dodges

Pam Bondi dodges questions on Epstein and Bongino amid Justice Department turmoil

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi suggested Tuesday that she has no plans to step down as she dodged questions about Jeffrey Epstein and her clash with a top FBI official, seeking to press ahead with a business-as-usual approach in the face of right-wing outrage that has plunged the Justice Department into turmoil.

Pressed by reporters during an announcement touting drug seizures, Bondi sidestepped questions about the fallout of the Trump administration’s decision not to release more records related to the wealthy financier’s sex trafficking investigation that has angered high profile members of President Trump’s base. With some calling for her resignation, Bondi made clear she intends to remain attorney general.

“I’m going to be here for as long as the president wants to be here,” Bondi said. “And I believe he’s made that crystal clear.”

The announcement at the Drug Enforcement Administration headquarters of recent methamphetamine and fentanyl seizures represents an effort by Bondi to turn the page on the Epstein controversy and show that the Justice Department is forging ahead after days of mounting criticism from figures in the MAGA movement furious over the administration’s failure to deliver long-sought government secrets about Epstein. But her refusal to address the turmoil may only further frustrate conservative influencers who have been calling for transparency and accountability over the wealthy financier’s case.

“This today is about fentanyl overdoses throughout our country and people who have lost loved ones to fentanyl,” Bondi said in response to a question from a reporter about the Epstein files. “That’s the message that we’re here to send today. I’m not going to talk about Epstein.”

Trump has been seeking to tamp down criticism of his attorney general and defended her again earlier Tuesday, saying she handled the matter “very well.” Trump said it’s up to her whether to release any more records, adding that “whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.”

Asked about Trump’s comment, Bondi said the Justice Department memo released last week announcing that no additional evidence would become public “speaks for itself and we’ll get back to you on anything else.”

The turmoil over the department’s handling of the Epstein matter spilled into public view last week with reports of a internal clash between Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. Part of the dispute centered on a story from the news organization NewsNation that cited a “source close to the White House” as saying the FBI would have released the Epstein files months ago if it could have done so on its own. The story included statements from Bondi, Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel refuting the premise, but not Bongino.

Asked Tuesday whether she believes Bongino should remain in his role, Bondi said only that she would not discuss personnel matters. Bondi stressed that she had spent the morning with Patel, adding that: “I think we all are committed to working together now to make America safe again and that’s what we’re doing.”

Bondi had already been under scrutiny after an earlier document release in February that she hyped and handed out in binders to conservative influencers at the White House lacked any new revelations. When that first release flopped, Bondi accused officials of withholding files from her and claimed that the FBI later turned over a “truckload” of evidence with thousands of pages of additional documents.

Despite promises that more files were on their way to the public, however, the Justice Department determined after a months-long review that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” according to the memo released last week.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump’s new ban dodges pitfalls faced by last attempt, experts say

Emily Atkinson and Neha Gohil

BBC News

Getty Images A group of people march in the street in New YorkGetty Images

Trump’s first travel ban triggered protests across the US in 2017

US President Donald Trump has issued a sweeping new travel ban for people from 12 countries, revisiting a hallmark policy of his first term in office.

There are some key differences, however.

The original travel ban suffered a series of legal defeats. This time, the policy appears to have been designed to avoid the same pitfalls.

Its predecessor, which targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries and was dubbed the “Muslim ban” by critics, was ordered just a week after Trump took office in 2017, during his first term in the White House.

The ban was amended twice to overcome court challenges, after opponents argued it was unconstitutional and illegal because it discriminated against travellers based on their religion.

A scaled-back version was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, which this new ban closely resembles.

Legal experts told the BBC that it appeared Trump had learned lessons from his first attempt.

Christi Jackson, an expert in US immigration law at the London firm Laura Devine Immigration, said the new ban was more legally robust as a result.

While the first lacked “clarity”, the new restrictions were “wider in scope” and had “clearly defined” exemptions, she said.

While there are some similarities in the nations chosen by the 2017 ban and the 2025 ban, Muslim-majority states are not the express target of the latest order.

Barbara McQuade, professor of law at the University of Michigan and former US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told the BBC World Service’s Newshour programme that, on this basis, it seemed likely to win the approval of the Supreme Court, if it was ever referred up to that level.

The 12 countries subject to the harshest restrictions from 9 June are mainly in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean, including Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia.

There will be partial restrictions on travellers from another seven countries, including Cuban and Venezuelan nationals.

Trump said the strength of the restrictions would be graded against the severity of the perceived threat, including from terrorism.

But besides Iran, none of the 12 countries hit by the outright ban are named on the US government’s state sponsors of terrorism list.

In a video announcing the ban posted on X, Trump cited Sunday’s incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which a man was accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators attending a march for Israeli hostages.

The alleged attacker was an Egyptian national. However, Egypt does not appear on either list.

Watch: President Trump announces travel ban from “high-risk regions”

Trump also specified high rates of people overstaying their visas as a reason for listing certain countries.

However, Steven D Heller, an immigration lawyer based in the US, said there was a “lack of clarity” over what threshold had to be met by a country’s overstaying rate in order for that country to be placed on Trump’s ban list. That could be the basis for a successful legal challenge, he suggested.

“If they’re relying on this notion of excessive overstay rates… they have to define what that actually means,” he told the BBC.

Unlike the first ban, which was to last for only 90 to 120 days, today’s order has no end date.

It has been met with dismay in the targeted countries.

Venezuela has described the Trump administration as “supremacists who think they own the world”, though Somalia has pledged to “engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised”.

The original ban spurred mass protests and sowed chaos at US airports.

It was repealed in 2021 by Trump’s successor, President Joe Biden, who called the policy “a stain on our national conscience.”

Source link

Kavanaugh sticks to his position on guns, dodges questions about abortion and presidential power

Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday defended his broad view of gun rights and skepticism of federal regulatory agencies, but left uncertain his position on abortion and refused to detail his views on executive power, including whether a president can be ordered to answer questions in a criminal investigation.

Facing senators during a second day of his confirmation hearing that began in the morning and stretched well into the night, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee proved adept at giving lengthy answers without fully revealing his views on matters of controversy.

“You’re learning to filibuster,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told him when he steered around her question on whether the president is shielded from being investigated or questioned while in office.

As the evening wore on, none of the exchanges seemed to have changed the vote count in favor of Kavanaugh’s narrow confirmation. At only one point during the hearing — faced with questions about his knowledge of emails allegedly stolen from Democratic senators during the George W. Bush administration — did the otherwise well-prepared nominee appear flustered.

On presidential power, in particular, Kavanaugh seemed to come armed with a well-honed set of responses to questions about his previous writings.

In law review articles in 1998 and 2009, Kavanaugh said the president “should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office” and should not be subject to investigations or questioning. The “Constitution seems to dictate” that Congress, not a special prosecutor, should investigate a president for lawbreaking, he wrote.

But when pressed repeatedly by Democrats on Wednesday, Kavanaugh contended that he has never taken a position on whether the Constitution allows for indicting or investigating a sitting president for criminal wrongdoing. He did say a president could be tried and convicted after leaving office, whether at the end of a term or because of impeachment.

“I don’t think anyone thinks of immunity” for a president, he said.

The issue has taken on new significance because Trump is caught up in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and could be called to answer questions from a grand jury.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), joining other Republicans in trying to help the nominee articulate his views, asked Kavanaugh “whether you have any trouble ruling against a president who appointed you.”

“You’re correct. No one is above the law in our constitutional system,” Kavanaugh said. “The executive branch is subject to the law, subject to the court system.”

Kavanaugh passed up a chance to show his independence from Trump when Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) asked him whether he thought it was appropriate for the president to attack Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions for his prosecutors’ indictments of two GOP congressmen — Reps. Chris Collins of New York and Duncan Hunter of Alpine — ahead of the November election. Trump said it might endanger their reelection, ignoring the serious criminal charges against the men. Kavanaugh declined to offer his opinion. He also rebuffed a request from one Democratic senator that he recuse himself from any future cases involving the Mueller investigation of Trump and his campaign.

When Feinstein asked, “Can a sitting a president be required to respond to a subpoena?” Kavanaugh would not answer. “That’s a hypothetical question,” he said. “I can’t give you an answer to a hypothetical question.”

Kavanaugh did endorse as correct the Supreme Court’s 1974 ruling in United States vs. Nixon, which required President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes. It was “one of the greatest moments in American judicial history,” he said.

But he refused to give a similar endorsement for the 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which established a woman’s right to abortion. Feinstein tried to get him to say whether the ruling was correct; Kavanaugh said only that it was entitled to respect as a precedent.

Most legal experts predict that Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will provide the fifth conservative vote on the court to at least restrict abortion rights, if not overturn Roe. During his campaign, Trump promised to appoint only judges who would vote to overturn the abortion ruling.

But Kavanaugh seemed eager to raise some doubts about those predictions.

“I understand the significance on the issue,” he said Wednesday. “I don’t live in a bubble. I live in the real world.”

Kavanaugh noted several times that the 1973 abortion decision had been repeatedly affirmed, and that a 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which affirmed much of Roe, in effect created a “precedent on precedent.”

And he made an analogy to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s decision not to overturn the so-called Miranda rights disclosure requirement for criminal suspects. Rehnquist had long opposed the Miranda ruling, but then decided it was too late to overturn it, he noted. It’s also true, however, that Rehnquist found ways to narrow the ruling’s impact.

Kavanaugh’s remarks about Roe may have been largely directed at two female Republican senators, who support abortion rights and whose votes will be key to his confirmation. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have not announced how they will vote.

But Kavanaugh gave no assurances about how he might vote, and nothing he said committed him to any particular outcome. In the past, some Supreme Court nominees have spoken about the importance of respecting precedents, and then once on the court voted to overturn them.

Feinstein, for one, seem unsatisfied. “We can’t accept vague promises from Brett Kavanaugh when women’s reproductive freedom is at stake,” she said on Twitter.

Live chat: Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in the Senate »

Last fall, Kavanaugh was involved in a dispute over whether a migrant teenager in Texas could be released from immigration custody to obtain an abortion. A federal judge cleared the way, but Kavanaugh wrote a 2-1 decision siding with Trump administration lawyers and blocking the abortion for up to 10 more days. The full appeals court intervened and overturned his ruling.

In dissent, Kavanaugh faulted his more liberal colleagues for wrongly creating a “new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain abortion on demand.”

He defended that ruling Wednesday, stressing that the girl was 17 and not yet an adult. “If she had been an adult, she would have had a right to obtain an abortion immediately,” he told Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Durbin rejected the distinction, noting that the teenager had appeared before a state judge in Texas who decided she was sufficiently mature to make the decision on her own.

On guns, Kavanaugh stuck fast to his support of a broad 2nd Amendment right to possess many types of weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle with a large magazine of ammunition.

He dissented alone in 2011 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a D.C. ordinance that prohibited semiautomatic “assault weapons.”

Three years before, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a law prohibiting possession of a handgun at home and established a 2nd Amendment individual right for gun ownership.

Feinstein asked why Kavanaugh believed semiautomatic weapons could not be banned, when appellate judges across the country had upheld such restrictions.

“I had to follow precedent,” Kavanaugh replied. He said the late Justice Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment did not protect weapons that are “dangerous and unusual,” and semiautomatic rifles are not unusual, he said. They are “widely possessed” by millions of gun owners, he said.

Kavanaugh did not back off, even when Feinstein spoke about the wave of mass shootings at schools using assault weapons. He stuck to the same position later when pressed by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

On the question of presidential power, Kavanaugh said that “no one is above the law,” a standard response by nominees.

But he declined to answer questions about whether Trump could pardon himself or pardon someone in exchange for an agreement not to testify against him, saying those were “hypothetical” questions that he couldn’t answer without potentially prejudging issues that might come before the courts.

The one issue that seemed to throw the nominee came from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who confronted him with what the senator said was evidence that a Republican staff member during George W. Bush’s administration had supplied Kavanaugh — who was then helping to confirm judges — with information that had been stolen from Democratic files. Leahy said the information detailed what the senator planned to ask nominees during confirmation hearings.

Leahy, whose emails were stolen, quizzed Kavanaugh on whether he knowingly used the stolen documents, noting that Kavanaugh was included in an email chain discussing the information. Kavanaugh said he did not recall. “I don’t really have a specific recollection of any of this,” he told lawmakers.

Leahy said later Wednesday that Grassley agreed to release documents related to the materials he said were stolen, which are now confined only to lawmakers on the committee.

Grassley’s office didn’t make the same pledge. Spokesman Taylor Foy said Grassley would “do his best to accommodate this last-minute request,” adding that waiving the classification would require input from the White House and former President Bush.

Some of the most robust exchanges came near the end from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who has developed a reputation for her tough questioning of Trump nominees during confirmation hearings.

Harris referred back to Kavanaugh’s remark about a “precedent on precedent” concerning Roe vs. Wade, and asked if it were not true that any five justices could overturn a precedent if they wanted.

“There’s a reason why the Supreme Court doesn’t do that,” Kavanaugh responded. “There are times” when the justices do, he said, but it’s “rare.”

She also pressed Kavanaugh on whether he had any conversations about the Mueller investigation with anyone at a law firm founded by one of the president’s lawyers. Kavanaugh avoided answering the question several times, finally saying he remembered no such conversation. A Democratic aide said that Harris’ staff was continuing to investigate the matter.

Kavanaugh was pressed repeatedly to explain his relationship with Judge Alex Kozinski, the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who retired last December after he was accused of sexually harassing female law clerks.

In 1991, Kavanaugh moved to Pasadena to work for one year as a law clerk for Kozinski. And he continued to consult with Kozinski over the years.

Kavanaugh said he had never heard of Kozinski harassing laws clerks or engaging in improper behavior until it was revealed last year in news stories. “It was a gut punch for me,” he said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said she was skeptical of his response. “It was an open secret, and it went on for 30 years,” she said.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) had a combative exchange with Kavanaugh while trying to pin the nominee down about his views on affirmative action. Booker asked if Kavanaugh believed that having a diverse student body is a compelling government interest that would justify considering race in admissions. Kavanaugh would not comment on his views, instead focusing on the Supreme Court’s precedent on affirmative action.

“I know what the law is now,” Booker said. “I’m worried about what the law is going to be when you get on the court.”

»

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


UPDATES:

7:05 p.m.: This article was updated after Harris spoke.

5:30 p.m.: This article was updated with Booker’s comments and other new details.

4:55 p.m.: This article was updated with more details from the hearing.

3:30 p.m.: This article was updated with more comments from Feinstein, Kavanaugh and others.

9:50 a.m.: This article was updated with details about Miranda, presidential power and Leahy’s questions.

8:15 a.m.: This article was updated with Kavanaugh’s comments about gun rights.

This article was originally published at 8 a.m.

Source link

Watch moment worker runs for his life & dodges death by just inches as chemical tanks explode around him killing five

THIS is the shocking moment a massive explosion shook a chemical plant in eastern China’s Shandong province.

Terrifying footage shows the moment of the eruption at the Gaomi Youdao Chemical plant in the city of Weifang at around midday local time.

Worker on platform near industrial smoke plume.

3

An explosion at a chemical plant in the eastern Chinese province of Shandong killed at least five people
Large containers engulfed in flames.

3

The blast occurred a few minutes before noon local time

Images show the roaring inferno followed by billows of black smoke rising high into the sky.

Emergency Services sent more than 230 firefighters and 55 vehicles to the scene to try and bring the blaze caused by the explosion under control.

The explosion killed at least five people while 19 are reportedly injured, according to local emergency management authorities.

A further six people are currently missing.

A local resident told the The Associated Press news agency that his home – located than 7km (4.3 miles) from the plant – shook from the impact of the explosion.

The plant manufactures pesticides as well as chemicals for medical use, and has more than 500 employees, according to corporate registration records.

Local fire officials sent more than 230 personnel to the scene, according to state broadcaster China Central Television.

Workplace safety has improved over the years in China but remains a stubborn problem.

The National Ministry of Emergency Management recorded 21,800 incidents and 19,600 deaths in 2024.

A recent spate of such accidents has prompted calls from President Xi Jinping for “deep reflection” and greater efforts to stop them.

Horror moment dirty water pipe EXPLODES near tourists’ balconies on Costa Del Sol

Last month, at least 15 people were killed and 44 injured in a fire at a residential building in the eastern city of Nanjing.

In January, dozens died after a fire broke out at a store in the central city of Xinyu, with state news agency Xinhua reporting the blaze had been caused by the “illegal” use of fire by workers in the store’s basement.

That fire came just days after a late-evening blaze at a school in central Henan province killed 13 schoolchildren as they slept in a dormitory.

Domestic media reports suggested the fire was caused by an electric heating device.

Meanwhile, a deadly explosion ripped through a fried chicken shop in northern China, killing two people and injuring 26 more last year.

Shops, homes, and cars were completely destroyed in the horror blast, which is believed to have been caused by a gas leak, according to state reported at the time.

Large explosion at an industrial facility.

3

Windows of nearby buildings were ripped from their hinges by the explosion

Source link