evidence

Since Israel launched its latest war on Gaza, Palestinian activist Mohammad Hannoun has been a figurehead in demonstrations across Italy.

Wrapped in a keffiyeh and waving the national flag, as head of the Palestinian Association in Italy he delivered impassioned speeches condemning the Italian government’s military cooperation with Israel and demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza.

The 63-year-old Jordanian national, who lives in the port city of Genoa and is an architect by profession, was arrested in December, under the accusation of having raised around 7 million euros ($8.1m) through his non-profit Association of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (ABSPP) that allegedly ended up in Hamas’s coffers.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expressed “appreciation and satisfaction” when the so-called “Operation Domino” led to the arrest of nine people, including Hannoun, described by investigators as the “head of the Italian cell of the Hamas organisation”.

But Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation last month demanded a “comprehensive re-evaluation” of the evidence, describing it as too “generic”, according to the ruling seen by Al Jazeera.

The material presented in court consisted of Israeli intelligence sent to Italian authorities, as well as open-source online information whose provenance and reliability had not been established.

Hannoun’s case is not an isolated one.

Last month, Amin Abu Rashid, a Dutch national of Palestinian origin, was acquitted in the Netherlands by the Rotterdam District Court of financing Hamas, after a years-long legal battle landed him in jail for a year. Similarly, the evidence had relied on Israeli government reports and unverified newspaper articles.

The UK-based advocacy organisation CAGE International described Abu Rashid’s acquittal as a “direct rebuke of the use of Israeli intelligence as the basis for prosecuting Palestinian humanitarian organisers in Europe”.

Anas Mustapha, head of public advocacy at CAGE, told Al Jazeera that relying on Israeli evidence to prosecute Palestinians was tantamount to relying on Chinese information to try Hong Kong dissidents.

This practice constitutes a “major threat to the rule of law in Europe”, he said.

“Israeli intelligence is being laundered through European legal systems to suppress Palestinian civil society,” said Mustapha. “The aim is to disrupt and restrict activism and action against the state of Israel.”

‘Battlefield evidence’

Nicola Canestrini, who is among the lawyers representing the nine defendants including Hannoun, liaised with Abu Rashid’s representatives over the course of several months to challenge the use of so-called “battlefield evidence” in both Italian and Dutch courts.

The term refers to evidence collected by military forces during active hostilities or combat operations. Just like a standard crime scene, the collection of this type of evidence under European requirements must be presented with a chain of custody – the chronological documentation of the seizure, transfer, analysis, and storage of the materials.

In Hannoun’s case, the files alleging cooperation between the ABSPP and Hamas’s military wing were not accompanied by a chain of custody, but sent by an Israeli official “whose personal details remain confidential”, according to court documents.

The only indication of their provenance was the word “Avi”, which Canestrini said was later found to mean Israeli intelligence official Avi Abramson.

The evidence purportedly originated from hard drives found in Gaza’s hospitals as they were taken over by Israeli forces, namely in al-Shifa, al-Rantisi and Jabalia, as well as the Maghazi refugee camp and other locations across the Gaza Strip.

United Nations experts and organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have found that Israeli military actions in Gaza, including the forcible displacement of patients from those hospitals, amount to war crimes.

Canestrini and his legal team argued in court that unverifiable evidence collected by a state undergoing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was inadmissible.

“There’s a short-circuit in the legal system that is very troublesome for the rule of law,” the lawyer told Al Jazeera. “We’re seeing a foreign state under investigation for war crimes and crimes against humanity bringing evidence forward, and Italian authorities copying and pasting it in their reports.”

Additionally, rather than file an arrest warrant through established international cooperation channels, Israel sent the documents through a “spontaneous information exchange”. That measure bypasses oversight mechanisms established by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and the UN Military Evidence Guidelines.

“I believe this was done wilfully to avoid checks and balances that guarantee the respect of human rights,” the lawyer said.

Al Jazeera contacted Italian officials Riccardo Perisi, director of the Service for Combatting Extremism and External Terrorism, and District Attorney Marco Zocco, who declined to comment on Hannoun’s case due to ongoing legal proceedings. Avi Abramson, the Israeli intelligence official identified as the source of the evidence, did not respond to requests for comment.

Crackdown on dissent

Palestinian solidarity has been repressed across Europe since Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, with protest bans, police violence and a wave of legal prosecution.

According to the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), an independent organisation offering legal assistance to organisations and individuals advocating for Palestine, European states have systematically deployed “counterterrorism” and “public order” measures against Palestine solidarity efforts.

ELSC found a pattern of repression to “demobilise opposition to the Israeli genocide against Palestinians” in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France, “advanced through alliances between state actors, Zionist lobby groups, and arms manufacturers”.

In Italy, activities around Palestinian solidarity are increasingly “equated with terrorism,” Italo Di Sabato, the national coordinator of Osservatorio Repressione (Observatory on Repression), an Italian organisation focused on tracking state control and defending the right to protest, told Al Jazeera.

The observatory documented cases in which pro-Palestinian activists were targeted by lawsuits, searches and administrative sanctions. “The objective is stifling any real form of solidarity with the Palestinian people,” Di Sabato said.

He argued that accepting opaque evidence to be used against Hannoun would have created a dangerous legal precedent.

“Israel’s aim was to have a free zone where everything is permitted,” Di Sabato said. “The political meaning of the Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling is that the rule of law cannot be suspended when we deal with Palestine.

“What today constitutes the basis for the repression of Palestinian activism could tomorrow be the basis for the repression of any form of dissent.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — President Trump’s loyalist federal prosecutor in Los Angeles — has not been shy in recent days about his intention to ferret out voter fraud in California’s primary election and criminally charge those responsible.

He has announced that his office “has multiple election fraud investigations underway” in coordination with the FBI, urged Californians on social media to submit evidence of “potential election fraud” directly to his office, and said flatly he “will be charging some people” with election fraud — just as soon as California certifies its vote count and his office “can prove some of the allegations.”

Essayli’s public callouts and promises are highly unusual and in direct conflict with Justice Department guidance on ballot fraud investigations at the federal level, which states federal prosecutors should not publicly pursue such claims amid of vote counting.

The Justice Manual — which regulates the actions of federal prosecutors nationwide — says the department “should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded,” in part because doing so “runs the risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities and of interjecting the investigation itself into ongoing campaigns and the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.”

Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesman for Essayli’s office, said neither Essayli nor the office had any comment.

Essayli has repeatedly acknowledged in other interviews that he has no evidence of widespread fraud that could sway the results of races, and he even shot down one prominent online conspiracy that falsely alleged Democratic cheating in the Los Angeles mayoral race.

But he has also pointed to more isolated instances of fraud as potentially indicative of bigger problems. He added that there’s no proof such rampant fraud isn’t occurring, partly because of resistance from California to a federal audit of its voter rolls.

Essayli’s remarks are part of a much wider battle to frame fraud in California as pivotal or not, in which Republicans cite individual instances of alleged fraud as evidence of some grand scheme by Democrats to steal the election from them, and Democrats — along with many elections experts — say there is no evidence that isolated crimes reflect fraud on a scale large enough to impact election outcomes.

His remarks have added fuel to baseless claims from Trump and other influential conservative voices that California’s elections have been poorly compromised by coordinated Democratic “cheating.” They have made Essayli one of the most prominent Trump administration figures in the nationwide debate around election integrity — which election experts expect to intensify ahead of November’s midterms.

A public campaign

Essayli has made his case in recent days on various alternative and right-wing news programs and podcasts, arguing that California’s slow process for counting votes had undermined public trust and needs to be audited.

On One America News Network, Essayli said his office has been “sounding the alarm on California’s election system” because it’s ripe for fraud.

“We believe that it has major vulnerabilities. We believe California does not have sufficient safeguards to make sure only eligible U.S. citizens are voting in elections in California, and that is why we’ve been demanding an audit of the California voter rolls,” he said.

On NewsNation with Chris Cuomo, Essayli said he doesn’t “care what the outcome of the election is,” but wants voters “to have confidence in the systems, and that the laws are being followed.”

“I guarantee you, when we do bring cases, we will have plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law — that is how we work,” he said.

On the podcast of conservative commentator Glenn Beck, Essayli said he was “prohibited from discussing ongoing investigations,” but that “election fraud is not a theory” but “a real thing” — noting his office recently secured a guilty plea from a woman who paid homeless people to register to vote.

He said California is “a fraudster’s paradise,” accused the state Legislature of “going out of their way to make it as easy as possible for people to commit fraud,” and repeated oft-cited complaints about California’s voter ID policies being lax, its universal mail ballot policies sending ballots to the wrong places, its ballot collection policies allowing “harvesting” and its voter rolls being “dirty,” or filled with ineligible voters.

Essayli said all of that makes his job “incredibly difficult,” because “California has removed the paper trail, they’ve removed the chain of custody, they’ve removed any meaningful way for us to basically have a forensic audit of where a ballot came from,” but that he will nonetheless be bringing election fraud charges in the next “one to two months.”

State and local elections officials in California have defended the state’s policies as facilitating voting by as many eligible voters as possible, which they say is more important than a quick count. They’ve said there are robust procedures in place to ensure ballots are cast fairly and counted accurately, and to identify any problems and audit the results.

Elections experts say instances of fraud do exist, both in California and everywhere else in the country, but that robust efforts in past years to investigate and identify widespread fraud that could sway an election — including by Trump and his lawyers but also outside organizations — have always failed.

Essayli’s efforts have drawn sharp criticism from elections experts, leading Democrats and former prosecutors in the office.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who studies elections and was a senior policy adviser on democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House, said what Essayli is doing — throwing out unspecified claims of fraud amid an ongoing election and before he has built a case — is “absolutely nuts” and “not a thing that real prosecutors do.”

Before the current administration, the “mantra” of federal prosecutors, he said, was that “you only hold a press conference about a not-yet-concluded investigation when the public is already aware of a large crime,” such as a mass shooting. “Absent that, you wait for the facts to come in, and you see whether there has been a legal violation, and then and only then do you issue a press release — usually hand in hand with an indictment or a conviction.”

In an election, Levitt said the standard is even higher, and “the ethos of a federal prosecutor should be to never become the story, and to never make the prosecutorial job itself an impact in the election you are investigating.”

In an MS NOW interview, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former federal prosecutor in the L.A. office, blasted Essayli as wildly searching for fraud to please Trump — despite it and other efforts to please Trump, including on immigration, causing an exodus of experienced career prosecutors from the office.

Schiff said Essayli was “basically making a plea to the public: ‘Please send me evidence. I’m asserting there’s fraud. We don’t have evidence of it, but please send me something. I need to make the boss happy.’”

Another former prosecutor in the office, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation, said Essayli is pursuing alleged election fraud cases as hard as he is only because “Trump told him to,” and he’s “constantly auditioning for a bigger D.C. job in case he gets kicked out of his current one.”

Essayli is not the U.S. attorney for Los Angeles — only the “first assistant” — because he has been unable to win confirmation from the U.S. Senate and has only remained in charge through a legal loophole.

Investigations in the works

It’s unclear what specific issues or incidents Essayli’s office is investigating.

Essayli has said his investigations so far lean toward individuals rather than networks, and he told the California Post that he would be investigating a report that thousands of people were registered to vote at homeless shelters with far fewer beds.

His office also looked into false claims that an election night ballot update in Los Angeles County include no votes for Spencer Pratt, the Republican candidate. He said his office “reviewed official county records” and determined the claim was false.

“My office will continue monitoring the election counting process and will follow the evidence wherever it leads,” he said.

One person involved in investigating the latter case was Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Renner, who joined the office in March after previously serving as deputy general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit Washington, D.C., law firm where he worked on lawsuits focused on conservative free-speech issues, according to his LinkedIn page.

A worker carries ballots at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Renner, who referred questions to the office spokesperson, visited an L.A. County ballot processing center as part of the investigation, where he questioned election officials about the ballot update, according to a law enforcement source with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Election officials have said their numbers were always correct and that the discrepancy was based on a one-minute lag in vote updates for Pratt by The Associated Press, which also confirmed the lag.

Renner also grilled election officials about whether or not post office officials had backdated postmarks on mail ballots sent after election day so they could still be counted, the source said.

Essayli’s elevation to the top prosecutor position in L.A. was part of a broader push by the Trump administration to fill key Justice Department roles with people loyal to the president and open to his election skepticism. Earlier this year, a Times investigation detailed how disgraced ex-L.A. County prosecutor Eric Neff was named “acting chief” of the Justice Department’s voting section.

Neff led a bungled election integrity case at the L.A. County district attorney’s office that was thrown out after an internal review revealed it hinged on the word of “Stop The Steal” activists who had pushed Trump’s discredited theory that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.”

It was one of two election integrity cases Neff tried in his entire career before being elevated to the voting chief post by Asst. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, another proud Trump loyalist from California.

Michael Sanchez, a spokesperson for Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, said the office has not received any formal document requests or investigation notices from Essayli’s office, only “routine questions about operations.”

What will come of Essayli’s investigations is also unclear. He will have to prove whatever allegations he makes in court — which he has repeatedly appeared to begrudge in recent interviews.

“Instead of putting the burden on the system to reassure the people [that] only legal citizens are voting, one person one vote is the law of the land, and the burden on the system to assure us that there’s integrity and we can believe in it,” he complained to Beck, “they’ve flipped it and now it’s on us to prove every allegation of fraud.”

New surveillance footage and other evidence from Southern California Edison confirms that a century-old, idle transmission line that the utility failed to remove ignited last year’s deadly Eaton wildfire, lawyers for insurers said in a court filing.

Video obtained from a surveillance camera at Gerrish Swim & Tennis Club in Pasadena shows two bright flashes occurring in the location of the tower holding the idle line at 6:11 p.m. on Jan. 7, 2025.

The flashes correspond to the time that Edison recorded two faults, three seconds apart, on another transmission line more than five miles away, the lawyers said in the filing, citing new data provided by the utility.

Soon after the faults, residents nearby recorded videos of a fire burning at the base of the tower, which is known as M16T1.

“Southern California Edison has spent the last sixteen months attempting to forestall the inevitable legal consequences of razing a large swath of the communities of Altadena and Pasadena to the ground,” the lawyers wrote in the filing.

“The Eaton Fire could not have occurred if SCE had simply disassembled and removed Structure M16T1,” the lawyers added.

The lawyers filing the May 18 motion represent property insurers that paid tens of millions of dollars to residents who lost their homes. Their motion asks the judge to order a judgment in the insurers’ favor that would make Edison liable for the damage under inverse condemnation, a legal doctrine in the state constitution.

Courts have ruled that the doctrine requires private utilities such as Edison to pay for property they destroy, even if they haven’t been found to have acted negligently.

Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Edison, said the company did not learn about the existence of the swim club video until the lawyers submitted it in court with their filing.

“It’s very disappointing and inappropriate that this video was not produced in discovery,” she said. “We hope that video has been turned over to the appropriate authorities.”

Dunleavy said the company believes the lawyers’ motion “is wrong on the facts and the law.”

“We’ll respond more fully in our own court filing,” she said.

Attorneys for the insurers did not respond to requests for comment.

In a February 2025 letter to state regulators, Edison said it had detected a single fault on a line more than five miles away from Altadena about 6:11 p.m. on the night the fire ignited. It said the fault caused a brief surge of electricity on its four live transmission lines in Eaton Canyon.

The company said in the letter that it was looking into whether the power surge could have caused electricity to jump to the idle line that runs parallel to the live wires through a process called induction.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, later said that a leading theory of the fire’s ignition was that the idle line became energized briefly through induction, sparking the fire.

At the same time, the company has not accepted blame for the fire, saying repeatedly that its own confidential investigation into the cause, as well as a separate inquiry by Los Angeles County and state fire officials, is continuing.

According to the court filing, evidence obtained by the lawyers shows that the company stopped using the transmission line in 1971 and designated it as “out-of-service.”

“The declaration of Out of Service shall only be used when the line … or piece of equipment is expected to remain permanently out of service,” Edison stated in an internal document known as a system operating bulletin, according to the filing.

Edison executives told The Times last year that they left the line in place because they believed it might be needed in the future.

“We have these inactive lines still available because there is a reasonable chance we’re going to use them in the future,” Shinjini Menon, Edison’s senior vice president of system planning and engineering, said then.

Dunleavy said Friday that the idle lines are kept in place for a variety of reasons, including to preserve the right of way Edison had obtained to construct them and to support future needs for more electricity as the state aims to meet its clean energy goals.

Last year, The Times reported that state regulators, knowing old electric lines posed hazards, proposed a rule in 2001 that would have forced Edison and other utilities to remove idle lines unless they could prove they would use them in the future.

Under pressure from Edison and the other companies, the rule was weakened to allow utilities to keep the unused lines in place until executives decided they were “permanently abandoned.”

In their May 18 filing, the lawyers said Edison executives had known about the risk of induction for more than 100 years. They cited a 1923 contract between Edison and Pacific Electric Railway Co. that said that “leakage of electricity or induction from or between” conductors was an inherent risk of operating multiple electrical circuits in proximity.

“That’s why SCE grounds idle lines and inspects them,” Dunleavy said of the risk.

Copies of Edison’s fault records from that night, its operating bulletin and thousands of other documents, including depositions, are sealed from public view under a protective order that Edison and lawyers for the victims asked the judge to approve last year.

The L.A. County district attorney is investigating whether Edison should be criminally prosecuted for its actions in the fire, the company said in an investor filing this year.

The fire killed at least 19 people and left thousands of families homeless.

A hearing on the lawyers’ motion is scheduled for Aug. 11 in L.A. County Superior Court.

Edison has offered to compensate victims of the fire who give up their right to sue the utility.

The company said last week that it had so far received more than 3,500 claims from about 10,000 people. It said it had extended nearly 1,900 offers to those people, totaling more than $650 million.

Many victims have refused the offers, saying they don’t fully cover their losses from the devastating blaze.

Edison has told its investors it expects to actually pay little or nothing for the fire because of a 2019 state law. The company anticipates that it will be reimbursed for its payments to victims by a $21-billion fund created by the law known as
Assembly Bill 1054.

The law shields utilities from the damages of fires sparked by their equipment as long as they follow certain requirements, including submitting a plan to state regulators for reducing the risk that their equipment sparks fires. Regulators review the plan and track whether the utilities are making progress in reducing the fire risk.

Since 2019, Edison has spent billions of dollars on making its lines safer, including by undergrounding them and installing insulated wires. Those costs continue to raise customer electric bills.

In the last 10 years, Edison’s rates increased by 101%, according to an April report by the public advocates office at the California Public Utilities Commission.

Despite the spending, Edison’s electric lines sparked more fires in 2024 than in 2019. The company blamed the increase on erratic weather that created more dried vegetation.

To the surprise of few, President Trump has once again claimed without evidence that Democrats are somehow cheating to win California’s primary elections — writing on social media late Wednesday that federal prosecutors in Los Angeles are investigating the matter.

“The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS,” Trump posted to his social media platform Truth Social.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California. Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles,” he wrote in a second post. “Why the vote counting DELAY???”

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles — run by Trump loyalist First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — declined to comment Thursday morning on Trump’s claims of an investigation.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office responded directly to Trump late Wednesday with its own social media post, writing, “Trump is lying about California again — time to take the phone away from grandpa and put him to sleep.”

On Thursday morning, Newsom’s office wrote that there “is a lot of misinformation floating around about California’s election — including from the President,” and recommended people watch a CNN video about California’s election process. It concluded that delays in vote counting in the state are essentially a result of state leaders deciding that providing voters with “last minute options” for casting ballots is more important than a quick count.

“And yes, for the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too,” Newsom’s office wrote — a nod to the fact that the issue isn’t new.

In an email, Brandon Richards, Newsom’s deputy director for rapid response, said Trump’s claims are part of “a tinfoil hat level conspiracy theory that has been debunked repeatedly.”

The president’s claims of cheating were predicted before the election by both elections experts and Democratic leaders in California, who dismissed them in advance as more baseless bluster from a president beset by low approval ratings.

A worker puts ballots in a counting machine at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on Wednesdayin City of Industry.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Those same experts and Democratic leaders acknowledge that California’s system for counting votes takes a long time and should be quickened, but stress that is not because of anything nefarious. Rather, it is because California allows voters to cast ballots by mail up until election day — and then has to count those ballots, which can number in the millions and are subject to manual signature verification.

Trump has long dismissed such explanations. An election denier since he first entered politics more than a decade ago, Trump has pushed skepticism about elections he and his party lose time and again since — most notably when he claimed, again without evidence, that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen.

Trump even challenged Biden’s victory in court, but his claims were rejected completely because neither he nor his attorneys could produce any evidence substantiating them.

He has combined his tactic of targeting undocumented immigrants for political gain with his skepticism of election integrity by claiming, again without evidence, that such immigrants somehow vote in large numbers, particularly in big blue states such as California, despite experts saying there is no evidence of that.

He has alleged that mail ballots — such as those used by the majority of California voters — are a particularly rich source of voter fraud, despite again having no basis for the claim and it being disputed by experts.

A consistent feature of his election fraud claims is that they arise and target races only when Republicans lose or lose ground.

And, he has tried to use the power of his administration to make sweeping changes to election laws to bar mail ballots and require strict voter ID and proof of citizenship measures, despite the control of elections and their rules being constitutionally given to the states.

Those efforts have prompted a wave of litigation between the Trump administration and California and other blue states, with multiple cases pending in the courts over voter ID, proof of citizenship, mail balloting and the role that the U.S. Postal Service may be allowed to play in processing such ballots.

Trump’s latest remarks came as additional vote counting on Wednesday narrowed the advantage of Republican Steve Hilton over his Democratic challengers in the California governor’s race and closed the gap in the L.A. mayoral race between the MAGA-aligned candidate Spencer Pratt, currently running second, and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running third.

The trend was anticipated. Elections experts warned before vote counting began of the potential for a “red mirage,” wherein earlier voting among Republicans and late voting among Democrats — many of whom were unsure of whom to vote for in the two high-profile races — would create an early illusion of Republican victories despite large volumes of liberal votes from major population centers still to be counted.

It is a trend that has played out repeatedly in past elections, and one that does not come as a surprise to careful elections watchers.

Elections officials in California knew such claims were going to be made, as they’ve been made in the past. Some local elections officials made a point of preparing their staffs for baseless claims of election fraud in advance of this year’s primaries. State officials made repeated efforts to explain the reasons why California elections take time, precisely to undercut claims amid counting that the delays were the result of fraud.

But those claims have come regardless, and not just from Trump.

Above an X post Wednesday suggesting Pratt was losing ground to Raman as more counts came in, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote, “California keeps dumping votes. Odds are shifting because the vote dumps always seem to go one way. Count until you get the result you want?”

Above another X post Wednesday noting that the California count would take time, Katie Miller, a former Trump administration official and conservative podcaster married to Trump’s top advisor Stephen Miller, wrote, “The Democrats are about to steal the LA mayoral race once again using mail-in voting.”

Both of the posts that DeSantis and Miller were responding to were from Polymarket, a prediction market where people can bet on the outcomes of political races, pop culture events and a slew of other subjects.

Such emerging financial markets, which process billions of dollars in bets, are causing rising concerns about political meddling for profit — including by campaign staffers and other individuals with insider knowledge of polling and other campaign information, or by politicians and their operatives, whose public remarks about politics can swing those markets.

A Delaware Court of Chancery judge delivered a blow to wrestling impresario Vince McMahon and other World Wrestling Entertainment officials earlier this week.

Judge J. Travis Laster, vice chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, issued sanctions for “spoliation of evidence” in the shareholder lawsuit over the 2023 merger between Ultimate Fighting Championship and WWE.

Laster ruled on Tuesday that WWE executives destroyed evidence by using the auto-delete setting on the messaging app Signal, enabling potentially relevant communications to be deleted.

The ruling means the court will operate under the assumption that five potentially damaging statements are true while allowing the defendants to rebut them.

The statements, according to the ruling, include that McMahon’s decision on the merger was “influenced” by Endeavor Executive Chairman Ari Emanuel’s “promise” to provide him with a continued role at the company and to indemnify him and provide legal support as federal investigators were looking into claims of alleged sexual misconduct.

McMahon pursued a deal with Endeavor in 2022 before WWE initiated its strategic review process, and both McMahon and then-WWE President Nick Khan worked with The Raine Group, a strategic financial advisor, “to steer the process to Endeavor and away from other potential bidders,” the ruling states.

In September 2023, entertainment giant Endeavor, the parent company of UFC, acquired WWE and merged the two sports entities to form a new, publicly traded company, TKO Group Holdings, in a deal worth $21.4 billion.

A month later, a group of shareholders filed suit against McMahon and other company officials in Delaware Chancery Court, claiming McMahon orchestrated a “sham sale process.”

Representatives for McMahon, WWE and TKO were not immediately available for comment.

According to the suit, McMahon, WWE’s controlling shareholder, turned down higher offers and excluded other bidders who would have ousted him and instead chose a deal that favored Endeavor’s Emanuel, a “close friend and longtime ally,” enabling McMahon to continue running WWE and shielding him from federal investigations related to a raft of sexual misconduct claims.

The complaint also alleges that the $21.4-billion deal undervalued the company and was “far below the offers” WWE’s board could have received from other interested parties had they “made any effort to negotiate in good faith.”

The litigation is related to the 2022 investigation by WWE’s board that found that McMahon made at least $14.6 million in payments between 2006 and 2022 for “alleged misconduct.” McMahon has denied claims of misconduct.

The settlements were made to women, including WWE employees, who alleged that McMahon initiated unwanted sexual contact and coerced women into performing sexual acts on him. In one case, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, a woman claimed that McMahon sent her unsolicited nude photos of himself.

McMahon’s alleged misconduct became the subject of ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.

“I am confident that the government’s investigation will be resolved without any findings of wrongdoing,” McMahon said in a statement to The Times in 2023.

Last January, the SEC announced it had settled charges against McMahon alleging he had violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose a pair of settlement agreements to WWE worth $10.5 million.

McMahon agreed to pay more than $1.7 million in a civil penalty and in reimbursement to WWE, without admitting or denying the agency’s findings. Federal prosecutors also have dropped their criminal investigation.

In January 2024, McMahon resigned as executive chairman of the board of TKO Group, one day after a former WWE employee, Janel Grant, sued the company, McMahon and former head of talent relations John Laurinaitis, alleging sexual assault, trafficking and emotional abuse.

Grant claimed that McMahon agreed to pay her $3 million in exchange for her silence.

The shareholder trial is set to begin on June 8. McMahon, Emanuel, Khan, TKO President Mark Shapiro, and WWE Chief Content Officer Paul “Triple H” Levesque are expected to testify.

The lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student targeted for deportation by the United States government over his pro-Palestine advocacy, have called on an immigration appeals court to reopen and terminate his case.

The latest legal appeal points to new evidence, some of which was documented in media reports, that Khalil’s lawyers said it “suggests that the Trump Administration secretly engineered the outcome of his immigration case to make an example of him”.

It comes just over a month after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final order of removal for Khalil, who was first detained by immigration enforcement agents in March 2025, one of several students targeted for their participation in pro-Palestine campus protests that swept the US the previous year.

Khalil, a US permanent resident who is married to a US citizen, has long maintained that he has been unjustly targeted for his political views.

His legal team said on Friday that “apparent procedural abnormalities” support that view.

“It’s clear that the revelations of DOJ misconduct corroborate what we have known since Mahmoud was arrested–that the administration has reverse-engineered its desired outcome by weaponising a farcical proceeding littered with abnormalities,” Johnny Sinodis, a lawyer representing Khalil, said in a statement.

The new evidence includes a report by The New York Times that found that Khalil’s case had been flagged as high priority before it had arrived at the Board of Immigration Appeals, in what his lawyers say indicated the case was being “fast-tracked”.

The report, citing case documents, also found that the court had been instructed to treat Khalil’s case as if he were still in detention custody, which typically results in an expedited processing timeline.

Khalil was released from immigration detention in June 2025 following a federal judge’s order. An appeals court later ruled the judge did not have jurisdiction over the matter. He is also appealing that decision, during which time authorities are barred from re-detaining or deporting him.

The New York Times report also found that three judges at the Board of Immigration Appeals recused themselves from the case. While the reasons for the recusals were not made public, experts familiar with the board’s procedures have said the rate of recusals was extremely rare.

The Board of Immigration Appeals is meant to be independent. Like other immigration courts, it falls under the Department of Justice in the executive branch, which critics say makes it more vulnerable to interference.

Other federal courts fall under the independence of the judicial branch.

The Trump administration has framed Khalil’s deportation as part of a crackdown on anti-Semitism. They have presented no evidence to back the claims against him, and Khalil has never been charged with a crime.

This week, The Intercept news site reported that shortly after he was detained by immigration agents, the FBI had closed an investigation into a tip that Khalil had called for “violence on behalf of Hamas”, saying it did not warrant further investigation.

In targeting Khalil, US Secretary of State Marco had invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and National Act that allows the deportation of individuals deemed to be a national security threat based on “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful”.

The manoeuvre raised questions over freedom of speech and whether those protections extended to permanent residents like Khalil. The government later added the claim that Khalil had intentionally failed to disclose his past work for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) on his immigration application.

Administration officials have repeatedly stood by the claims and maintained that Khalil received proper due process.

In a statement on Friday, Khalil said the administration “wants to arrest, detain, and deport me to intimidate everyone speaking out for Palestine across this country, and they are willing to violate longstanding US rules and procedures to do it”.

He added, “No lies, corruption, or ideological persecution will stop me from advocating for Palestine and for everyone’s right to free speech.”

Cole Tomas Allen, the 31-year-old Torrance man charged with trying to kill President Trump at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, will remain in federal jail pending trial.

Allen agreed to his ongoing detention during a brief hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “He’s conceding detention at this time,” one of his federal public defenders, Tezira Abe, told Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, according to CNBC.

He did not enter a plea during the hearing, according to the Associated Press.

Abe and Allen’s other public defender, Eugene Ohm, had argued in a filing Wednesday for Allen’s pre-trial release, citing his lack of a criminal record, family support and ties to his church, as well as inconsistencies and weaknesses they allege exist in the government’s case against him.

Abe and Ohm did not respond to a request for comment following the hearing.

In addition to trying to kill Trump, a terrorism-related charge that carries a potential life sentence, Allen faces two firearms charges related to his allegedly transporting two guns across state lines as he traveled from California to Washington by Amtrak train, and allegedly discharging one of those firearms — a shotgun — during the incident.

In arguing for Allen’s release in their Wednesday filing, his attorneys not only insisted he was no danger to the community, but questioned the government’s reasoning and evidence for the charges against him.

Allen was captured on a hotel video camera sprinting past U.S. Secret Service agents and into the secured event space a floor above the dinner while armed, according to prosecutors, with the shotgun, a pistol, and various knives. He then fell to the ground and was detained, according to prosecutors.

Trump administration officials who were at the dinner, including Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., charged him swiftly — leaning heavily on an email Allen had sent to family just as he was breaching event security, which Trump and others referred to as a “manifesto” but which was titled an “Apology and Explanation.”

In that document, Allen allegedly wrote that he was targeting top Trump administration officials, with the highest ranking among them receiving top priority. He allegedly wrote that he would “go through” others at the event to get to those officials, but that he was not targeting guests or hotel staff and had chosen buck shot rather than slugs to “minimize casualties” in the room.

The charge of attempting to kill the president hung largely on that document, according to charging documents.

Blanche and Pirro also alleged that Allen had fired a shot during the encounter with Secret Service agents, in which they said a Secret Service agent was shot in the ballistic vest. Prosecutors also alleged in court that Allen had fired his shotgun, noting their recovery of one spent casing, but made no mention of a Secret Service officer being shot in the vest.

That alleged shot served as the basis for the one count of discharging a firearm.

In their filing arguing for Allen’s release, his attorneys questioned the legitimacy of both arguments.

They wrote that the government’s “sole proffered evidence” of Allen’s intent to kill Trump — the “Apology and Explanation” letter — was “far from clear” and never actually mentioned Trump by name.

“The government’s evidence of the charged offense — the attempted assassination of the president — is thus built entirely upon speculation, even under the most generous reading of its theory,” Allen’s attorneys wrote. “While the government may be able to say that the letter expresses an intent to target administration officials, it falls well short of narrowing those officials to President Trump.”

Regarding the one count of discharging a firearm, Allen’s attorneys wrote that the government “has not asserted that Mr. Allen ever fired any of the recovered weapons.” They wrote that the government, “after essentially asserting that Mr. Allen shot a Secret Service Officer in the criminal complaint, has apparently retreated from the theory by not mentioning the alleged officer at all” in its filing arguing for Allen’s ongoing detention.

In the latter document, prosecutors wrote only that an officer had seen Allen fire his shotgun “in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom.” However, they provided little evidence to support that claim, other than that the shotgun held a spent cartridge in its barrel.

“In sum,” Allen’s attorneys wrote, “the government’s entire argument about the nature and circumstances of the offense is based upon inferences drawn about Mr. Allen’s intent that raise more questions than answers.”

Prosecutors, in a separate filing in the case related to evidence gathering, rejected the defense claims.

“The preliminary analysis of the crime scene is consistent with the government’s evidence that your client fired at least one shot from the 12-gauge pump action shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G., and that Officer V.G. fired his service weapon five times,” they wrote. “The government is aware of no evidence thus far collected and analyzed that is inconsistent with the above.”

They wrote that evidence suggests Allen fired his Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action shotgun “at least one time as he ran past the magnetometers on the Terrace Level of the Washington Hilton.”

They wrote that investigators recovered one spent cartridge from the chamber of the shotgun, that the “government’s preliminary ballistics and video analyses show that your client fired his shotgun in the direction of” the Secret Service officer identified only as “V.G.,” and that “at least one fragment was recovered from the crime scene that was physically consistent with a single buckshot pellet.”

Evidence in the murder case against the singer D4vd — who is charged with the brutal killing of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez — will not become public until at least late next month, after his defense attorneys pumped the brakes on a preliminary hearing that was scheduled to take place this Friday.

David Anthony Burke, 21, was charged with murder, continuous sex abuse of a minor and mutilating a corpse earlier this month after Los Angeles police stormed a Hollywood Hills home and arrested him. He pleaded not guilty last week.

The singer has long been linked to Hernandez’s disappearance and death, after her badly decomposed body was found in the trunk of a Tesla he owned at a Hollywood tow yard last September. Authorities said Hernandez was last seen at Burke’s Hollywood residence on April 23, 2025.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said last week that Burke killed the 14-year-old because she threatened to expose the fact that he’d been sexually abusing her for nearly a year. An autopsy report made public last week revealed Hernandez died from a pair of stab wounds. Her body was dismembered when police found it in the trunk and two of her fingers had been amputated, the report said.

Burke’s lead defense attorney, Blair Berk, said she does not believe the prosecution’s case can hold up to scrutiny and pushed for an immediate preliminary hearing during his initial court appearance. Defendants have a right to a preliminary hearing, in which a judge determines whether prosecutors have enough evidence to bring a case to trial, within 10 business days. In Burke’s case, that would have put the preliminary hearing on track for May 1.

But on Wednesday afternoon, attorney Marilyn Bednarski asked that the hearing be pushed back to May 26, citing the voluminous amount of discovery in the case. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo agreed there was “good cause” to delay the hearing a few weeks.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth Silverman expressed some annoyance at Bednarski and Berk’s change of heart, noting she’d already warned the defense team that prosecutors had a trove of evidence to turn over.

Silverman said last week that discovery materials would include the results of a wiretap and searches of Burke’s cellphone and iCloud accounts, which prosecutors allege turned up “a significant amount of child pornography.” Law enforcement executed 54 search warrants in the case, according to court records.

The medical examiner’s report detailing how Hernandez died was not available to the defense until last week. Prosecutors also convened three secret grand juries between November 2025 and February 2026 to collect evidence against Burke, according to Silverman. Transcripts from those hearings were under seal as of last week.

Bednarski said Wednesday she needed “additional time to review the discovery we either just got, or are about to get, in order to have a full and free preliminary hearing.”

“We told them that this was what was going to be coming,” Silverman argued in reply. “As I said in my brief, we sent out subpoenas, we’ve been preparing, we’ve been telling witnesses to cancel planned vacations.”

Berk also sought to have Olmedo seal a filing that Silverman submitted early Wednesday that laid out evidence she plans to present at a preliminary hearing.

“The prosecution has appeared to file a rather unusual pre-preliminary hearing brief that appears to be a very one-sided view of what is anticipated as the evidence in this case. But no evidence has been presented by the prosecution in a courtroom. Certainly there has been no adjudication of the admissibility of that evidence,” Berk said, expressing worry that the publication of such materials would taint future jury pools.

Prosecutors normally file such briefs ahead of trial, which include a list of witnesses they plan to call and a summary of arguments they will make. Olmedo rejected Berk’s request to seal the motion. A copy of the document was not immediately available for review at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse.

Recently uncovered wreckage of an Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) reveals that Ukraine is employing the AIM-120C-8 version, a weapon that is close to the ‘top of the line’ for these missiles. Ukraine can employ AMRAAMs of all types from its F-16 fighters, as well as from the ground-based National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) air defense system.

A photo showing part of an AMRAAM missile body clearly marked with the AIM-120C-8 designation began to circulate online recently. According to available accounts, the wreckage was found in the aftermath of a Russian air attack on Dnipro in central Ukraine, during which the Ukrainian Armed Forces were active in defense of the city.

Previous imagery of Ukrainian F-16s had confirmed they were using some version of the AIM-120C, which can be identified on account of its cropped fins for internal carriage in the F-22 and F-35. This appears to be the first confirmation that the AIM-120C-8, specifically, has been supplied to Kyiv, in addition to earlier AIM-120A/B versions.

As we’ve discussed in the past, the AIM-120C offers some significant advantages over the earlier AIM-120A/B models.

In general, the ‘Charlie’ version offers a range of advanced capabilities that reflect the continuous development of both this specific sub-variant and the AIM-120 series overall. Even in its earliest sub-generation versions, the C-model features notable upgrades in terms of range, guidance, resistance to countermeasures, and other key areas.

Successive improvements reportedly introduced on the AIM-120C family include a new WDU-41/B warhead (AIM-120C-4), a new WPU-16/B propulsion section with a larger motor and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) upgrades (AIM-120C-5), and an updated proximity fuze (AIM-120C-6). Meanwhile, the AIM-120C-7 features further improved ECCM, an upgraded seeker, and a longer range.

The exact differences between the AIM-120C-8 and the AIM-120D are somewhat unclear, although the D-model, at least, is understood to feature two-way datalink with third-party targeting capabilities. The AIM-120D may also feature an active electronically scanned array (AESA) seeker, while the C-8 remains a mechanically scanned antenna. There have been previous suggestions that the AIM-120D is reserved for the U.S. military and its closest allies, while other international customers receive the AIM-120C-8.

It was an AIM-120D that was used for what the U.S. Air Force described as the “longest known” air-to-air missile shot, during a series of tests in airspace near Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in the fall of 2024. The launch platform on that occasion was an F-22. This would fit with reports that the D-model features significantly greater range than earlier versions, although, once again, the precise differences between AIM-120C-8 and AIM-120D are unclear.

Both the AIM-120C-8 and the AIM-120D have also been further enhanced under the F3R program, developed for the U.S. Air Force. F3R stands for form, fit, function refresh, and is primarily intended to eke out more performance from the missile, as you can read more about here. It’s not clear if Ukraine’s AIM-120C-8s also benefit from the F3R improvements.

A recent promotional video from Raytheon includes footage of a separation launch of the latest-generation AMRAAM F3R from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet:

Air Dominance With a Digital Edge

The plan was for the U.S. Air Force to begin to receive AMRAAMs incorporating F3R starting early 2023, as part of the Lot 33 production run. The U.S. AMRAAM program of record is expected to continue into around 2027 or 2028. As for the AIM-120C-8, these missiles are expected to remain in production for international partners long beyond 2030.

Regardless, the AIM-120C-8 offers Ukraine a notably long-range weapon.

While official performance figures are classified, it is generally assumed to be able to hit targets at a distance of between 75 and 100 miles. Of course, in practical applications, a whole range of factors impact a missile’s reach, above all, the energy and altitude state of the launching aircraft and the target.

In an air-to-air context, the weapon goes some way toward closing the gap with Russia’s R-37M missile, known to NATO as the AA-13 Axehead. According to the manufacturer, at least in its export form, the R-37M can defeat “some types” of aerial targets at a range of up to 124 miles. This likely refers to only larger, less agile, aircraft targets and is very much a “sales brochure figure,” with all the caveats that entails.

At this stage, we don’t know for sure whether the wreckage in Dnipro came from an air-launched AMRAAM, i.e., fired by an F-16, or if it was an effector from a ground-based NASAMS.

In the case of the F-16, the importance of the AMRAAM cannot be overstated. This was the first active-radar-guided air-to-air missile to be fielded by Ukraine. This is a class of weapons that the Ukrainian Air Force long campaigned for. One of its fighter pilots, the late Andrii Pilshchykov, better known by his callsign “Juice,” told TWZ back in 2022: “The lack of fire and forget missiles is the greatest problem for us.”

More recently, Ukrainian F-16s have had to rely more heavily on AMRAAMs. Earlier this year, reports emerged indicating that Ukraine had been left late last year with only “a handful” of U.S.-made AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for its F-16s, after the supply of these short-range weapons dried up.

This left the F-16 pilots with AMRAAMs plus the jet’s internal 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon.

As we have discussed many times before, taking out slow-moving drones via another fixed-wing aircraft with guns can be very challenging and downright dangerous, especially for fast jets. AMRAAMs can be employed against drones and cruise missiles, too, but are more expensive weapons than the Sidewinders. Each AMRAAM costs around one million dollars.

To help plug the gap, Ukrainian F-16s have begun using laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets. These rockets provide an extremely valuable, lower-cost option for engaging long-range kamikaze drones and subsonic cruise missiles. U.S. Air Force F-16s began using them in combat last year, as we were first to report.

While somewhat less likely, there’s also a possibility that the Dnipro wreckage came from an AIM-120C-8 fired by a NASAMS.

Deliveries of the first two Ukrainian NASAMS batteries were expedited after Russia’s large-scale missile and drone assault on major population centers in Ukraine in late 2022.

A video showing the Ukrainian NASAMS in action:

Привітання до Дня Повітряних Сил ЗС України 2023

As we explored at the time, a critical advantage of NASAMS is the fact that it fires the exact same missiles used in air-to-air applications. It does not require a special AMRAAM variant or major modifications to existing missiles. In addition, it can fire other types of effectors, including the AMRAAM-ER, which is a hybrid of the AIM-120 and the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), and the infrared-homing AIM-9X Sidewinder and IRIS-T missiles. 

It might be expected that Ukrainian NASAMS is being fed with older AIM-120A/Bs, which, in the ground-launched application, are capable of engaging targets from relatively close ranges to up to roughly 20 miles away and from around 1,000 feet to 50,000 feet. These targets include everything from cruise missiles — which it is very good at engaging — to crewed aircraft and drones.

Another major factor behind the appearance of the AIM-120C-8 wreckage could be the indication that stocks of older (AIM-120A/B and earlier C-version) missiles have been depleted, leading to the inclusion of higher-end C variants. If so, this would increase the pressure on at least some of the foreign partners who are supporting Ukraine with weapons, particularly given the global imbalance between the supply and demand for munitions. The conflict in Iran is likely to intensify this strain, as the United States is reportedly delaying deliveries to customers to prioritize replenishing its own inventories.

As it stands, we now have confirmation that Ukraine is using what is almost certainly the most advanced and capable version of the AMRAAM that is available to all but the very closest U.S. military allies. As such, it should provide Ukraine with a particularly powerful tool in its ongoing battle against Russian air attacks.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

It’s a massive week on Coronation Street next week according to spoilers, as the fallout to murder week could give away the killer with missed evidence, with the victim teased too

While Coronation Street fans will have to wait for the end of this week to find out who dies, new spoilers drop major hints.

Not only do they possibly give away which of the potential victims live or die, but it’s confirmed some huge evidence possibly exposes the killer. We see Betsy Swain in turmoil after finding the body, as detectives begin their investigation.

As soon as it’s revealed it is murder, suspects are lined up and evidence is gathered. But as some characters cover their tracks and get rid of some possible evidence, others could be about to slip up.

Spoilers confirm that next week, Kit begins to investigate the body found on the street, sparking interrogations with a number of residents. As characters struggle to process what happened, it’s soon confirmed to be murder.

READ MORE: Coronation Street fans ‘rumble’ who dies and who kills them after exit clueREAD MORE: Coronation Street star ‘confirms’ exit for villain Theo – but he ‘might not’ die

Todd is struggling to move past Theo’s abuse, while Debbie is waiting for news on Carl, and there’s some shocking truths revealed to the Driscolls about Megan and Maggie. Shona wants answers as the Platts’ home remains a scene of trauma and the search for answers begins.

When forensic results come back, Kit gives an update that the blood at the scene belongs to more than one person. Shona is left haunted, while David confesses how Jodie tricked him into bed.

Later, David hands some evidence into the station but Kit’s questioning leaves him worried that they think he had something to do with what happened to Jodie – while soon there’s some news. Elsewhere, Carla and Lisa do their best to comfort a traumatised Betsy, postponing their honeymoon.

Lisa begins a formal round of questioning. Inconsistencies in someone’s story start to emerge, leading to a public arrest. When some new evidence leaves Lisa and Kit convinced they are one step away from a breakthrough, we learn more than one resident has a dark secret to hide as some incriminating footage is revealed.

Back to the investigation and as the week draws to a close, a couple are struggling, while a suspicious partner demands the truth behind a sudden change in behaviour. Kit and Lisa continue their interrogations, and some deleted evidence threatens to expose the truth.

Soon, a seemingly innocent photograph reveals a hidden presence at the scene of the crime that could change everything. Away from the murder drama, Hope taunts Daniel over Megan, leading to Hope accusing her teacher Daniel of assault.

It’s clear Daniel is struggling as he hits the bottle. Melanie wants son Will to live with her, but tensions lead to Will storming out. Meanwhile, someone attempts to steal something from the pub safe, only to be caught by Susie.

Danielle approaches and asks to talk to Todd about Theo, where she finally shares her own suffering. It’s another big week on the cobbles!

Coronation Street airs weeknights at 8:30pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

After last year’s disastrous Eaton fire, Southern California Edison executives vowed to be transparent about what caused the inferno that killed at least 19 people and left thousands of families homeless in Altadena.

“As we better understand exactly what happened on Jan. 7, we do so with a commitment to remain transparent,” Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said in a published statement after the fire.

In court, however, Edison is keeping crucial documents of the cause of the Eaton fire secret, a legal strategy it has used to shield what happened in at least seven earlier wildfires it was blamed for igniting, according to a Times review.

Edison’s stance has caused mounting frustration with attorneys representing fire victims who are seeking compensation for their losses.

“The Eaton Fire cases should be decided on their merits, not on what information that SCE has been able to withhold,” lawyers for the victims wrote in a recent court filing.

State regulators have repeatedly criticized Edison for its secrecy in previous fires, saying it violated safety regulations and stopped officials from learning the root cause so that similar disasters could be prevented.

For more than a year, Edison employees have been gathering detailed information about what ignited the fire in an investigation the company is required to perform under state utility regulations.

But most of that information is being withheld by Edison’s claim of attorney-client privilege, as well as a protective order that it asked a judge to approve soon after the fire.

Protective orders are commonly used in civil lawsuits, but most cases do not have the broad ramifications to the public as the Eaton fire.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, at the Semafor World Economy Summit in Washington on April 14.

(Aaron Schwartz / Bloomberg)

Because of the secrecy, it’s not possible to know just what Edison has found, attorneys for Eaton fire victims said in a filing.

In past fires, regulators have requested from the company — and been denied — photographs, notes, text messages and other records generated by the Edison crew that was first to arrive at the site where the blaze ignited. The company has argued its attorney directed the crew, making the evidence privileged.

The victims’ lawyers say Edison shouldn’t be able to withhold from them most evidence from its investigation into the blaze by claiming that the findings and related documents are covered by attorney-client privilege and therefore confidential.

In a recent interview with The Times, Pizarro disagreed that the company was keeping information on the cause of the Eaton fire secret.

“We believe we’ve been transparent,” Pizarro said. “Facts are not privileged, and so we provided facts as we have known them.”

He said the company’s investigation was continuing. “We still, to this day, don’t fully understand what happened,” he said.

Pizarro said the protective order was needed to keep many things confidential, including some not related to the fire’s cause. For example, he said, it protects maps of the electrical system, which can’t be revealed because of terrorism concerns.

Signs blaming Southern California Edison for the Eaton fire are seen near cleared lots in the Altadena area of Los Angeles County on Jan. 5.

(Josh Edelson / AFP via Getty Images)

He pointed to several company disclosures, including two letters it sent to regulators soon after the Eaton fire that said it was evaluating whether a century-old transmission line, which hadn’t carried power since 1971, “could have become energized” and helped lead to the fire.

Pizarro said last year that the possible reenergization of that old line is a leading theory of the fire’s cause.

The company has said little else about the fire’s cause, other than it safely maintained and inspected the idle line, just like it did its energized lines.

Edison faces thousands of lawsuits from victims of the fire, which burned 14,021 acres and leveled a wide swath of Altadena. The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company was negligent for failing to safely maintain its transmission lines and for leaving the idle line in place when it knew it could become energized. Edison denies the claims of the lawsuits, which have been consolidated in L.A. County Superior Court.

Some documents that Edison says are not privileged and agreed to provide to the victims’ lawyers are sealed by a protective order that the company and the plaintiffs’ lawyers requested.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys often agree to such protective orders on the theory that doing so would allow the utility to more freely share information that could help their case.

Power lines hang from towers carrying power from the Southern California Edison Gould Station.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

Two months after the fire, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Laura Seigle signed the protective order — which covers documents that both sides provide in discovery — including business information deemed proprietary and personal customer data.

According to the protective order, if the case is settled, the lawyers will decide whether the sealed documents should be returned to Edison or destroyed.

If the case proceeds to trial, some of the evidence could become public.

Yet even with the protective order in place, plantiffs’ attorneys say Edison has refused to provide them with evidence from its investigation into the fire, saying it’s protected by attorney-client privilege.

The state-required investigations “are not private inquiries undertaken for SCE’s benefit and legal protection,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote in a filing last year. “Those investigations are regulated activities that exist to protect the public and enhance public safety by preventing future fires.”

To begin those investigations, Edison’s crews often get to the ignition site before government officials. In the 2019 Saddleridge fire in Sylmar, an investigator from the Los Angeles Fire Department found the yellow police tape at the road leading to where the blaze started on the ground and an Edison truck leaving the site, according to his report.

California utility regulators have said the earliest observations at the scene are critical in determining what happened.

L.A. Fire Justice attorney Mikal Watts presents findings on the cause of the Eaton fire at transmission tower 3 at a January 2025 news conference in Pasadena.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Loretta Lynch, former president of the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the electric companies, said she believed Edison was wrongly using attorney-client privilege and protective orders “as a sword to prevent justice.”

Lynch said the confidentiality could keep evidence of Edison’s possible negligence from being used at a future state hearing that will look at whether the company acted safely and prudently before the Eaton fire.

In that hearing, if the commission finds the company acted prudently, all damage costs will be covered by a state wildfire fund and Edison customers. The company and its shareholders would pay nothing.

“It’s time to stop this game of allowing utilities to be negligent and then walk away with their customers paying for it,” Lynch said.

Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company’s “assertions of privilege in civil court have nothing to do” with the future state hearing on whether the company acted prudently.

Dunleavy added that the company has been cooperating with government fire investigators and the plaintiff lawyers, responding to their requests for data.

The government’s investigation into the cause of the fire has not yet been released.

Asked about the company’s withholding of documents in court, Pizarro pointed to a 2024 California Appeals Court decision that found that Edison’s assertion of attorney-client privilege to keep evidence sealed in litigation over the 2017 Creek fire was appropriate under the law. The court said that protecting the documents generated in the internal investigation from public disclosure allowed the company’s attorneys “to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects” of their client’s situation.

Lawyers for victims of the Creek fire, which destroyed more than 100 homes and structures near Sylmar, say Edison failed to provide evidence that showed its line was a likely cause of the blaze, leading government investigators to initially wrongly blame electrical equipment owned by the L.A. Department of Water and Power. Edison continues to deny it caused the fire.

A fire truck makes its way past a portion of the Creek fire along Wheatland Avenue in Sylmar on Dec. 5, 2017.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

In the Eaton fire case, a few details of what’s in the confidential documents have been revealed in court, showing they could be significant when the first trial begins next year.

In February, plaintiff lawyers filed 13 sealed exhibits for only the judge to review, saying they showed how Edison had neglected inspections, maintenance and repair of the idle line. The records are subject to the protective order, shielding them from public view.

“There is ample evidence in this case that SCE performed more frequent and higher quality inspections and maintenance on its live equipment than it did on its inactive facilities,” they wrote.

“From all indications, SCE left Tower 208 virtually unattended for decades,” they added, referring to the pylon that held the idle line and was found to be the location of the fire’s first flames.

The plaintiff lawyers also said the protective order prevents them from disclosing photos to the public that show Edison left vegetation growing under the idle line while removing it from beneath the live wires running parallel to it, according to the court filing. Utility regulations require vegetation to be removed from under and around electric lines to reduce the risk of fire.

The lawyers added that the sealed documents showed that Edison was having problems with an outside contractor it had hired to inspect its transmission lines.

Asked about the filing, Pizarro said the claims were assertions by the plaintiff attorneys that would be debated in court.

Some legal experts have criticized the use of protective orders for keeping the public in the dark about dangerous corporate actions or products.

Lynch said protective orders and confidential settlements in wildfire litigation are preventing the public from learning information that could stop future deadly fires. She said California should consider legislation to ban the use of the secrecy tactics in wildfire lawsuits.

Firefighters work to contain the Saddleridge fire on Oct. 10, 2019, in the Sylmar neighborhood of Los Angeles.

(Patrick T. Fallon / For The Times)

The Times found protective orders in lawsuits against Edison for the 2017 Thomas fire and mudslides, which killed 23; the 2018 Woolsey fire, which killed three; the 2019 Saddleridge fire, which killed one; and the 2022 Fairview fire, which killed two. Those fires together caused billions of dollars in damages and destroyed thousands of homes.

Lawyers for the Eaton fire victims told the judge in February that the protective order, as well as similar secrecy orders in lawsuits over other fires, had kept them from speaking publicly about certain subjects in the courtroom, including what they knew about Edison’s line inspections.

“This is a significant case, against one of the world’s largest providers of electricity, which has, through the use of Confidentiality Protective Orders in other cases, impaired the Plaintiffs’ ability to fully inform the Court,” they wrote.

Late last month, Judge Seigle ordered Edison to give the victims’ lawyers more of the documents they had requested. The protective order limits the public’s access to them.

The Sunday Times leads on its interview with the Prime Minister, saying he vowed to fight and win the next general election. The paper describes Sir Keir Starmer as “defiant”, with Labour expecting to suffer heavy losses in elections next month. Separately, the paper notes, allies of the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, are continuing efforts to secure him a route back to Parliament, potentially paving the way for a leadership challenge.