronicled the two years leading up to Owens’ death in “The Perfect Neighbor,” premiering Friday on Netflix after an Oscar-qualifying theatrical run. Composed almost entirely of police body camera footage, the moving and powerful verité documentary uses the case to depict the perils of such laws, which are all too easily misused or abused in a society where not every claim of self-defense is treated equally.

A jury convicted Lorincz of manslaughter in August 2024, but the repercussions of her erratic and violent behavior continue to impact the Owens family and their neighbors. Gandbhir, whose sister-in-law was a close friend of Owens, hopes “The Perfect Neighbor” will honor Owens’ memory while showing how our nation’s growing fear of “the other” and the proliferation of “stand your ground” laws are a deadly combination.

Initially, you weren’t planning on making a film about this tragic killing, but you were documenting the aftermath of the crime. Why?

We got a call the night Ajike was killed, and we immediately jumped into action to try to help the family. We stepped in to be the media liaisons. They looked to us to try to keep the story alive in the media, just because they were worried [it would be overlooked]. This is Ocala, Fla., the heart of where “stand your ground” was born. Susan wasn’t arrested for four days because they were doing a “stand your ground” investigation. We were not thinking about making a doc, really. We were just terrified that there would be no justice.

That’s happened before …

Yes, Trayvon Martin’s case being the most notorious.

But in Ajike’s case, there’s reams of footage and audio recordings that captured what happened. How were you able to obtain so much of that material from the police department?

Anthony Thomas, who works with [civil rights attorney] Benjamin Crump, had sued the police department through the Freedom of Information Act and got them to release all of the material that they had pertaining to the case. That’s how we got the footage. What came to us was the police body camera footage, detective interviews, Ring camera footage and cellphone footage. There was also all the audio calls that Susan had made to the police, and then after the night of the [killing], the calls the community had made. There was basically a plethora of stuff that we were handed, in a jumble, and Anthony was like, “Sort this out. See if you can find anything that makes sense for the news, like snippets we can share.”

I was surprised at how much material there was, and I’m just talking about what made it into the film.

It speaks to how much Susan called the police. Basically, the body cam footage [was a result of those calls]. What’s interesting is the reaction when we screened the film for the community. They agreed to be part of this so we wanted to show them before it came out. We’re very concerned with participant care and the ethics of this. They said that they didn’t think that we had everything, because Susan [allegedly] called the police sometimes, like, 10 times a day. They [said they] think the police gave us maybe what they could organize, where they don’t look terrible. But they don’t think that that’s everything.

Ajike “AJ” Owens, pictured on the poster, was shot and killed by her neighbor in 2023. The crime is at the center of Geeta Gandbhir’s new documentary “The Perfect Neighbor.”

Ajike’s mother, Pamela Dias, has been a major force in keeping her daughter’s memory alive — and seeking justice. How did she feel about you making this film?

I went to Pamela and said I could make a movie and maybe we could make a change. It’s quite an endeavor to try to change gun laws or the “stand your ground” law, but maybe we can reach people. She said yes. This is a woman who by her own admission was blinded by grief [when Ajike was killed], who said she couldn’t see two feet in front of her. But she knew even then that her daughter’s story had to be told. She said her daughter died standing up for her kids, and she felt it was her turn to stand up.

I told her the material was graphic. But Pam was inspired by Emmett Till and how his mother had an open-casket funeral and told the photographers to take pictures because she wanted the world to know what had happened to her baby. Plus, we thought about George Floyd and [how footage of his killing] sparked a movement. It is a terrible thing to bear witness, but if we let these things continue to happen in the shadows, then they will happen forever. It’s only by bearing witness that things might change.

What about your own emotional well-being while making this film?

See all my gray hair? [Laughs.] I realized later it was grief work for me, because I needed to know what happened. I had to know what happened. I couldn’t understand how someone could pick up a gun and kill their neighbor over children playing nearby. How did we get here? So many questions were just eating me, so the work was in some ways cathartic. Then once we had it all strung out and I thought it was a film, I brought on Viridiana Lieberman, who’s our editor. We had a similar sensibility about what we wanted this to be and we really committed to living in the body camera footage.

“Body camera footage is a violent tool of the state,” Gandbhir says. “It’s often used to criminalize us, particularly people of color. It’s used to dehumanize us, to surveil us, to protect the police. What I wanted to do with this material was flip that narrative and use it to humanize this community.”

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Why not use narration?

I worked for 12 years in narratives and scripted before I segued into documentary. I learned that the best vérité documentaries are show and not tell. If you tell people what they’re seeing, there’s some room for doubt or for your bias or some questioning around it. But to me, this footage plays like vérité. There’s no reporter on the ground. There’s no one influencing what’s happening in the neighborhood, other than the police who are coming in and asking questions. I felt that made the footage and the story undeniable. No one could say that we were down there asking provocative questions. And the body camera footage is so incredibly immersive, I wanted people to have the experience of what the community experienced.

How would you describe what they went through?

Their experience felt a bit like a horror film. You have this beautiful, diverse community living together with a strong social network, taking care of each other and each other’s kids. What was so powerful to me in the body camera footage is you really got to see this community as they were before [the tragedy], and you never get that. There’s horrible shootings all the time, and we see the aftermath, right? We see the grieving family, we see the funeral. We have to re-create what their lives were like before. And in this, you see this beautiful community thriving and living together, and that was so profound. I wanted to rebuild their world so everyone could see the damage done by one outlier with a gun. How she was the only one who was repeatedly calling the police and seeing threats where there were none.

We’re used to seeing police body cam footage used as evidence following a police brutality incident, or as entertainment in true crime shows. It’s used to tell a very different story in your film.

I wanted to subvert the use of body cam footage. Body camera footage is a violent tool of the state. It’s often used to criminalize us, particularly people of color. It’s used to dehumanize us, to surveil us, to protect the police. What I wanted to do with this material was flip that narrative and use it to humanize this community.

Why do you think that Susan was not seen as a threat by the police?

She’s a middle-aged white lady. She weaponized her race, her status, and she kept trying to weaponize the police against the community. The fact that she was using hate speech against children [she allegedly called them the N-word]. She was filming them. She was throwing things at them. She was cursing at them. But the police didn’t flag her as more than just a nuisance…. After the third time she called and it was unfounded and not about an actual crime, there should have been some measure taken to reprimand her. They didn’t tell the community that they could file charges against her: “She’s harassing you all. She’s harassing your children.” It was systemic neglect. And honestly, should the police be a catch-all for everything? Probably not. But they were not equipped. They didn’t take the necessary steps and the worst outcomes happened, which is that we lost Ajike, and Susan is in prison for the rest of her life. I’m sure that’s not the outcome she wanted.

There’s a moment in the film where a policeman knocks on Susan’s sliding glass door. She doesn’t know it’s a cop. She opens the curtain and screams at him in a terrifying, almost demonic voice. It’s quite a switch from her nervous, genial 911 calls.

Yeah, the jump scare. That was one of the moments where I was like, “Oh, there she is.” And the 911 call, after she shot Ajike. She was hysterical. Then her voice changes when she says, “They keep bothering me and bothering me, and they won’t f— stop.” I felt my heart clench, because it’s like, “Oh, there she really is.” She has this way of going between victim and aggressor. A little Jekyll and Hyde. It’s frightening.

The victim/aggressor dynamic is part of what makes “stand your ground” laws so dangerous. They can be weaponized.

“Stand your ground” policy was born in Ocala and now it’s in around 38 states, in different forms. It’s a law that emboldens people to pick up a gun to solve a dispute. If you can other-ize your neighbor to the extent of [killing] them, the question is, what else will you do? What else will we tolerate? As human beings, how we show up in our communities is a reflection of how we show up in the world. This film takes place on this tiny street, but it is a microcosm of what is happening today. Susan represented the dangers, and that little community represented the best of what’s under threat.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that he had commuted the sentence of former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who is serving more than seven years in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft charges.

Joseph Murray, one of Santos’ lawyers, told the Associated Press late Friday that the former lawmaker was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, N.J., around 11 p.m. and was greeted outside the facility by his family.

The New York Republican was sentenced in April after admitting last year to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of 11 people — including his own family members — to make donations to his campaign.

He reported to FCI Fairton on July 25 and was housed in a minimum-security prison camp with fewer than 50 other inmates.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on his social media platform. He said he had “just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY.”

“Good luck George, have a great life!” Trump said.

Santos’ account on X, which has been active throughout his roughly 84 days in prison, reposted a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post Friday.

During his time behind bars, Santos has been writing regular dispatches in a local newspaper on Long Island, N.Y., in which he mainly complained about the prison conditions.

In his latest letter, he pleaded to Trump directly, citing his fealty to the president’s agenda and to the Republican Party.

“Sir, I appeal to your sense of justice and humanity — the same qualities that have inspired millions of Americans to believe in you,” he wrote in the South Shore Press on Monday. “I humbly ask that you consider the unusual pain and hardship of this environment and allow me the opportunity to return to my family, my friends, and my community.”

Santos’ commutation is Trump’s latest high-profile act of clemency for former Republican politicians since retaking the White House in January.

Like Santos, Trump has been convicted of fraud. He was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts in a case related to paying hush money to a porn actor. He is the only president in U.S. history convicted of a felony.

In granting clemency to Santos, Trump was rewarding a figure who has drawn scorn from within his own party.

After becoming the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress in 2022, Santos served less than a year after it was revealed that he had fabricated much of his life story.

On the campaign trail, Santos had claimed he was a successful business consultant with Wall Street cred and a sizable real estate portfolio. But when his resume came under scrutiny, Santos eventually admitted he had never graduated from Baruch College — or been a standout player on the Manhattan college’s volleyball team, as he had claimed. He had never worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

He wasn’t even Jewish. Santos insisted he meant he was “Jew-ish” because his mother’s family had a Jewish background, even though he was raised Catholic.

In truth, the then-34-year-old was struggling financially and faced eviction.

Santos was charged in 2023 with stealing from donors and his campaign, fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits and lying to Congress about his wealth.

Within months, he was expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives — with 105 Republicans joining with Democrats to make Santos just the sixth member in the chamber’s history to be ousted by colleagues.

Santos pleaded guilty as he was set to stand trial.

Still, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) urged the White House to commute Santos’ sentence, saying in a letter sent just days into his prison term that the punishment was “a grave injustice” and a product of judicial overreach.

Greene was among those who cheered the announcement Friday. But Rep. Nick LaLota, a Republican who represents part of Long Island and has been highly critical of Santos, said in a post on social media that Santos “didn’t merely lie” and his crimes “warrant more than a three-month sentence.”

“He should devote the rest of his life to demonstrating remorse and making restitution to those he wronged,” LaLota said.

Santos’ clemency appears to clear not just his prison term, but also any “further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions,” according to a copy of Trump’s order posted on X by Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

As part of his guilty plea, Santos had agreed to pay restitution of $373,750 and forfeiture of $205,003.

In explaining his reason for granting Santos clemency, Trump claimed the lies Santos told about himself were no worse than misleading statements U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal — a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration —had made about his military record.

Blumenthal apologized 15 years ago for implying that he served in Vietnam, when he was stateside in the Marine Reserve during the war. The senator was never accused of violating any law.

“This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!” Trump wrote.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Michael R. Sisak in New York and Susan Haigh in Connecticut contributed to this report.

The National Labor Relations Board has sued California to block a law that empowers a state agency to oversee some private-sector labor disputes and union elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 into law last month in response to the Trump administration’s hampering of federal regulators. It gives the state’s Public Employment Relations Board the ability to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other issues in the event the federal labor board is unable, or declines, to decide cases.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues the law usurps the NLRB’s authority “by attempting to regulate areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

The lawsuit echos the NLRB’s challenge to a recent New York law that similarly seeks to expand the powers of its state labor board.

NLRB attorneys contend in the lawsuits that the laws create parallel regulatory systems that conflict with federal labor law.

The NLRB is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions.

Lawmakers in New York and California said they passed their bills to fill a gap, because the NLRB has been functionally paralyzed since January, when President Trump fired one of its Democratic board members. The unprecedented firing of that member, Gwynne Wilcox, left the board without the three-member quorum it needs to rule on cases.

Wilcox has challenged her firing in court, arguing that appointed board members can only be fired for “malfeasance or neglect of duty.” But her removal was upheld by the Supreme Court for now, until her case can make its way through lower courts.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, last month called AB 288 “the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century.”

The California Public Employment Relations Board typically has authority only over public sector employees. But when the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, workers in the private sector who are unable to get a timely response at the federal level can also petition the state board to take up their cases and enforce their rights.

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is otherwise hampered.

The NLRB’s paralysis has put hundreds of cases in limbo, with the agency currently lacking the ability to compel employers to bargain with their workers’ unions, or to stop unfair treatment on the job.

However, the agency’s acting general counsel — Trump appointee William Cowen — has said that only a fraction of cases require decisions from the typically five-member board and that the agency’s work has been largely unaffected, with regional offices continuing to process union elections and unfair labor practice charges.

GREENBELT, Md. — John Bolton arrived at a federal courthouse Friday to surrender to authorities and make his first court appearance on charges accusing the former Trump administration national security adviser of storing top secret records at home and sharing with relatives diary-like notes that contained classified information.

The 18-count federal indictment Thursday also suggests classified information was exposed when operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government hacked Bolton’s email account and gained access to sensitive material he had shared. A Bolton representative told the FBI in 2021 that his emails had been hacked, prosecutors say, but did not reveal that Bolton had shared classified information through the account or that the hackers had possession of government secrets.

The closely watched case centers on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019. He later published a book highly critical of Trump.

The third case against a Trump adversary in the past month will unfold against the backdrop of concerns that the Justice Department is pursuing the Republican president’s political enemies while at the same time sparing his allies from scrutiny.

“Now, I have become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts,” Bolton said in a statement.

Even so, the indictment is significantly more detailed in its allegations than earlier cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Unlike in those cases filed by a hastily appointed U.S. attorney, Bolton’s indictment was signed by career national security prosecutors. While the Bolton investigation burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington, the inquiry was well underway by the time Trump had taken office in January.

Sharing of classified secrets

The indictment filed in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, alleges that between 2018 and this past August, Bolton shared with two relatives more than 1,000 pages of information about his day-to-day activities in government.

The material included “diary-like” entries with information classified as high as top secret that he had learned from meetings with other U.S. government officials, from intelligence briefings or talks with foreign leaders, according to the indictment. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.

The indictment says that among the material shared was information about foreign adversaries that in some cases revealed details about sources and methods used by the government to collect intelligence.

The two family members were not identified in court papers, but a person familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss nonpublic details, identified them as Bolton’s wife and daughter.

The indictment also suggests Bolton was aware of the impropriety of sharing classified information with people not authorized to receive it, citing an April news media interview in which he chastised Trump administration officials for using Signal to discuss sensitive military details. Though the anecdote is meant by prosecutors to show Bolton understood proper protocol for government secrets, Bolton’s legal team may also point to it to argue a double standard in enforcement because the Justice Department is not known to have opened any investigation into the Signal episode.

Bolton’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that the “underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago.”

He said the charges stem from portions of Bolton’s personal diaries over his 45-year career in government and included unclassified information that was shared only with his immediate family and was known to the FBI as far back as 2021.

“Like many public officials throughout history,” Lowell said, “Bolton kept diaries — that is not a crime.” He said Bolton “did not unlawfully share or store any information.”

Controversy over a book

Bolton suggested the criminal case was an outgrowth of an unsuccessful Justice Department effort after he left government to block the publication of his 2020 book “The Room Where It Happened,” which portrayed Trump as grossly misinformed about foreign policy.

The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer had classified information.

In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security adviser. His brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine. Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure.

Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to Ukraine to that country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of Biden’s family.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

A return to form for Labuschagne would not entirely solve the issues Australia have around their batting line-up for the first Test against England at Perth on 21 November.

He was pushed up to open in his most recent Test – the World Test Championship final defeat by South Africa in which he returned scores of 17 and 22 – but has been batting at his previous position of number three for Queensland.

Were he to return at number three, the position he has scored all of his Test hundreds, Australia would still be looking for at least one opener.

Twenty-year-old Sam Konstas played in West Indies but managed only 50 runs across six innings. Though he scored a century for Australia A in India last month he has not passed 50 in four innings in domestic cricket this season and was dismissed by Scott Boland for a four-ball duck on Wednesday.

Tasmania’s uncapped opener Jake Weatherald, 30, scored a 99-ball 94 on day two of a low-scoring match against Western Australia on Thursday to push his case.

If Labuschagne returned as an opener then it would allow Australia to pick Cameron Green at number three and retain fellow all-rounder Beau Webster in the middle order, though Green only has one fifty in eight innings in that position since being pushed up the order for the Test final against South Africa.

Webster is currently out with an ankle injury but Green is in Australia’s squad for the three-match one-day international series against India which begins on Sunday.

AFP/Getty Images

New details of alleged spying

House of Commons

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Wednesday from firing thousands of government workers based on the ongoing federal shutdown, granting a request from employee unions in California.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the temporary restraining order after concluding that the unions “will demonstrate ultimately that what’s being done here is both illegal and is in excess of authority and is arbitrary and capricious.”

Illston slammed the Trump administration for failing to provide her with clear information about what cuts are actually occurring, for repeatedly changing its description and estimates of job cuts in filings before the court, and for failing — including during Wednesday’s hearing in San Francisco — to articulate an argument for why such cuts are not in violation of federal law.

“The evidence suggests that the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, have taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore,” Illston said — which she said was not the case.

She said the government justified providing inaccurate figures for the number of jobs being eliminated under its “reduction in force” orders by calling it a “fluid situation” — which she did not find convincing.

“What it is is a situation where things are being done before they are being thought through. It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs,” she said. “And it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

Illston also ran through a string of recent comments made by President Trump and other members of his administration about the firings and their intentionally targeting programs and agencies supported by Democrats, saying, “By all appearances, they’re politically motivated.”

The Trump administration has acknowledged dismissing about 4,000 workers under the orders, while Trump and other officials have signaled that more would come Friday.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Wednesday on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that the number of jobs cut could “probably end up being north of 10,000,” as the administration wants to be “very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding,” and the shutdown provided that opportunity.

Attorneys for the unions, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, said that the figures were unreliable and that they feared additional reduction in force orders resulting in more layoffs, as promised by administration officials, if the court did not step in and block such actions.

Illston, an appointee of President Clinton, did just that.

She barred the Trump administration and its various agencies “from taking any action to issue any reduction in force notices to federal employees in any program, project or activity” involving union members “during or because of the federal shutdown.”

She also barred the administration from “taking any further action to administer or implement” existing reduction notices involving union members.

Illston demanded that the administration provide within two days a full accounting of all existing or “imminent” reduction in force orders that would be blocked by her order, as well as the specific number of federal jobs affected.

Elizabeth Hedges, an attorney for the Trump administration, had argued during the hearing that the order should not be granted for several procedural reasons — including that the alleged harm to federal employees from loss of employment or benefits was not “irreparable” and could be addressed through other avenues, including civil litigation.

Additionally, she argued that federal employment claims should be adjudicated administratively, not in district court; and that the reduction in force orders included 60-day notice periods, meaning the layoffs were not immediate and therefore the challenge to them was not yet “ripe” legally.

However, Hedges would not discuss the case on its actual merits — which is to say, whether the cuts were actually legal or not, which did not seem to sit well with Illston.

“You don’t have a position on whether it’s OK that they do what they’re doing?” Illston asked.

“I am not prepared to discuss that today, your honor,” Hedges said.

“Well — but it’s happening. This hatchet is falling on the heads of employees all across the nation, and you’re not even prepared to address whether that’s legal, even though that’s what this motion challenges?” Illston said.

“That’s right,” Hedges said — stressing again that there were “threshold” arguments for why the case shouldn’t even be allowed to continue to the merits stage.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the unions, suggested the government’s positions were indefensible and directly in conflict with public statements by the administration — including remarks by Trump on Tuesday that more cuts are coming Friday.

“How do we know this? Because OMB and the president relentlessly are telling us, and other members of the administration,” Leonard said.

Leonard said the harm from the administration’s actions is obvious and laid out in the union’s filings — showing how employees have at times been left in the dark as to their employment status because they don’t have access to work communication channels during the shutdown, or how others have been called in to “work without pay to fire their fellow employees” — only to then be fired themselves.

“There are multiple types of harm that are caused exactly right now — emotional trauma. That’s not my word, your honor, that is the word of OMB Director Vought. Let’s cause ‘trauma’ to the federal workforce,” Leonard said. “And that’s exactly what they are doing. Trauma. The emotional distress of being told you are being fired after an already exceptionally difficult year for federal employees.”

Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, which is co-counsel for the unions, praised Illston’s decision in a statement after the hearing.

“The statements today by the court make clear that the President’s targeting of federal workers — a move straight out of Project 2025’s playbook — is unlawful,” Perryman said. “Our civil servants do the work of the people, and playing games with their livelihoods is cruel and unlawful and a threat to everyone in our nation.”

Illston asked the two parties to confer on the best date, probably later this month, for a fuller hearing on whether she should issue a more lasting preliminary injunction in the case.

“It would be wonderful to know what the government’s position is on the merits of this case — and my breath is bated until we find that,” Illston said.

After the hearing, during a White House news conference, Trump said his administration was paying federal employees whom “we want paid” while Vought uses the shutdown to dismiss employees perceived as supporting Democratic initiatives.

“Russell Vought is really terminating tremendous numbers of Democrat projects — not only jobs,” Trump said.

Days before the Trump administration was supposed to file its response to a California lawsuit challenging its targeting of gender-affirming care providers, attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge to temporarily halt the proceedings.

Given the federal shutdown, they argued, they just didn’t have the lawyers to do the work.

“Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal defendants are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,’” they wrote in their filing Oct. 1, the first day of the shutdown.

The district judge presiding over the case, which California filed in federal court in Massachusetts along with a coalition of other Democrat-led states, agreed, and promptly granted the request.

It was just one example of the now weeks-old federal shutdown grinding to a halt important litigation between California and the Trump administration, in policy battles with major implications for people’s lives.

The same day, in the same Massachusetts court, Justice Department attorneys were granted a pause in a lawsuit in which California and other states are challenging mass firings at the U.S. Department of Education, after noting that department funding had been suspended and it didn’t know “when such funding will be restored by Congress.”

The same day in U.S. District Court in Central California, the Trump administration asked for a similar pause in a lawsuit that it had brought against California, challenging the state’s refusal to provide its voter registration rolls to the administration.

Justice Department attorneys wrote that they “greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the other litigants,” but needed to pause the proceedings until they were “permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions.”

Since then, the court in Central California has advised the parties of alternative dispute resolution options and outside groups — including the NAACP — have filed motions to intervene in the case, but no major developments have occurred.

The pauses in litigation — only a portion of those that have occurred in courts across the country — were an example of sweeping, real-world, high-stakes effects of the federal government shutdown that average Americans may not consider when thinking about the shutdown’s impact on their lives.

Federal employees working in safety and other crucial roles — such as air traffic controllers — have remained on the job, even without pay, but many others have been forced to stay home. The Justice Department did not spell out which of its attorneys had been benched by the shutdown, but made clear that some who had been working on the cases in question were no longer doing so.

Federal litigation often takes years to resolve, and brief pauses in proceedings are not uncommon. However, extended disruptions — such as one that could occur if the shutdown drags on — would take a toll, forestalling legal answers in some of the most important policy battles in the country.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has sued the Trump administration more than 40 times since January, has not challenged every request for a pause by the Trump administration — especially in cases where the status quo favors the state.

However, it has challenged pauses in other cases, with some success.

For example, in that same Massachusetts federal courthouse Oct. 1, Justice Department attorneys asked a judge to temporarily halt proceedings in a case in which California and other states are suing to block the administration’s targeted defunding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Their arguments were the same as in the other cases: Given the shutdown, they didn’t have the attorneys to do the necessary legal work.

In response, attorneys for California and the other states pushed back, noting that the shutdown had not stopped Department of Health and Human Services officials from moving forward with the measure to defund Planned Parenthood — so the states’ residents remained at imminent risk of losing necessary healthcare.

“The risks of irreparable harms are especially high because it is unclear how long the lapse in appropriations will continue, meaning relief may not be available for months at which point numerous health centers will likely be forced to close due to a lack of funds,” the states argued.

On Oct. 8, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the government’s request for a pause, finding that the states’ interest in proceeding with the case “outweighs” the administration’s interest in pausing it.

Talwani’s argument, in part, was that her order denying a pause would provide Justice Department officials the legal authority to continue litigating the case despite the shutdown.

Bonta said in a statement that “Trump owns this shutdown” and “the devastation it’s causing to hardworking everyday Americans,” adding that his office will not let Trump use it to cause even more harm by delaying relief in court cases.

“We’re not letting his Administration use this shutdown as an excuse to continue implementing his unlawful agenda unchecked. Until we get relief for Californians, we’re not backing down — and neither are the courts,” Bonta said. “We can’t wait for Trump to finally let our government reopen before these cases are heard.”

Trump and Republicans in Congress have blamed the shutdown on Democrats.

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee requested Tuesday that Jack Smith, the former Justice Department special counsel, appear for an interview, part of an escalating effort among the GOP to pursue the perceived enemies of President Donald Trump.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the committee chair, charged in a letter to Smith that his prosecutions of Trump were “partisan and politically motivated.” Smith has come under particular scrutiny on Capitol Hill, especially after the Senate Judiciary Committee said last week that his investigation had included an FBI analysis of phone records for more than half a dozen Republican lawmakers from the week of Jan. 6, 2021

Smith brought two cases against Trump, one accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the other of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were brought in 2023, well over a year before the 2024 presidential election, and indictments in the two cases cited what Smith and his team described as clear violations of well-established federal law. Former Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland, who named Smith as special counsel in November 2022, has repeatedly said politics played no part in the handling of the cases.

Smith abandoned the criminal cases against Trump after he won the presidential election last year. Trump’s return to the White House precluded the federal prosecutions, as well as paved the way for Republicans to go after Trump’s political and legal opponents.

Jordan wrote to Smith: “Your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

In just the last weeks, the Trump administration has pursued criminal charges against both James Comey, the former FBI director, and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who for years investigated and sued Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee has been looking into Smith’s actions as special counsel since the start of the year. Jordan said that it had interviewed two other members of Smith’s prosecutorial team, but they had declined to answer many questions, citing the Fifth Amendment.

An attorney for Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the House Judiciary Committee’s interview request.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Bijan Robinson is the best player in football.

That’s what Atlanta Falcons coach Raheem Morris said about his star running back Monday night after a 24-14 win over reigning MVP Josh Allen and the Buffalo Bills.

While Morris may be somewhat biased toward his own player, national TV viewers might have trouble arguing with him after what they witnessed Robinson accomplish on this week’s “Monday Night Football.”

The third-year player tied his career high with 170 rushing yards (the most for a Falcons player during a prime time TV game) in 19 carries. That included a spectacular 81-yard touchdown run in the second quarter that was the longest run of his career as well the longest in the NFL this season. It’s also tied for the second-longest rushing touchdown in Falcons history.

Robinson now has three plays from scrimmage of 50 yards or more this season after having only one longer than 30 yards last year.

“IIt’s just a thing of my game where I want to get better at and continue to get better at every single day,” Robinson said after the game. “And you know, if I can get better at that and breaking those long runs, it’s only helping the team.”

Robinson also caught six passes from quarterback Michael Penix Jr. for 68 yards for a total of 238 yards from scrimmage, the most ever for a Falcons running back.

“There are some people who are just born to be a certain athlete,” Falcons receiver Drake London said after the game. “Like you have certain people who are born to be basketball players, such as LeBron [James]. You have people who are born to be football players, like they have the perfect body shape for it. Now, [Robinson] goes out there, and it’s like art. It’s amazing to see.”

Speaking of James, the Lakers superstar also took notice of Robinson’s performance.

“Bijan so COLD!!!!!!!!!” James posted on X during the game.

A first-round draft pick in 2023 and a Pro Bowl selection last year, Robinson leads the league with 822 yards from scrimmage this season (484 rushing and 338 receiving), and it’s not even all that close.

The Falcons are one of only six teams that have had their bye weeks already, meaning Robinson has compiled his total in five games. The next 11 players on the list — starting with San Francisco 49ers running back Christian McCaffrey at No. 2 with 780 yards — have all played in six games.

If he keeps this pace, Robinson will finish the season with 2,797 yards from scrimmage, which would break the current record of 2,509 yards set by Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson in 2009. Johnson’s record was set during a 16-game season; Robinson is on pace to have 2,630 yards after his 16th game of the 17-game season.

So maybe Morris wasn’t being all that biased in his post-game comments about Robinson after all.

“He’s the best player in football,” Morris told reporters. “I’ve said it multiple times, I can’t say it enough. You can always have your pick, you can always go out there and figure out who you want to vote for, but in my opinion, he’s the best player in football.”

ROME — The Vatican took the unusual step on Monday of announcing that it had named judges to decide the fate of a famous ex-Jesuit artist, whose mosaics decorate basilicas around the world and who was accused by more than two dozen women of sexual, spiritual and psychological abuse.

The case of the Rev. Marko Ivan Rupnik badly tarnished the legacy of Pope Francis, given suggestions that the Jesuit pope, the Jesuit religious order and the Jesuit-headed Vatican sex abuse office protected one of their own over decades by dismissing allegations of misconduct against him.

The Vatican office that manages clergy sex abuse cases, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that the five judges named to hear the Rupnik case in a canonical court include women and priests who don’t hold jobs in the Vatican bureaucracy.

It said that such a composition was “done in order to better guarantee, as in any judicial process, the autonomy and independence of the aforementioned court.”

The statement suggested an implicit recognition that prior to now, the Vatican’s handling of the Rupnik file had been anything but autonomous or independent.

Famous artist accused

Rupnik’s mosaics grace some of the Catholic Church’s most-visited shrines and sanctuaries around the world, including at the shrine in Lourdes, France, in the Vatican, a new basilica in Aparecida, Brazil, and the chapel of Pope Leo XIV’s own Augustinian religious order in Rome.

The Rupnik scandal first exploded publicly in late 2022 when Italian blogs started reporting the claims of nuns and other women who said they had been sexually, spiritually and psychologically abused by him, including during the production of his artwork.

Rupnik’s Jesuit religious order soon admitted that he had been excommunicated briefly in 2020 for having committed one of the Catholic Church’s most serious crimes — using the confessional to absolve a woman with whom he had engaged in sexual activity. But he continued working and preaching.

The case continued to create problems for the Jesuits and Francis, though, since more women came forward saying they too had been victimized by Rupnik, with some of their claims dating back to the 1990s.

The Jesuits eventually kicked him out of the order after he refused to respond to allegations by about 20 women, most of whom were members of a Jesuit-inspired religious community that he co-founded in his native Slovenia, which has since been suppressed.

The Vatican initially refused to prosecute, arguing the women’s claims were too old. The stall exposed both the Vatican’s legal shortcomings, where sex crimes against women are rarely prosecuted, and the suggestion that a famous artist like Rupnik had received favorable treatment.

Trial about to start

While Francis denied interfering in a 2023 interview with the Associated Press, he eventually caved to public pressure and waived the statute of limitations so that the Vatican could open a proper canonical trial.

Two years later, the Vatican statement on Monday indicated that the trial was about to start. The judges, appointed on Oct. 9, will use the church’s in-house canon law to determine Rupnik’s fate, though it’s still not even clear what alleged canonical crimes he is accused of committing. The Vatican statement didn’t say. He hasn’t been charged criminally.

To date, Rupnik hasn’t responded publicly to the allegations and refused to respond to his Jesuit superiors during their investigation. His supporters at his Centro Aletti art studio have denounced what they have called a media “lynching.”

Some of Rupnik’s victims have gone public to demand justice, including in a documentary “Nuns vs. The Vatican” that premiered last month at the Toronto International Film Festival. They welcomed word on Monday that the trial would finally start, attorney Laura Sgro said.

“My five clients requested 18 months ago to be recognized as injured parties in the proceedings, so we hope that their position will be established as soon as possible,” Sgro said in a statement. “They have been waiting for justice for too many years, and justice will be good not only for them but also for the church itself.”

The Catholic Church’s internal legal system doesn’t recognize victims of abuse as parties to a canonical trial but merely third-party witnesses. Victims have no right to participate in any proceedings or have access to any documentation.

At most, they are entitled to learn the judges’ verdict. Unlike a regular court, where jail time is possible, canonical penalties can include sanctions such as restrictions from celebrating Mass or even presenting oneself as a priest, if the judges determine a canonical crime has occurred.

Legal hurdles to justice

But it’s not even clear whether the Vatican considers the women to be abuse “victims” in a legal sense. While the Holy See over the last 25 years has refined the canonical rules to prosecute priests who sexually abuse minors, it has rarely prosecuted sex-related abuse cases involving women, contending that any sexual activity between adults is consensual.

The Rupnik case, though, also involves allegations of spiritual and psychological abuse in relations where there was an imbalance of power. It’s one of many such #MeToo cases in the church where women have said they fell prey to revered spiritual gurus who used their power and authority to manipulate them for sexual and other ends.

The Vatican, though, has generally refused to prosecute such cases or address this type of abuse in any canonical revisions, though Francis authorized a study group to look into allegations of “false mysticism” before he died.

Leo has expressed concern in general that accused priests receive due process. But he had firsthand experience dealing with an abusive group in Peru that targeted adults as well as minors, including through spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience.

In a letter earlier this year to a Peruvian journalist who exposed the group’s crimes, Leo called for a culture of prevention in the church “that does not tolerate any form of abuse — whether of power or authority, conscience or spiritual, or sexual.”

Winfield writes for the Associated Press.

IF a Chinese bloke had been caught spying for the UK in Beijing, he’d currently be hung up by his toes in a cell, awaiting execution.

That’s how the Chinese sort things out. Nobody in Beijing would be worrying much if the UK is a threat or not.

2

2

Bullet or lethal injection, Wu’s yer uncle.

Or maybe they would be pawed to death by an angry panda.

But it’s more often a bullet between the eyes.

Most countries take spying and espionage very seriously.

Indeed, ensuring we are safe from foreigners who might do us harm is the first duty of a government.

But clearly it is a duty that Sir Keir Starmer does not take remotely seriously.

Last week, two Brits were due to be tried for spying for the Chinese.

They were Christopher Cash, a parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a researcher who works in China.

Both deny any wrongdoing.

But suddenly, at the last minute, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case.

It didn’t bother explaining why — one minute the trial was on, the next it was dead meat.

Industrial secrets

It now transpires that the CPS took advice from British government officials.

It is entirely possible that the UK’s National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, a good mate of Keir, was one of the officials involved.

Shortly after their meeting with the CPS, the decision was taken to drop the case.

Why? They apparently told the CPS China couldn’t be called a “threat” to the UK.

Instead, it was just a “geo-political challenge”.

And so the charges against Cash and Berry wouldn’t stick.

In a previous spying case it was decided that charges were relevant only if it involved “a country which represents, at the time of the offence, a threat to the national security of the UK”.

Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous?

If China isn’t a threat to the UK, then who is?

The head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, has reported that the Chinese have tried to entice 20,000 Brits to act as spies for them, against our interests.

Did nobody think to ask Sir Ken if he thought China was a threat? I suspect I know the answer that would have been forthcoming

He also claimed that 10,000 UK businesses were at threat from the Chinese trying to nick industrial secrets.

In addition, he said that MI5 had 2,000 current investigations into Chinese spying activity — and that a new case was opened on the Chinese — behaving very deviously indeed — every 12 hours.

Did nobody think to ask Sir Ken if he thought China was a threat?

I suspect I know the answer that would have been forthcoming.

Of course the country is a threat.

It is menacing other nations down in South East Asia.

It has a whole bunch of nukes pointed directly at the West.

It arrests dissidents who want western-style freedoms.

And it does everything it can to undermine the UK’s politics and industry.

Truth be told, anybody who is working secretly for a foreign country in the UK is a threat to this country.

Especially if they are working in the House of Commons.

This seems to me so obvious that it should not need stating.

If their secret outside income involves a vast load of Yuan, some fortune cookies and cans of bubble tea, then we should investigate very seriously.

The truth in this particular case, though, is particularly damning.

It seems almost certain that Whitehall officials intervened at the behest of the Government.

And that they did this so as not to p**s off the Chinese — because aside from being a threat to the UK, which China certainly is, we are going cap in hand begging for investment from them.

Other nations don’t have a problem with employing a dual approach.

Make no mistake, we may need to do business with the likes of China, much as we did once with Russia — but they ARE the enemy

They understand that while they all need to do trade with horrible totalitarian countries such as China, they also need to count their spoons, if you get my meaning — and at the slightest sign of devious behaviour, call them out.

The Chinese understand this too.

Yes, being caught with a bunch of spies in our Parliament may be embarrassing for a short while.

But it won’t be allowed to get in the way of China making more money.

It seems that our government was too frit to risk it.

Too scared that the Chinese might react nastily and pull investment.

Or decide not to invest in the future. We mustn’t offend the Chinese.

Strategies like this simply do not work — and the Chinese, just like their big mates the Russians, will continue to spy on our institutions and do everything they can to harm our state.

Enemy is laughing

Make no mistake, we may need to do business with the likes of China, much as we did once with Russia — but they ARE the enemy.

And currently an enemy that is laughing its head off.

The government officials involved will be coming before the House of Commons Joint Committee on National Security Strategy.

If it is discovered that Jonathan Powell did warn off the CPS from pursuing the cases against Cash and Berry, then Powell should resign or be sacked.

Unless, of course, Powell was simply doing the bidding of the Prime Minister or the then Foreign Secretary, the intellectual colossus who is David Lammy.

If that’s the case then THEY should resign.

One way or another, we cannot allow Chinese spies to run amok in this country of ours just because we want to trouser some more wonga down the line, through Chinese investment.

This is a truly important week for Starmer.

The Chinese spygate scandal is the most serious he has faced since taking office last July.

It could yet be the finish of the man.

Which won’t make me lose a terrific amount of sleep, I have to tell you.

THE Man Who Never Sweats is probably feeling a bit moist under the armpits right now.

It has been discovered that Prince Andrew was still sending chummy texts to disgraced paedo Jeffrey Epstein long after the royal said he was.

Andrew is alleged to have messaged him to say: “We are in this together.”

This happened 12 weeks after the point at which Andrew claimed, in that BBC interview, to have cut off all contact with the odious slimeball.

It’s high time King Charles took action and kicked Andrew out of his Royal Lodge home in Windsor Great Park.

I’M sure there must be some people on those pro-Palestinian marches who are not actually dyed-in-the-wool antisemites.

But if so, how do they react to a comrade saying that they “don’t give a f***” about the Jewish community?

Or the protesters in Glasgow who unfurled a banner praising the “martyrs” of Hamas for murdering about 1,200 Israeli civilians and taking 251 hostage on October 7, 2023?

Or the chants about killing the IDF?

Or the demands for Israel to cease to exist?

Or for a global intifada?

It is one thing to have a few doubts about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It is altogether another to stand alongside rabid, Jew-hating jihadis, chanting their odious slogans.

Isn’t it time these fellow travellers had a Mitchell and Webb moment and asked themselves: “Hey . . . are we the BAD guys?”