false

California mail ballot prompts false conspiracy theory that election is rigged

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Monday pushed back against a torrent of misinformation on social media sites claiming that mail-in ballots for the state’s Nov. 4 special election are purposefully designed to disclose how people voted.

Weber, the state’s top elections official, refuted claims by some Republicans and far-right partisans that holes on ballot envelopes allow election officials to see how Californians voted on Proposition 50, the ballot measure about redistricting that will be decided in a special election in a little over three weeks.

“The small holes on ballot envelopes are an accessibility feature to allow sight-impaired voters to orient themselves to where they are required to sign the envelope,” Weber said in a statement released Monday.

Weber said voters can insert ballots in return envelopes in a manner that doesn’t reveal how they voted, or could cast ballots at early voting stations that will open soon or in person on Nov. 4.

Weber’s decision to “set the record straight” was prompted by conspiracy theories exploding online alleging that mail ballots received by 23 million Californians in recent days are purposefully designed to reveal the votes of people who opposed the measure.

“If California voters vote ‘NO’ on Gavin Newscum’s redistricting plan, it will show their answer through a hole in the envelope,” Libs of TikTok posted on the social media platform X on Sunday, in a post that has 4.8 million views. “All Democrats do is cheat.”

GOP Texas Sen. Ted Cruz earlier retweeted a similar post that has been viewed more than 840,000 times, and Republican California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator, called for the November special election to be suspended because of the alleged ballot irregularities.

The allegation about the ballots, which has been raised by Republicans during prior California elections, stems from the holes in mail ballot envelopes that were created to help visually impaired voters and allow election workers to make sure ballots have been removed from envelopes.

The special election was called for by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats in an effort to counter President Trump urging GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts before next year’s midterm election to boost GOP ranks in the House and buttress his ability to enact his agenda during his final two years in office.

California Democrats responded by proposing a rare mid-decade redrawing of California’s 52 congressional boundaries to increase Democratic representation in Congress. Congressional districts are typically drawn once a decade by an independent state commission created by voters in 2010.

Nearly 600,000 Californians have already returned mail ballots as of Monday evening, according to a ballot tracker created by Political Data, a voter data firm that is led by Democratic strategist Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed congressional boundaries on the November ballot.

Republican leaders in California who oppose the ballot measure have expressed concern about the ballot conspiracy theories, fearing the claims may suppress Republicans and others from voting against Proposition 50.

“Please don’t panic people about something that is easily addressed by turning their ballot around,” Roxanne Hoge, the chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party, posted on X. “We need every no vote and we need them now.”

Jessica Millan Patterson, the former chair of the state GOP who is leading one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50, compared not voting early to sitting on the sidelines of a football game until the third quarter.

“I understand why voters would be concerned when they see holes in their envelopes … because your vote is your business. It’s the bedrock of our system, being able to [vote by] secret ballot,” she said in an interview. “That being said, the worst thing that you could do if you are unhappy with the way things are here in California is not vote, and so I will continue to promote early voting and voting by mail. It’s always been a core principle for me.”

Source link

Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner sue Ray J for ‘false’ RICO claims

Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner are taking legal action to snuff out accusations that they are the subjects of a federal criminal racketeering investigation — claims publicized by the former’s ex-boyfriend Ray J.

Attorneys for the “Kardashians” reality stars and businesswomen sued the “One Wish” singer Wednesday for defamation and false light publicity. The 13-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, stems from numerous comments Ray J made this year about his old flame and her family in a TMZ documentary and on a Twitch livestream.

“Ray J’s public statements are blatantly false,” the lawsuit says. “No such federal investigation exists; no law enforcement agency has initiated any criminal proceedings or investigations related to racketeering charges against Ms. Kardashian or Ms. Jenner; and no credible evidence whatsoever supports these inflammatory allegations.”

Neither representatives for the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” alumnae nor Ray J (born Ray Norwood Jr.) immediately responded to requests for comment.

The complaint alleges that Ray J — younger brother to singer-actor Brandy — first publicly suggested the mother-daughter duo’s involvement in a RICO investigation in May 2025, when he appeared in the TMZ documentary “United States vs. Sean Combs: Inside the Diddy Trial.” The TMZ special chronicled the developments in the rap and alcohol-branding mogul’s high-profile federal sex-trafficking case. The 44-year-old singer linked Combs’ case to his ex-girlfriend and her famous family, stating in the special, “If you told me that the Kardashians was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it,” the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Jenner, 69, and Kardashian, 44, allege Ray J’s comment “was designed to plant the seed in the public mind” that the reality stars are comparable to Combs, who was accused of drugging women, violence against ex-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and orchestrating orgies known as “freakoffs.” “To date, Ray J has not retracted his knowingly false and disparaging statement,” the lawsuit says.

Months after appearing on the TMZ special, Ray J doubled down on his claims during a Twitch livestream with rapper Chrisean Rock in late September. The “Sexy Can I” musician declared last week, “The federal RICO I’m about to drop on Kris and Kim is about to be crazy,” according to court documents. During the livestream Ray J also allegedly said “the feds is coming, there’s nothing I can do about it” and claimed the stars’ supposed RICO case is “worse than Diddy[‘s].”

“I’m talking about, I’m on the news every day. I’m gonna say a lot of s—,” he said about the scale of the RICO case, the complaint says.

Elsewhere in the livestream, he urged his followers: “Anybody that is cool with Kim, they need to tell her now, the rain is coming, the feds is coming.”

Infamously, Kardashian and Ray J were an item in the early 2000s. Though they broke up in 2006, their sex tape was leaked in 2007, the same year “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” premiered on E!

Attorneys for Jenner and Kardashian cast Ray J’s accusations as his latest attempts to stay relevant. The lawsuit alleges he has a history of “making false, sensationalized claims about high-profile individuals” to gain attention, citing an online incident with rapper Sexxy Red. Earlier this year, Ray J hinted he got intimate with the “Sticky” rapper. He apologized for the claim and clarified that they just sat near each other on the same flight. “I went out of control and I said that I slept with Sexxy Red,” he said.

The lawsuit says Jenner and Kardashian — who recently completed her legal training — “suffered reputational harm” that has taken and will continue to take a professional toll. They are seeking a jury trial and an unspecified amount in damages exceeding $35,000.

As news of the lawsuit spread Wednesday, Ray J seemingly stood firm in his accusations. In a video shared to his Instagram story Wednesday, he asserted, “I’m not about to be silenced.” He also said he spoke with Jenner-Kardashian attorney Alex Spiro, who allegedly asked him “crazy questions,” including whether he spoke to “feds.”

“Honestly, like, y’all should be super scared because I’m not backing down. I’m tired of it,” Ray J continued. “The rain is coming, there’s nothing you can do about it.”

In another Instagram story shared Wednesday evening, he announced to followers that he would be going live on Twitch at 2 a.m., “that’s 5 o’clock New York Time, perfect time for ‘The Breakfast Club’ to be stalking my page and see what I’m gonna say.”

Source link

Israel’s justification for Gaza hospital attack false, Reuters probe finds | Gaza News

Israel falsely claimed a Hamas camera was the target of a deadly strike that killed 22 people, including journalists.

Israel’s justification for bombing a Khan Younis hospital in southern Gaza, claiming it targeted a Hamas camera, is false, according to an investigation by the news agency Reuters.

Israeli forces planned the August 25 attack on Nasser Hospital using drone footage that, a military official said, showed a Hamas camera that was the target of the strike. But a Reuters review of visual evidence and interviews with witnesses established that the camera in question actually belonged to the news agency and had long been used by one of its own journalists.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The “double-tap” attack killed 22 people, including five journalists – one of whom worked for Al Jazeera. Their deaths bring the number of journalists killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza to more than 200 since the genocidal war began nearly two years ago.

A day after the hospital strike, the army said troops had fired on a “suspicious” camera draped in cloth, claiming it was operated by Hamas. Drone footage later showed the device on a hospital stairwell, covered with a prayer rug belonging to Reuters journalist Hussam al-Masri – who was killed in the strike – not Hamas, Reuters found.

At least 35 times since May, al-Masri had positioned his camera on the same stairwell to record live broadcasts distributed worldwide. He often used the rug to shield it from heat and dust.

“The claim that Hamas was filming Israeli forces from Nasser Hospital is false and fabricated,” said Ismail al-Thawabta, head of Gaza’s Government Media Office. “Israel is trying to cover up a full-fledged war crime against the hospital, its patients and medical staff.”

Reuters said it reviewed more than 100 videos and photos from the scene and interviewed more than two dozen people to reconstruct the events of the attack.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem described the stairwell as “a makeshift newsroom” where journalists had gathered before the strike. Al-Masri’s live broadcast froze moments before the blast, which killed him along with several civil defence workers. A second explosion struck as rescuers rushed in.

“We were rescuing the martyrs and wounded … then a huge explosion among us,” said Reuters cameraman Hatem Khaled.

Israel has repeatedly targeted hospitals and other sites protected under international humanitarian law, including schools, shelters, mosques and churches. Its attacks have also killed journalists, medical staff, first responders and humanitarian workers. Despite repeated global calls for investigations, Israel continues to act with impunity while carrying out genocide in Gaza.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says Israel has never published the results of a formal investigation nor held anyone accountable for the killings of journalists.

“None of these incidents prompted a meaningful review of Israel’s rules of engagement, nor did international condemnation lead to any change in the pattern of attacks on journalists over the past two years,” said Sara Qudah, CPJ’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa.

Source link

Former FBI Director James Comey indicted on false statement, obstruction charges

1 of 2 | James Comey (pictured in Washington, D.C., in 2006) was director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On Thursday, the Justice Department announced that he will be tried for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing justice amid a 2020 investigation into Russian collusion claims.

File Photo by Mike Theiler/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 25 (UPI) — Former FBI Director James Comey will be tried for allegedly lying to Congress and obstructing justice amid a 2020 investigation into Russian collusion claims.

The U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia grand jury indicted Comey on two of three counts on Thursday, ABC News reported.

Interim U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia Lindsey Halligan secured the grand jury indictments against Comey after federal prosecutors earlier said they had no probable cause for charging the former FBI director.

Attorney General Pam Bondi lauded the indictments in a social media post on Thursday.

“Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people,” Bondi said, as reported by Axios.

“We will follow the facts in this case,” Bondi added.

The indictment comes less than a week before the statute of limitations would have expired in the matter and made it impossible to prosecute Comey for allegedly lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020.

The committee was investigating the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged collusion between Russian officials with President Donald Trump‘s successful presidential campaign during the 2016 election.

The president accused former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert of intentionally delaying action on the matter to allow the statute of limitations to expire in the matter and fired him.

The indictment means Comey will have to appear in court for an arraignment hearing that is yet to be scheduled, where he will have to enter a plea and possibly post a bond.

He could be imprisoned for up to five years and fined if found guilty of lying to Congress and another five years and potential fines if convicted of obstruction of justice.

Source link

Trump loyalist who pushed false election claims takes on government role | Donald Trump News

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has installed a right-wing researcher who pushed false claims about the 2020 election to a position in charge of election oversight.

As of Tuesday, a leadership chart for the Department of Homeland Security shows Pennsylvania activist Heather Honey serving as the deputy assistant secretary for election integrity in the Office of Strategy, Policy and Plans.

Honey’s appointment was first reported by the investigative news outlet Democracy Docket on Monday.

Her position has raised eyebrows among critics of the Trump administration due to her involvement in several efforts that resulted in misleading research about the 2020 presidential race.

Trump has pushed the false claim that his loss in the 2020 election was the result of massive fraud, and he has consistently refused to admit defeat.

Since returning to the White House for a second term in January, he has placed loyalists in positions of power, raising fears about the independence of certain offices.

He has also used his false claims of fraudulent elections to place pressure on the country’s electoral system, which is administered largely by state and local officials.

Critics have warned that overtly partisan appointments to posts overseeing elections could diminish confidence in the voting process.

“What I’m concerned about is that it seems like DHS [Department of Homeland Security] is being poised to use the vast power and megaphone of the federal government to spread disinformation rather than combat it,” David Becker, the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, told The Associated Press news agency.

“It’s going to really harm DHS’s credibility overall.”

Who is Heather Honey?

Honey’s appointment in particular has prompted election experts and local officials to speak out, given her prominent role in spreading misinformation about the 2020 election.

For instance, Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s secretary of state and a Democrat, told the news outlet ProPublica in a statement that Honey has a “well-documented history of spreading election lies”.

Honey leads a consulting firm called Haystack Investigations, which was involved in election “audits”, which experts consider flawed, as well as another organisation called Verity Votes, which also purports to conduct election research.

Trump and his supporters have drawn on some of her firms’ conclusions in their efforts to undermine the 2020 election results.

In the key swing state of Pennsylvania, for instance, Honey’s group misrepresented incomplete voter data to falsely allege that the state had more votes than voters in 2020.

Two years later, in 2022, Verity Vote claimed that Pennsylvania sent mail-in ballots to voters who failed to provide appropriate identification.

State officials, however, accused Verity Vote of misrepresenting the “not verified” designation in its voting system.

In public statements, the Pennsylvania Department of State explained that it uses the “not verified” tag to signal to local officials that a voter’s identification needs to be verified. The designation is a “security feature” for voter applications, it said – not an indication that voters could submit ballots without proper ID.

Trump narrowly lost Pennsylvania in the 2020 election, with Democrat Joe Biden edging him out by less than 1 percent.

In Arizona, another critical battleground swing state that Trump lost in 2020, Honey participated in a partisan audit of election results in Maricopa County, a populous area containing the city of Phoenix.

Despite searching for fraud for nearly six months, the audit turned up no evidence that the outcome in Biden’s favour was erroneous. Still, experts say that audit was filled with errors and biased methodology.

In the years since, former Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a Republican, told The Associated Press that he had received dozens of public records requests related to elections from Honey.

Richer served in the role from 2021 to 2025, and said that such requests occupied “scores of hours of staff time”.

He told The Associated Press he was surprised to hear Honey was in a position of such “authority and responsibility” and said that she was “not a serious auditor”.

Honey is not the first Trump official to face public scrutiny for her role in his administration. Other appointees, like Emil Bove, have faced intense public questions about whether they would prioritise their loyalty to Trump over their commitment to government ethics.

Since his victory in the 2024 election, Trump has also opened investigations into critics and officials who probed his false claims about the 2020 election.

He has said he will do away with things like mail-in ballots and voting machines, demands shared by others who push anti-election conspiracies on the US right.

Source link

2nd false active shooter reported at Villanova University in a week

Aug. 24 (UPI) — Police descended upon Pennsylvania’s Villanova University on Sunday in response to reports of an active shooter on campus, making it the second time in less than a week that a hoax attack has been reported at the private Catholic school.

The Radnor Township Police Department said officers were responding to reports of an active shooter at the university’s Austin Hall.

“Law enforcement has confirmed that call to be false,” it said in a statement published on X at about 11:40 a.m. EDT.

“Officers are working to clear the campus and restore normal operations. At this time, the investigation is ongoing.”

Monday is the start of classes for the fall semester of the 2025-26 academic year at Villanova University, where about 10,000 students, including 6,700 full-time undergraduate students, attend. Villanova is a Philadelphia suburb.

Kathleen Byrnes, vice president of student life at the school, has announced in a letter that Sunday evening’s Mass and Commissioning has been canceled “given the whirlwind of emotions over these last few days.”

“With all that has transpired on campus in recent days, we feel our first-year students are best served by an evening with time to pause before classes start tomorrow,” Byrnes said.

“For our new students: Please take this evening to relax, talk with new friends and get a good night’s sleep — all of which will help you feel prepared for your first day of college tomorrow.”

The first false call of an active shooter on campus occurred Thursday late afternoon. Students were warned at about 4:30 p.m. to shelter in place. The shooter was reported to have been at the university’s law school.

University President Peter Donohue announced the Thursday active shooter report was a “cruel hoax.”

In a letter to students Sunday following the second false report, Donohue said he wished he had more answers for them.

“I do not know why this is happening, but I assure you the authorities are working tirelessly to find out who is behind these calls,” he said.

“I know it may not seem like it after the past couple of days, but I assure you that campus is safe, and there is no evidence of a legitimate threat to our community.”

Source link

Right-wing US network Newsmax to pay $67m over false 2020 election claims | Donald Trump News

Newsmax has paid $27m so far, and will pay $20m in 2026 and $20m in 2027 to technology firm Dominion Voting Systems.

The right-wing network Newsmax will pay $67m to a voting technology firm over outright false claims it made about United States President Donald Trump‘s 2020 election loss.

The settlement of the defamation case brought by Dominion Voting Systems was announced in a filing by Newsmax on Monday with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Under the settlement agreement, Newsmax said it had paid Dominion $27m on Friday and would pay $20m in 2026 and the final $20m in 2027.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News settled a similar defamation lawsuit with Dominion in 2023 for the larger sum of $787.5m.

The settlement came as Trump vowed in a social media post on Monday to eliminate mail-in ballots and voting machines such as those supplied by Dominion and other companies. But it was unclear how the Republican president could achieve that.

Dominion filed a defamation suit against Newsmax in 2021 over false claims that its voting technology was used to rig the 2020 US presidential election, in which Democrat Joe Biden defeated Trump. Dominion sought $1.6bn in damages.

In a statement, Newsmax said it had agreed to settle because it did not believe it would receive a fair trial.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax defamed Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis said he would leave it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages.

“The pattern of judicial rulings that consistently denied Newsmax due process left the Company to believe it would not receive a fair trial,” Newsmax said. “Faced with these rulings and other constraints, Newsmax chose to settle the case.”

“Newsmax has always maintained that its reporting was not defamatory and that its coverage was consistent with accepted journalistic standards,” the company said.

“We stand by our coverage as fair, balanced, and conducted within professional standards of journalism,” it added.

However, internal correspondence from Newsmax officials shows they knew Trump’s claims of electoral fraud were baseless.

Davis also handled the Dominion-Fox News case, and made a similar ruling that the network repeated numerous lies by Trump’s allies about his 2020 loss despite internal communications showing Fox officials knew the claims were false.

Though Trump has insisted his fraud claims are real, there’s no evidence to prove they were, and the lawsuits in the Fox and Newsmax cases show how some of the president’s biggest supporters knew they were false at the time. Trump’s then-attorney general, William Barr, said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

Trump and his backers lost dozens of lawsuits alleging fraud, some before Trump-appointed judges. Numerous recounts, reviews and audits of the election results, including some run by Republicans, turned up no signs of significant wrongdoing or error and affirmed Biden’s win.

Source link

Love Island’s Dejon responds to step-sister’s claims that he’s a ‘narcissist’ and ‘manipulative’ insisting it’s ‘false’

LOVE Island’s Dejon has clapped back at “false” slurs on his character after his step sister branded him a “narcissist.”

The ITV2 show alum, who was voted out with partner Meg ahead of Monday’s show final, took to TikTok to address the allegations in his first ever video.

Dejon from Love Island responding to claims.

6

Love Island’s Dejon has responded to hos step-sister’s claims that he’s a ‘narcissist’ and ‘manipulative’Credit: Tiktok
Meg and Dejon on Love Island Aftersun.

6

Dejon, who was paired with Meg on the show, address ‘false’ speculation following his time in the villaCredit: ITV
Dejon from Love Island responding to claims he is a narcissist and manipulative.

6

He clapped back at his step-sister Niah’s video on what she called the ‘real Dejon’Credit: tiktok

It came just hours after the Love Island 2025 OG, 26, put on a brave face with his co-stars following the family slam.

Niah, who is not biologically related to Dejon but shares a brother with him, took to TikTok to give fans an unfiltered glimpse into the ‘real Dejon’ and insisted he is “manipulative” and “narcissistic”.

She has even gone as far as to write her own account in a tell-all book named ‘Surviving Dejon’, which is already available to buy. 

After the rumours swirled – and coming under fire for his controversial behaviour on the show and being branded a “gaslighter” by fans – he has spoken out.

Dejon appeared topless in his new clip, donning a bling diamond necklace.

He strolled around a room with crisp white walls and exposed black beams and initially thanked fans for their support.

He said of the good wishes: “It really means the world to me, honestly especially in times like now.

“I feel like there’s a lot of false stories out there about me which are very untrue, unfair and I feel like from that, really big up to my supporters.

“I’m excited and looking forward to showing you guys who I really am.

Watch the moment Maya Jama takes savage swipe at another girl after Meg and Dejon miss out on Love Island final

“For now, lets go play some table tennis.”

The end of the clip showed him reunited with Meg as they played table tennis.

SHOCK CLAIM

In her scathing six minute video, his step sister Niah claimed that what viewers have seen on TV is an accurate reflection of how Dejon behaves in real life.

She began: ” So I’ve decided to speak out because I’ve been silent for way too long and I know that I will be receiving probably a lot of backlash from my family for this.

LOVE ISLAND VOTING PERCENTAGES

TONI and Cach won the Love Island 2025 final – yet what were the exact voting percentages?

Las Vegas waitress Toni Laites and professional dancer Cach Mercer went head-to-head with OG islanders Shakira Khan and Harry Cooksley in a nail-biting finale.

However, Toni and Cach were triumphant and won the summer series after surviving a love triangle just two weeks before the final.

A results table shared on Love Island’s Instagram account this afternoon showed Toni and Cach were the runaway winners on the night, taking over a third of the votes, with 33.5% of viewers backing them for the crown.

However, Shakira and Harry drew a sizeable 26.2% of the votes, and Yas and Jamie were not far behind taking 22% on the nose.

Aesthetics practitioner Angel, 26, only made her debut on July 17, but managed to secure an impressive 18.3% of the overall voting audience with Casa Amor boy Ty.

“You guys are all clearly very traumatised from seeing Dejon on TV and seeing everything that he’s doing and watching everything play out it seems as though no one is holding him accountable.

She went on to say: “Dejon is a narcissist, he’s manipulative. I’ve been telling everyone this for the past 10 years now but no one believed me. And it’s just crazy now that the whole of the UK can see what I’ve been trying to explain to people for so long.

She continued: “I didn’t want to speak out on this. That’s why I haven’t made any videos directly explaining anything about him because I know that it can affect my family in a bad way.

“And I do completely understand if they are upset with me for this post.

She added: “One thing I will say is, I knew from the beginning, from the first episode I knew exactly what was going to go down. 

“It’s just a shame because I don’t want him to be seen like this, but I genuinely don’t think that he sees that he’s a narcissist, you know? and I actually do feel bad for Meg in a sense.”

Speaking about the book alongside a trailer for it, she penned: “This book answers everything. reasons why I spoke out. Why fear kept me silent for so long. How I lost everyone and everything I ever cared about.

“It reveals the truth behind the rumours I never wanted to address. I need to tell my truth in the way that I feel in control. This is not for attention, creating this book was like therapy for me.

“I would never put my reputation on the line or lose the people I loved if I didn’t have a powerful reason to finally speak.”

Niah even posted a trigger warning for the book as it contains: “emotionally intense and potentially distressing content”.

DEJON’S TAKE

Speaking to the Daily Mail previously, Dejon has hit back at claims of him being a ‘narcissist’, he said: “I do take full accountability for how I communicated at times in the villa.

“The girls who were on the show with me say I’m not a narcissist, I’m not a gaslighter, all of these things they have seen online, it means a lot to me because they spent 24 hours a day with me.

“I could have handled situations better but when it comes to being a ‘narcissist’ and these words, empathy is definitely something that I have, it’s something I had for Meg, for Harry, and when Meg was upset, I was there for her, and when Harry was upset it would break my heart.

“Me and Harry had a thing, we called it fitness and feelings where we would go to the gym and I would say “don’t worry H, we can be free here, our tears, people will think they’re sweat.”‘

Dejon from Love Island.

6

Fans had accused the businessman of being a ‘gaslighter’ on the seriesCredit: ITV
Dejon and Meg from Love Island.

6

He failed to reach the series final with MegCredit: ITV
Dejon from Love Island.

6

Dejon vowed to show fans ‘who I really am’Credit: ITV

Source link

Israel’s false friends – Los Angeles Times

Once again, as the presidential campaign season gets underway, the leading candidates are going to enormous lengths to demonstrate their devotion to the state of Israel and their steadfast commitment to its “special relationship” with the United States.

Each of the main contenders emphatically favors giving Israel extraordinary material and diplomatic support — continuing the more than $3 billion in foreign aid each year to a country whose per capita income is now 29th in the world. They also believe that this aid should be given unconditionally. None of them criticizes Israel’s conduct, even when its actions threaten U.S. interests, are at odds with American values or even when they are harmful to Israel itself. In short, the candidates believe that the U.S. should support Israel no matter what it does.

Such pandering is hardly surprising, because contenders for high office routinely court special interest groups, and Israel’s staunchest supporters — the Israel lobby, as we have termed it — expect it. Politicians do not want to offend Jewish Americans or “Christian Zionists,” two groups that are deeply engaged in the political process. Candidates fear, with some justification, that even well-intentioned criticism of Israel’s policies may lead these groups to turn against them and back their opponents instead.

If this happened, trouble would arise on many fronts. Israel’s friends in the media would take aim at the candidate, and campaign contributions from pro-Israel individuals and political action committees would go elsewhere. Moreover, most Jewish voters live in states with many electoral votes, which increases their weight in close elections (remember Florida in 2000?), and a candidate seen as insufficiently committed to Israel would lose some of their support. And no Republican would want to alienate the pro-Israel subset of the Christian evangelical movement, which is a significant part of the GOP base.

Indeed, even suggesting that the U.S. adopt a more impartial stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can get a candidate into serious trouble. When Howard Dean proposed during the 2004 campaign that the United States take a more “evenhanded” role in the peace process, he was severely criticized by prominent Democrats, and a rival for the nomination, Sen. Joe Lieberman, accused him of “selling Israel down the river” and said Dean’s comments were “irresponsible.”

Word quickly spread in the American Jewish community that Dean was hostile to Israel, even though his campaign co-chair was a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Dean had been strongly pro-Israel throughout his career. The candidates in the 2008 election surely want to avoid Dean’s fate, so they are all trying to prove that they are Israel’s best friend.

These candidates, however, are no friends of Israel. They are facilitating its pursuit of self-destructive policies that no true friend would favor.

The key issue here is the future of Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel conquered in 1967 and still controls. Israel faces a stark choice regarding these territories, which are home to roughly 3.8 million Palestinians. It can opt for a two-state solution, turning over almost all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and allowing them to create a viable state on those lands in return for a comprehensive peace agreement designed to allow Israel to live securely within its pre-1967 borders (with some minor modifications). Or it can retain control of the territories it occupies or surrounds, building more settlements and bypass roads and confining the Palestinians to a handful of impoverished enclaves in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel would control the borders around those enclaves and the air above them, thus severely restricting the Palestinians’ freedom of movement.

But if Israel chooses this second option, it will lead to an apartheid state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said as much when he recently proclaimed that if “the two-state solution collapses,” Israel will “face a South African-style struggle.” He went so far as to argue that “as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.” Similarly, Israel’s deputy prime minister, Haim Ramon, said earlier this month that “the occupation is a threat to the existence of the state of Israel.” Other Israelis, as well as Jimmy Carter and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have warned that continuing the occupation will turn Israel into an apartheid state. Nevertheless, Israel continues to expand its settlements on the West Bank while the plight of the Palestinians worsens.

Given this grim situation, one would expect the presidential candidates, who claim to care deeply about Israel, to be sounding the alarm and energetically championing a two-state solution. One would expect them to have encouraged President Bush to put significant pressure on both the Israelis and the Palestinians at the recent Annapolis conference and to keep the pressure on when he visits the region this week. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently observed, settling this conflict is also in America’s interest, not to mention the Palestinians’.

One would certainly expect Hillary Clinton to be leading the charge here. After all, she wisely and bravely called for establishing a Palestinian state “that is on the same footing as other states” in 1998, when it was still politically incorrect to use the words “Palestinian state” openly. Moreover, her husband not only championed a two-state solution as president but he laid out the famous “Clinton parameters” in December 2000, which outline the only realistic deal for ending the conflict.

But what is Clinton saying now that she is a candidate? She said hardly anything about pushing the peace process forward at Annapolis, and remained silent when Rice criticized Israel’s subsequent announcement that it planned to build more than 300 new housing units in East Jerusalem. More important, both she and GOP aspirant Rudy Giuliani recently proclaimed that Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that is at odds with the Clinton parameters and virtually guarantees that there will be no Palestinian state.

Sen. Clinton’s behavior is hardly unusual among the candidates for president. Barack Obama, who expressed some sympathy for the Palestinians before he set his sights on the White House, now has little to say about their plight, and he too said little about what should have been done at Annapolis to facilitate peace. The other major contenders are ardent in their declarations of support for Israel, and none of them apparently sees a two-state solution as so urgent that they should press both sides to reach an agreement. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security advisor and now a senior advisor to Obama, noted, “The presidential candidates don’t see any payoff in addressing the Israel-Palestinian issue.” But they do see a significant political payoff in backing Israel to the hilt, even when it is pursuing a policy — colonizing the West Bank — that is morally and strategically bankrupt.

In short, the presidential candidates are no friends of Israel. They are like most U.S. politicians, who reflexively mouth pro-Israel platitudes while continuing to endorse and subsidize policies that are in fact harmful to the Jewish state. A genuine friend would tell Israel that it was acting foolishly, and would do whatever he or she could to get Israel to change its misguided behavior. And that will require challenging the special interest groups whose hard-line views have been obstacles to peace for many years.

As former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argued in 2006, the American presidents who have made the greatest contribution to peace — Carter and George H.W. Bush — succeeded because they were “ready to confront Israel head-on and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America.” If the Democratic and Republican contenders were true friends of Israel, they would be warning it about the danger of becoming an apartheid state, just as Carter did.

Moreover, they would be calling for an end to the occupation and the creation of a viable Palestinian state. And they would be calling for the United States to act as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians so that Washington could pressure both sides to accept a solution based on the Clinton parameters. Implementing a final-status agreement will be difficult and take a number of years, but it is imperative that the two sides formally agree on the solution and then implement it in ways that protect each side.

But Israel’s false friends cannot say any of these things, or even discuss the issue honestly. Why? Because they fear that speaking the truth would incur the wrath of the hard-liners who dominate the main organizations in the Israel lobby. So Israel will end up controlling Gaza and the West Bank for the foreseeable future, turning itself into an apartheid state in the process. And all of this will be done with the backing of its so-called friends, including the current presidential candidates. With friends like them, who needs enemies?

Source link

Plastic credits: A ‘false solution’ or the answer to global plastic waste? | Environment News

Each year, the world produces about 400 million tonnes of plastic waste – more than the combined weight of all the people on Earth.

Just 9 percent of it is recycled, and one study predicts that global emissions from plastic production could triple by 2050.

Since 2022, the United Nations has been trying to broker a global treaty to deal with plastic waste. But talks keep collapsing, particularly on the issue of introducing a cap on plastic production.

Campaigners blame petrostates whose economies depend on oil – the raw ingredient for plastics – for blocking the treaty negotiations.

This week, the UN is meeting in Switzerland in the latest attempt to reach an agreement. But, even if the delegates find a way to cut the amount of plastic the world makes, it could take years to have a meaningful effect.

In the meantime, institutions like the World Bank are turning to the markets for alternative solutions. One of these is plastic offsetting.

So what is plastic offsetting? Does it work? And what do programmes like this mean for vulnerable communities who depend on plastic waste to make a living?

What is plastic offsetting, and how do credits work?

Plastic credits are based on a similar idea to carbon credits.

With carbon credits, companies that emit greenhouse gases can pay a carbon credit company to have their emissions “cancelled out” by funding reforestation programmes or other projects to help “sink” their carbon output.

For each tonne of CO2 they cancel out, the company gets a carbon credit. This is how an airline can tell customers that their flight is “carbon neutral”.

Plastic credits work on a similar model. The world’s biggest plastic polluters can pay a plastic credit company to collect and re-purpose plastic.

If a polluter pays for one tonne of plastic to be collected, it gets one plastic credit.

If the polluter buys the number of plastic credits equivalent to its annual plastic output, it might be awarded “plastic neutral” or “plastic net zero” status.

Ghana plastic waste
Bags of plastic waste at a recycling yard in Accra [Costanza Gambarini/SourceMaterial]

Does plastic offsetting work?

Like carbon credits, plastic credits are controversial.

Carbon markets are already worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with their value set to grow to billions.

But in 2023, SourceMaterial, a nonprofit newsroom, revealed that only a fraction of nearly 100 million carbon credits result in real emissions reductions.

“Companies are making false claims and then they’re convincing customers that they can fly guilt-free or buy carbon-neutral products when they aren’t in any way carbon-neutral,” Barbara Haya, a US carbon trading expert, said at the time.

The same thing could happen with plastics. Analysis by SourceMaterial of the world’s first plastic credit registry, Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX) in the Philippines, found that only 14 percent of PCX credits went towards recycling.

While companies that had bought credits with PCX were getting “plastic neutral” status, most of the plastic was burned as fuel in cement factories, in a method known as “co-processing” that releases thousands of tonnes of CO2 and toxins linked to cancer.

A spokesperson for PCX said at the time that co-processing “reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and is conducted under controlled conditions to minimise emissions”.

Now, the World Bank is also pointing to plastic credits as a solution.

In January last year, the World Bank launched a $100m bond that “provides investors with a financial return” linked to the plastic credits projects backed by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an industry initiative that supports plastic credit projects, in Ghana and Indonesia.

At the UN talks in December last year, a senior environmental specialist from the World Bank said plastic credits were an “emerging result-based financing tool” which can fund projects that “reduce plastic pollution”.

What do companies think of plastic credits?

Manufacturers, petrostates and the operators of credit projects have all lobbied for market solutions, including plastic credits, at the UN.

Oil giant ExxonMobil and petrochemicals companies LyondellBasell and Dow Chemical are all members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste in Ghana and Indonesia – both epicentres of plastic pollution that produce plastic domestically and import waste from overseas.

But those companies are also members of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a lobby group that has warned the UN it does “not support production caps or bans”, given the “benefits of plastics”.

What do critics and affected local communities say?

Critics like Anil Verma, a professor of human resource management at the University of Toronto who has studied waste pickers in Brazil, call plastic offsetting a “game of greenwashing”.

Verma argues that offsetting lets polluters claim they are tackling the waste problem without having to cut production – or profit.

Patrick O’Hare, an academic at St Andrews University in Scotland, who has attended all rounds of the UN plastic treaty negotiations, said he has “noticed with concern the increasing prominence given to plastics credits”.

Plastic credits are being promoted in some quarters “despite the lack of proven success stories to date” and “the evident problems with the carbon credit model on which it is based”, he added.

Ghana plastic waste
Goats at the dumping site in Accra [Costanza Gambarini/SourceMaterial]

Even some of the world’s biggest companies have distanced themselves from plastic credits.

Nestle, which had previously bought plastic credits, said last year that it does not believe in their effectiveness in their current form.

Coca-Cola and Unilever are also “not convinced”, according to reports, and like Nestle, they back government-mandated “extended producer responsibility” schemes.

Yet the World Bank has plans to expand its support for plastic offsetting, calling it a “win-win with the local communities and ecosystems that benefit from less pollution”.

Some of the poorest people in Ghana eke out a living by collecting plastic waste for recycling.

Johnson Doe, head of a refuse collectors’ group in the capital, Accra, says funds for offsetting would be better spent supporting local waste pickers.

Doe wants his association to be officially recognised and funded, instead of watching investment flow into plastic credits. They’re a “false solution”, he says.

This story was produced in partnership with SourceMaterial 

READ MORE: Ghana’s waste pickers brave mountains of plastic – and big industry

Source link

Inside Manchester United’s 2025 pre-season – green shoots or another false dawn?

On the surface, all this seems positive. Certainly, reports from inside the club say the sports science team were delighted with the numbers from the early training sessions after Amorim’s players returned for the start of pre-season on 7 July.

This, they reasoned, suggested the players had stuck to a pretty detailed and strict fitness programme to work on during their time off.

This is Manchester United, so there were some commercial appearances, but they have reduced from previous tours.

In fact, potentially the most significant commercial event as far as the club was concerned had no player involvement at all as Lord Coe, chair designate of the Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) for the Old Trafford regeneration project, was part of a delegation who addressed an audience of Wall Street investment banks and US financiers in New York to try to generate interest in helping to fund the planned £2bn new stadium project.

The fact neither Coe nor chief operating officer Collette Roche, who spoke at length to travelling media about the stadium plans in Los Angeles 12 months earlier, met the press this time suggests strongly nothing significant has changed and the feeling is growing United will not meet an initial five-year timeline minority owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe spoke of in March.

That is not Amorim’s concern, of course.

He must deliver on the pitch. And to that end, United did look much better than last season.

It was obvious the much-discussed three-man defence splits when Amorim’s team have the ball so, when the build-up begins, the right and left-sided defenders operate as normal central defenders with the middle man of the three – Matthijs de Ligt is in pole position for that role – moves into midfield alongside the deeper of the two chosen for those jobs.

Matheus Cunha definitely brings more invention to Amorim’s attack and Amad Diallo, if selected, is a massive danger offensively at right wing-back, even if questions are asked defensively.

It is clear Amorim feels he can find an upgrade on Rasmus Hojlund, even if many would argue a better use of the funds United do have would be to find someone who can bring physicality and energy to midfield.

Watching the industry of Bournemouth’s Alex Scott emphasises it is a significant weakness in Amorim’s squad.

Nevertheless, as tours go, this has been a fairly calm one. Amorim’s group of players, in general, seem happy enough and the positive spirit needed for any team to be successful does exist.

Yet the reality of modern football is that everything in seen through, and judged by, the prism of results.

The walk through might be an advancement. If United win it will be seen that way. If they lose it will be written off as a terrible idea – even though it is the exactly the same process.

Conceding the winning goal to Tottenham in the Europa League final through a flick off Brennan Johnson – that took a deflection at close range off Luke Shaw and then squeezed in at the corner despite Onana’s desperate attempt to keep it out – has nothing to do with training and everything to do with the small margins managers across the league talk about.

This does seem to be a better United. Amorim is getting his ideas across.

But Arsenal’s upcoming visit to Old Trafford and the 37 Premier Leagues games afterwards will decide whether the progress is real or if pre-season 2025 was just another false dawn.

Source link

‘Obamagate.’ ‘Treason.’ Trump’s false claims about Obama

Donald Trump gained momentum for his political career by promoting the unfounded “birther” conspiracy theory about President Obama. Now, facing a pandemic, a shattered economy and unrest after three-plus years in the White House, Trump continues to push incendiary and unsubstantiated theories about his predecessor.

Trump said last week, without evidence, that Obama had committed “treason” by spying on his campaign, in reference to his years-old claim that the Obama administration tapped his phone lines at Trump Tower before the 2016 general election.

“It’s treason,” he said during an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network that aired Tuesday. “Look, when I came out a long time ago, I said they’ve been spying on my campaign … turned out I was right. Let’s see what happens to them now.”

Trump tweeted last month that Obama committed “the biggest political crime in American history.” One missive in a Mother’s Day tweetstorm said simply, “OBAMAGATE!”

But when asked at a news conference to explain what he was claiming Obama had done, Trump declined. “You know what the crime is,” Trump told reporters. “The crime is very obvious to everybody.”

In the days that followed, it became clear that “Obamagate” was a catchall term for the unsubstantiated claim that Obama led an illegal plot to undermine Trump. It’s also one of the latest in a series of groundless accusations Trump has made against his predecessor.

Trump has often spread conspiracy theories about the people he sees as political enemies. He amplifies accusations of illegal or immoral behavior through tweets and comments, often with vague qualifiers — “people are saying.”

During the 2016 presidential election alone, Trump said the circumstances around the 1993 death of Clinton administration counsel Vince Foster were “fishy” and claims of Hillary Clinton’s involvement were “serious”; he retweeted an article that falsely claimed Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz weren’t eligible to run for president; and he cited the National Enquirer to claim Cruz’s father was linked to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Trump has returned to conspiracy theories about Obama time and again, and the accusations have grown more serious in nature.

2011: Birtherism

Trump amplified the false conspiracy theory questioning where Obama was born, becoming the face of the racist “birther” movement. Obama, who was born in Hawaii, had released his certification of live birth during the 2008 presidential campaign.

In a series of interviews, Trump said he had “doubts” about where Obama was born and suggested that his birth certificate might list his religion as Muslim. (Obama is Christian.)

During an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper that aired April 25, 2011, Trump repeated his claim that he had a team in Hawaii investigating Obama’s birth and said he’d been told the birth certificate was “missing” or didn’t exist. “I’ve been told…,” Trump said repeatedly, but would not say by whom. (CNN staff reporting on Obama’s birth certificate said they saw no evidence of Trump associates looking into the matter.)

Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011. In his remarks on the release, Obama criticized those who perpetuated the conspiracy and the news cycle and said the country was “not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”

A few days later, at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, Obama addressed Trump by name.

“Now he can get back to focusing on the issues that matter,” Obama said. “Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?”

But Trump kept returning to the conspiracy theory. In 2013, he tweeted: “How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ died in plane crash today. All others lived.”

Trump cast doubts on where Obama was born until 2016, when he pivoted to a new false theory: Hillary Clinton had started the rumors.

April 2011: Obama’s school records

In the midst of the birther controversy, Trump asked for a different set of records: proof that Obama earned his way into college.

“I heard he was a terrible student, terrible,” Trump told the Associated Press in an April 2011 interview. “How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard? I’m thinking about it; I’m certainly looking into it. Let him show his records.”

Trump continued to promote articles challenging Obama’s academic record as late as 2014. In 2012 he tweeted a Breitbart article — written by far-right activist Charles C. Johnson — that speculated Obama had lower SAT scores than President George W. Bush and benefited from affirmative action when he transferred to Columbia University. Trump also tweeted: “I wonder if @BarackObama ever applied to Occidental, Columbia or Harvard as a foreign student. When can we see his applications? What do they say about his place of birth.”

In his 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama acknowledged that his mother was concerned about his “slipping” grades, and he’d had doubts about college. But, he wrote, he wasn’t “flunking out” and he did end up applying and being accepted to college. He attended Occidental College for two years before transferring to Columbia, where he began focusing more on his studies, he told Columbia College Today in 2005.

“When I transferred, I decided to buckle down and get serious,” he said. “I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk.”

Obama’s record at Harvard has been well-documented. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and was the first African American elected to edit the prestigious Law Review. The election was covered by the New York Times and led to a book deal to write his 1995 memoir, according to the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. As Obama prepared to launch his presidential campaign in 2007, his Harvard Law School professors described him as “brilliant” and a “serious intellectual” in a Harvard Crimson article.

Like Obama, Trump has not released his academic transcripts.

After two years at Fordham University, Trump moved to the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, where he received his bachelor’s degree in 1968. James Nolan, a former University of Pennsylvania admissions officer, was friends with Fred Trump Jr. and interviewed his brother Donald at his request, he told the Washington Post last year. Nolan said it was “not very difficult” to get into the school at the time.

March 2017: A claim of wiretapping

As the investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election ramped up in the early months of his presidency, Trump accused Obama of having tapped his phone lines in Trump Tower.

The allegation spread through conservative media outlets before making its way to the White House and eventually into a series of March 4, 2017, tweets by the president. “Terrible! Just found out Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory,” he wrote in one post. “Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

James B. Comey, the FBI director at the time, asked the Justice Department to publicly reject the claim, and a spokesman for Obama said the claim was “simply false.” House Intelligence Committee leaders said they’d seen no evidence that Trump was wiretapped by Obama. The Justice Department has since refuted the claim that Trump’s lines were wiretapped.

In the days that followed Trump’s tweets, White House officials broadened the claim to suggest the Obama administration had improperly spied on his campaign.

Trump’s allies seized on revelations that the FBI made numerous errors in a counterintelligence probe into whether associates of Trump and his campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election. In December 2019, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report sharply criticizing the FBI for withholding information from the department about a former Trump campaign aide suspected of working with Russian intelligence. Horowitz concluded, however, that the FBI had legal and factual justification to start the investigation.

The report also said investigators found no evidence that the mistakes were influenced by political bias. But Trump claimed he had survived “an attempted overthrow.”

May 2020: ‘Obamagate’

On May 7, the Justice Department announced it was dropping its case against Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his calls with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Three days later, Trump launched a tweetstorm railing against the media, the criticism of his response to the COVID-19 pandemic and “the biggest political scandal in American history.”

Trump and his allies are pushing the theory that Obama and his administration officials illegally targeted Flynn as part of a conspiracy to undermine the president-elect.

Phone transcripts show that Flynn urged Russia’s ambassador not to retaliate against Obama administration sanctions and told him “we can have a better conversation” after Trump’s inauguration. Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents about his talks with the ambassador. Trump fired Flynn after only 24 days in office, then said his top security advisor had been treated unfairly.

Allies of the president have pointed to two declassified documents released in May related to the investigation into Flynn. In an email, then-national security advisor Susan Rice described a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting in which Comey expressed concern to Obama about sharing information with Flynn because of his communications with the Russian ambassador. Another document shows that Vice President Joe Biden was among dozens of senior Obama administration officials who might have been informed about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Neither document shows any wrongdoing. Rice’s email states that Obama told Comey to proceed “by the book,” and the document listing Biden as an official who learned of Flynn’s contacts states that the former Trump advisor’s “unmasking” was approved by the National Security Agency.

The Justice Department’s decision to try to drop the Flynn prosecution has prompted critics to question whether Trump was improperly influencing criminal prosecutions in a politically charged case.

But Trump has continued with the “Obamagate” narrative, and a Senate committee headed by Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is now investigating the Russia investigation.



Source link

Trump accuses Schiff of mortgage fraud. Schiff calls it false ‘political retaliation’

President Trump on Tuesday accused Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) of committing mortgage fraud by intentionally misleading lenders about his primary residence being in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., rather than California, in order to “get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.”

Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump during the president’s first term and has remained one of his most vocal and forceful political adversaries since joining the Senate, dismissed the president’s claims as a “baseless attempt at political retribution.”

A spokesperson for Schiff said he has always been transparent about owning two homes, in part to be able to raise his children near him in Washington, and has always followed the law — and advice from House counsel — in arranging his mortgages.

In making his claims, Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

A memorandum reviewed by The Times from Fannie Mae investigators to William J. Pulte, the Trump-appointed director of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, does not accuse Schiff of mortgage fraud. It noted that investigators had been asked by the FHFA inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they found that Schiff at various points identified both his home in Potomac, Md., and a Burbank unit he also owns as his primary residence. As a result, they concluded that Schiff and his wife, Eve, “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020.

The investigators did not say they had concluded that a crime had been committed, nor did they mention the word “fraud” in the memo.

The memo was partially redacted to remove Schiff’s addresses and information about his wife. Fannie Mae did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition to denying any wrongdoing, Schiff also suggested that Trump’s accusation was an effort to distract from a growing controversy — important to many in the president’s MAGA base — over the administration’s failure to disclose more investigative records into child sex abuse by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, a former acquaintance of Trump’s.

There has long been rumors of a “client list” of Epstein’s that could expose other powerful men as predators. Trump promised to release such a list as a candidate, and at one point Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi appeared to say such a list was on her desk. However, the administration has since said no such list exists, and Trump has begged his followers to move on.

Schiff drew a direct line between that controversy and Trump’s accusations against him Tuesday.

“This is just Donald Trump’s latest attempt at political retaliation against his perceived enemies. So it is not a surprise, only how weak this false allegation turns out to be,” Schiff wrote on X. “And much as Trump may hope, this smear will not distract from his Epstein files problem.”

A spokesperson for Schiff echoed the senator’s denial of any wrongdoing.

According to the spokesperson, Schiff made a decision routine for Congress members from states far from Washington to buy a home in Maryland so he could raise his children nearby. He also maintained a home in California, living there when not in Washington.

The spokesperson said all of Schiff’s lenders were aware that he intended to live in both as he traveled back and forth from Washington to his district — making neither a vacation home.

Trump’s own post about Schiff, on his social media platform, was thin on details and heavy on insults, calling Schiff “a scam artist” and “crook.”

Trump alleged that Schiff reported his primary residence being in Maryland, when “he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA” as a congressman from the state.

Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, has for years laid out detailed arguments against the president — and for why his actions violated the law and warranted his permanent removal from office. Those have included Trump’s first presidential campaign’s interactions with Russian assets, his pressuring Ukraine to investigate his rival Joe Biden while U.S. military aid was being withheld from the country, and his incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and storming of the U.S. Capitol to prevent the certification of Biden’s 2020 electoral win over him.

Schiff also has criticized the president — and his businesses, family members and political appointees — for their own financial actions.

He recently sponsored legislation that would restrict the ability of politicians and their family members from getting rich off of digital currencies of their own creation, as Trump and his family have done. He also has repeatedly demanded greater financial transparency from various Trump appointees, accusing them of breaking the law by not filing disclosures of their assets within required time frames.

Others have accused Trump for years of financial fraud. Last year, a judge in New York ordered Trump to pay $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case after finding that the president and others in his business empire inflated his wealth to trick banks and insurers. Trump denied any wrongdoing and has appealed the decision.

All along the way, Trump has attacked Schiff personally, accusing him of peddling hoaxes for political gain and repeatedly suggesting that he should be charged with treason. During a presidential campaign stop in California last year — when Schiff was running for Senate — Trump called Schiff “one of the sleaziest politicians in history.”

Schiff made mention of Trump’s treason claims in his response to the new allegation of mortgage fraud Tuesday, writing, “Since I led his first impeachment, Trump has repeatedly called for me to be arrested for treason. So in a way, I guess this is a bit of a letdown.”

Before leaving office, President Biden preemptively pardoned Schiff and the other members of the committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, anticipating that Trump would seek to retaliate against them for their work.

Schiff said at the time that he did not want a pardon. He later dismissed an assertion from Trump that the pardons were “void” as another attempt at intimidation.

Schiff was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000. He now splits his time between a two-story home in Potomac, Md., which he bought in 2003, according to property records, and a one-bedroom condo in a shopping area in downtown Burbank, which he bought in 2009.

In 2023, amid a bruising primary race for his Senate seat, CNN reported on Schiff’s two mortgages, citing experts who said the arrangement did not put Schiff in legal jeopardy — even if it could raise tough political questions.

CNN reported that deed records showed Schiff had designated his Maryland home as his primary residence, including while refinancing his mortgage over the years. In 2020, the outlet reported, Schiff again refinanced his mortgage and indicated that the Maryland home was his second.

CNN also reported that Schiff for years has taken a California homeowner’s tax exemption for his Burbank home, also designating it as his primary address. CNN said that exemption amounted to “roughly $70 in annual savings.” Schiff’s spokesperson confirmed that estimate in annual savings in California, and noted that Schiff did not claim such an exemption in Maryland.

Source link

Judges order ‘robust’ inquiry into MI5 false evidence exposed by BBC

Daniel De Simone

Investigations correspondent

PA Media Sir Ken McCallum, a white man with dark, swept-back hair and rectangle, dark rimmed glasses, wearing a dark suit with a white shirt and dark tie, pictured in close-up with a long lens as he speaks. In the background behind him is the word MI5PA Media

MI5 head Sir Ken McCallum said the Security Service would co-operate fully with the new investigation

The High Court has ordered a “robust and independent” new investigation into how MI5 gave false evidence to multiple courts, after rejecting two official inquiries provided by the Security Service as seriously “deficient”.

The two reviews took place after the BBC revealed MI5 had lied to three courts in a case concerning a neo-Nazi state agent who abused women.

A panel of three senior judges said it would be “premature” to decide whether to begin contempt of court proceedings against any individuals before the new investigation was complete.

They also “commended” the BBC for “bringing these matters to light”.

The two official inquiries, one of which was commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, absolved MI5 and its officers of deliberate wrongdoing.

But the judgement concludes that the “investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies” and that “we cannot rely on their conclusions”.

The three judges – England and Wales’ most senior judge, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, said: “It is to be hoped that events such as these will never be repeated.”

Their judgement says the new investigation should be carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Sir Brian Leveson, who has oversight of MI5’s surveillance activities. His office, IPCO, was also provided with false evidence by MI5 in the case.

MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum repeated his “full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings”.

He said resolving this matter was “of the highest priority for MI5” and that they would co-operate fully with IPCO.

“MI5’s job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission,” he said.

A BBC spokesperson said: “We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges.

“We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.”

Avalon/PA A composite image showing the three judges in red ceremonial robes and long wigs, while the Lady Chief Justice in the centre also has a gold chain of officeAvalon/PA

The panel of judges hearing the case was Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr (centre), Mr Justice Chamberlain and President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp

The case began in 2022 with an attempt to block the BBC from publishing a story about a neo-Nazi agent known as X. It has become a major test of how the courts view MI5 and the credibility of its evidence.

MI5 gave evidence to three courts, saying that it had never breached its core secrecy policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) that X was a state agent.

But in February, the BBC was able to prove with notes and recordings of phone calls with MI5 that this was false.

An MI5 officer had confirmed the agent’s status as he tried to persuade me to drop an investigation into X, a violent misogynist who used his Security Service role to coerce and terrify his former girlfriend, known publicly as “Beth”.

The two official inquiries criticised by the High Court were an internal MI5 inquiry and an “external” investigation by the government’s former chief lawyer, Sir Jonathan Jones KC. The latter was commissioned by the home sectary and Sir Ken.

But the judgement said that “there was in our view a fundamental incoherence in Sir Jonathan’s terms of reference”.

Beth, pictured in a blurred silhouette against a high window, looking out onto tall buildings stretching into the distance on an overcast day

Beth has called for a public apology by MI5

The ruling said he was asked to establish the facts of what happened but not to “make findings about why specific individuals did or did not do certain things”.

However, the judges said Sir Jonathan nevertheless “did make findings” that there was no deliberate attempt by anyone to mislead the court – without ever speaking to an MI5 officer at the centre of the case and without considering key additional BBC evidence about what took place.

The judgement also found that MI5’s director general of strategy, who is the organisation’s third-in-command, gave misleading assurances to the court in a witness statement.

He said its original explanations were “a fair and accurate account” of secret material which, at that point, had not been disclosed.

The court forced the government and MI5 to hand over the material, and the judges concluded that MI5’s explanations were not “fair and accurate” and “omitted several critical matters” – including that IPCO had been misled and what was known by several MI5 officers at relevant times.

Their judgement said that it was “regrettable that MI5’s explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way – and only following the repeated intervention of the court”.

“The impression has been created that the true circumstances in which false evidence came to be given have had to be extracted from, not volunteered by, MI5,” they said.

A heavily blurred photo of X, who is wearing a black T-shirt and holding a large machete

X physically and sexually abused Beth, attacking her with a machete

Today’s highly critical judgement also found:

  • In this one case MI5 has misled two separate branches of the High Court, as well as the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and security cleared barristers representing the BBC known as special advocates
  • MI5’s core NCND secrecy policy about the status of agents was maintained in the legal proceedings long after “any justification for its maintenance had disappeared”
  • The BBC and I, as well as our lawyers and special advocates, should be “commended” for the “central role” we have played in bringing these matters to light

The judgement said that a “major” failing by the official reviews is that they did not contact me, despite the fact I was the other person involved in the key events.

The judges said that, having “considered carefully” further evidence I submitted in response to the reviews – such as records and notes that showed both reviews included false statements – it “paints a significantly different picture” to the one presented by MI5.

They added that they accepted the internal investigators and Sir Jonathan in the external review later considered my evidence “in good faith”.

But they said that because they had already reached a conclusion that there had been no deliberate attempt to mislead the court, they would “inevitably find it difficult” to revise those conclusions in the light of evidence which “fundamentally affects” the basis of their conclusions.

Source link

False Flags, Real Risks: How Nationalism Drives South Asia’s Nuclear Gamble — with Michael Kugelman

South Asia, a crucible of ancient civilizations and modern rivalries, stands at a perilous crossroads. For over two decades, Michael Kugelman, a leading American foreign policy expert and Director of the South Asia Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, has meticulously charted its volatile course. His insights reveal a region increasingly caught between the existential dread of nuclear arsenals and the explosive forces of populist narratives and fervent nationalism. The recent, harrowing crisis between India and Pakistan in May 2025 – a conflict that saw missile strikes, drone warfare, and an almost immediate breakdown of a US-backed ceasefire – serves as a chilling testament to these escalating dynamics.

Kugelman’s analysis begins with a foundational, yet often overlooked, truth: South Asia’s inherent fragmentation. “This is a region where you have many countries that simply struggle to get along,” he observes, pointing beyond the omnipresent India-Pakistan antagonism to include fraught relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and India’s recurring disputes with its smaller neighbors. Borders, everywhere, are a flashpoint – disputed, porous, or simply volatile.

This chronic discord found its sharpest expression in the May 2025 conflagration. Following a brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” a series of missile strikes deep inside Pakistan. Islamabad retaliated with “Operation Bunyaan al Marsoos,” deploying its own ballistic missiles and engaging in an unprecedented drone duel. Kugelman notes how quickly the Line of Control (LoC), which had enjoyed a four-year truce, ignited. “Once again, now the LoC is extremely tense and particularly significant, given that you’ve got two nuclear states there,” he underscores, highlighting the hair-trigger nature of this enduring fault line.

The ascent of populist and nationalist politics, particularly in India, has fundamentally altered the calculus of nuclear deterrence, making escalation both more probable and profoundly less predictable. Kugelman argues that the current Indian government has shrewdly harnessed a hardline stance on Pakistan for domestic political gain. The 2019 crisis, unfolding on the cusp of Indian elections, saw New Delhi launch airstrikes beyond Pakistan-administered Kashmir for the first time since 1971. “I think that one could argue that the Indian decision to take the steps that it did… was in some ways driven by considerations about politics,” Kugelman explains.

This phenomenon is not unilateral. Domestic political agendas in both nations frequently weaponize cross-border tensions. Even if the strident rhetoric from nationalist media in India is partly performative, “that still has an impact on how the public, the broader public, looks at and perceives Pakistan.” This creates immense public pressure, demanding forceful retaliation for any perceived slight or attack, as demonstrated by the furious public outcry after the Pahalgam incident in May 2025. “There’s going to be significant amounts of pressure from the public on the government in India… it was very clear that India was going to respond with force,” Kugelman states, emphasizing how deeply public sentiment now intertwines with strategic decisions.

Fuelling this volatile public sentiment is a media landscape saturated with jingoism and, often, outright disinformation. While English-language nationalist channels capture global attention, the broader media sphere across South Asia consistently ratchets up hyper-sensationalism during crises. “It can be very dangerous,” Kugelman warns, “Because… the jingoism also encourages and at times propagates disinformation. And, you know, that in and of itself is very dangerous.” He directly connects this trend to recent conflicts, stating, “on the Indian side, so much of the jingoistic media content was accompanied by disinformation. I mean, oftentimes it was synonymous.” In an age where narratives can be manufactured and amplified at warp speed, this weaponized information environment makes rational de-escalation a monumental challenge.

The rise of cyber warfare, hybrid threats, and widespread disinformation campaigns raises critical questions about the efficacy of traditional nuclear doctrines. While governments are undeniably engaging in these new forms of conflict, Kugelman asserts that they do not diminish the paramount importance of maintaining nuclear preparedness. Both India and Pakistan have shown a disturbing willingness to employ conventional force increasingly, pushing closer to the nuclear threshold. “The more that you use, the higher up the escalation ladder you get,” he cautions, “and the higher you get up, you get closer to bumping up against the ceiling.”

Disinformation, by inflaming passions and deepening animosity, can dangerously accelerate this ascent. Kugelman suggests that these new dimensions of warfare, far from supplanting nuclear concerns, in fact amplify them. “One could argue… cyber warfare disinformation can deepen tensions between two countries that are nuclear and raise the risk, further raise the risk of nuclear escalation.” Compounding this is the ongoing internal debate in India regarding its stated No-First-Use (NFU) nuclear policy, with past statements from senior officials hinting at a potential reconsideration – a move that could further erode predictability in an already volatile environment.

China’s expanding military and economic influence casts an undeniable shadow over South Asia’s security dynamics. Despite recent diplomatic efforts between India and China, including a border agreement in late 2024 aimed at easing tensions, the core strategic competition persists. The May 2025 crisis vividly demonstrated the enduring strength of the China-Pakistan alliance, with Pakistan deploying Chinese-made jets against India for the first time in combat. Kugelman emphasizes that China remains Pakistan’s most critical arms supplier, capable of providing weapons systems that no other partner can match, especially as the U.S. continues to restrict Pakistan’s use of American-made weaponry against India.

China’s economic reach, primarily through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is region-wide. While Kugelman notes a general slowdown in some BRI projects due to security concerns and economic issues – a trend confirmed by recent reports showing a significant drop in CPEC investment – China’s economic influence remains formidable. “This is really just something consistent that’s been playing out for some time,” he states, highlighting Beijing’s deep, steady penetration into the region, reshaping its strategic calculus.

Amidst these rising pressures, the question of strategic stability looms large. Kugelman offers a cautiously optimistic assessment: “the nuclear deterrent is actually alive and well.” While the May 2025 conflict tested the deterrent in ways not seen since the massive border buildup of 2001-2002, both sides ultimately demonstrated a shared desire to avoid an all-out war. “Neither side wanted an all out war,” he stresses, distinguishing governmental intent from jingoistic public rhetoric. India’s rapid, targeted airstrikes and Pakistan’s contained, albeit forceful, response were, in Kugelman’s view, calibrated moves reflecting a continued respect for the nuclear red line. The fact that India and Pakistan largely managed to negotiate their own ceasefire, rather than relying solely on external mediation, further underscores their grim recognition of the catastrophic stakes.

However, this “alive and well” deterrent is perpetually tested. India’s missile strikes, whether depicted as targeting terrorists or military assets, were unequivocally viewed by Pakistan as a violation of sovereignty. “When it comes to conflict… international normative ideals around respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity… they go out the door,” Kugelman starkly reminds us. The very act of such cross-border retaliation, irrespective of nuclear use, chips away at the foundational principles of statehood and international law, keeping the entire region on tenterhooks.

The path to de-escalation and sustained peace talks remains fraught. The Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMO) hotline, a vital communication channel even during wars, remains open and was utilized during the recent crisis. Beyond this, however, “the two sides just don’t line up when it comes to the issue of dialogue.” India’s unwavering stance against engaging Pakistan until “cross-border terrorism” ceases, combined with its rejection of discussing Pakistan-administered Kashmir, clashes directly with Pakistan’s insistence on Kashmir as a core issue.

Prime Minister Modi’s early attempt at outreach to then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, followed by a terrorist attack, appears to have instilled a “once bitten, twice shy” caution. And while Pakistan publicly calls for talks, it too has conditions. Adding to this grim calculus is the recurring “spoiler act”—often a terrorist attack—that invariably derails any nascent momentum toward dialogue. While India traditionally rejects third-party mediation for comprehensive talks, the May 2025 crisis saw a quiet but significant role played by external actors, with the UAE in particular thanked by Pakistan’s Prime Minister for its efforts in de-escalation, building on its prior role in brokering the LoC truce. This suggests that limited, targeted mediation for specific de-escalation objectives might be the only viable avenue for external engagement.

In a world increasingly consumed by its own inward-looking concerns, the question of who will fill the potential vacuum in South Asian peace looms large. Kugelman offers a sobering answer: “the region is going to be on its own.” While major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China broadly align in their desire to prevent nuclear escalation—a shared concern often rooted in their own vested interests in regional stability—their capacity and willingness for sustained, comprehensive mediation are limited. China, despite its rivalry with India, has massive investments in Pakistan that it cannot afford to see imperiled. Russia seeks new friends amidst its isolation. The U.S. balances critical interests with both India and Pakistan, making broad intervention fraught.

Yet, amidst this potential vacuum, Kugelman identifies a crucial, if understated, role for regional powers with significant leverage. He points specifically to the Arab Gulf states. “They provide significant amounts of energy exports and other goods,” he explains, giving them economic sway. Furthermore, the UAE’s successful role in brokering the LoC truce demonstrates a capacity for targeted, effective mediation. These nations, though not global superpowers, may be best positioned to “suggest incentives for India and Pakistan to ensure that things don’t get completely out of control.”

South Asia, a region of immense human potential, finds itself perpetually walking a razor’s edge. The interplay of nuclear might, emotionally charged narratives, and aggressive nationalism threatens to pull it closer to the abyss. Michael Kugelman’s sharp analysis reminds us that while the nuclear deterrent may still hold, its resilience is being tested as never before, demanding sustained vigilance and creative diplomatic solutions from within and, perhaps, from unexpected corners of the world.

Source link

Fact-checking Trump’s false accusations about immigrants, voting fraud

After nearly a week of protests in Los Angeles against recent federal immigration enforcement sweeps in the city, President Trump doubled down on his administration’s efforts to detain and deport immigrants without documentation, claiming they are a key voting bloc in Democratic cities.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said Los Angeles and “other such cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use illegal aliens to expand their voter base, cheat in elections, and grow the welfare state, robbing good paying jobs and benefits from hardworking American citizens.”

But according to Los Angeles County election officials, that’s simply not true.

  • Share via

“That claim is false and unsupported, and only serves to create unsubstantiated concern and confusion about the electoral process,” the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office said in a statement.

In reality, the county has safeguards in place to ensure only eligible voters cast ballots and that all votes are accurately counted, said Mike Sanchez, spokesperson for the county’s Registrar-Recorder’s office.

How do people become registered voters in California?

In the state of California there are five requirements a person must meet to register to vote, according to the California Secretary of State. To register an individual must be:

  1. A U.S. citizen.
  2. A resident of California.
  3. At least 18 years or older on or before Election Day.
  4. Not currently serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.
  5. Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court.

When a person meets the eligibility criteria, they can register to vote which includes attesting under penalty of perjury that they meet all eligibility requirements, including being a U.S. citizen and a resident of California, said Sanchez.

“This sworn statement is a legal declaration and serves as the foundation of the voter registration process,” Sanchez said.

Voting as a noncitizen is a felony that can lead to a year in jail or deportation, said Hasen.

Though there are some cities in the United States where noncitizens can participate in local elections, for example in communities in Vermont and Maryland, participation is limited to voting in school board or city council elections.

In California, San Francisco is the only city where noncitizens can vote and it is limited to the school board.

How does Los Angeles County verify who is voting in federal elections?

Once a voter registers, their personal information is verified through the State Voter Registration database, which is done by cross-checking state Department of Motor Vehicle records or the last four digits of the person’s Social Security number, Sanchez said.

When the verification process is complete, a voter does not have to show their identification when voting in person. If verification has not occurred, the voter must show identification the first time they vote. Acceptable forms of identification include a driver’s license, state-issued I.D or passport; the California Secretary of State has a complete online list of what identifying documents to take to the polling place.

Once polling places open for voters within the county, the voter must sign a roster in the presence of election workers, who attest to their identity and eligibility.

“Elections officials also conduct regular voter roll maintenance, checking against several data points including death records from the California Department of Public Health, Social Security Administration, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” the California Secretary of State told The Times in a statement.

For vote-by-mail ballots, the signature on the return envelope is compared to the one on file in the voter registration record, Sanchez said. If the signature does not match or is missing, the voter is contacted and given a chance to correct it.

“Only verified ballots are accepted and counted,” he said.

Where do the claims about undocumented immigrants voting originate?

The claim that immigrants lacking documentation vote in large numbers — and for Democrats — has been repeated for years.

It has seeds in the once-fringe racist conspiracy theory called the “great replacement.” According to a poll by the Associated Press and and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 1 in 3 Americans now believe “an effort is underway to replace U.S.-born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains.”

The theory has gained momentum under Trump.

In 2016, Trump won the Electoral College and the presidency, but not the popular vote. That went to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who received about 2.9 million more votes.

Trump then claimed, without evidence, that he would have won the popular vote if 3 to 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally hadn’t voted.

“About 3 million votes was the margin by which he lost the popular vote which is why I think he chose that 3 million number to try to explain away his popular vote loss,” Hasen said.

After losing his reelection bid in 2020 to Joe Biden, when voting by mail was a focus, Trump refocused on immigrants lacking authorization in the 2024 campaign and was ultimately voted back into the White House.

“In 2024, when I think Trump and the Republicans concluded that the attacks on absentee ballots were actually hurting them because people don’t want to show up in person to vote, the shift went back to immigration,” Hasen said.

Voter fraud claims echo whomever is trying to dictate the political narrative, according to Hasen.

Researchers have found, repeatedly through decades of investigation, that fraud conducted by voters at the polls is virtually nonexistent and does not happen “on a scale even close to that necessary to “rig” an election, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Many instances of reported fraud were due to clerical errors or human errors.

“I think one of the things we’ve seen is people on the losing end of elections tend to be more likely to believe that there’s cheating,” Hasen said. “But Donald Trump has really supercharged things to the point where we’re way beyond what we normally see in terms of partisan divisions.”

But Trump is not alone in fueling that theory recently. Last year as he campaigned for Trump, billionaire Elon Musk repeated those claims on his social media platform, X.

“If the Democratic party gains enough voters to win an election by importing them and giving them free stuff, then they will do so,” he posted in September.

So is the number of undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles growing?

Yes, but likely not at the rate it once was, said Manuel Paster, professor of sociology and American studies at USC.

California’s immigrant population — including those without authorization — increased by 5% (about 500,000) from 2010 to 2023, compared to 14% (1.27 million) from 2000 to 2010, and by 37% (2.4 million) rise in the 1990s, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Between 2019 and 2022, the population of undocumented immigrants in most states across the nation steadily climbed. California’s however, decreased, according to the Pew Research Center.

These days, most new immigrants are going to Florida, Texas and the South rather than high-cost California, Pastor said.

“Los Angeles, more than 70% of our undocumented immigrants have been in the country for longer than a decade,” he said. “They’re more likely to be long established employees, parents, parts of faith institutions.”

Source link

Was the shooting of Israeli embassy staff at Jewish museum a false flag? | Crime News

Authorities are investigating the fatal shootings outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, as hate crimes and ‘terrorism’.

By 

Following the fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, DC, last week, some social media users claimed the incident was a “false flag” because of when and where it happened.

“So you’re telling me two Israeli diplomats got killed across the street from an FBI field office outside a Jewish museum that had *closed* 4 hours earlier,” said a May 22 X post. “And one day after Israel fired at European diplomats and Europe was talking sanctions and you don’t think it’s a false flag?”

Other X posts similarly speculated about the deadly shooting on May 21.

The “false flag” phrase stems from the misuse of literal flags. Historically, a false flag operation referred to a military force or a ship flying another country’s flag for deception purposes.

Some confirmed false flag operations have occurred throughout history. But they have been outpaced in recent years by conspiracy theories that label real events as “false flags,” or an attack that’s designed to look like it was perpetrated by one person or party, when in fact it was committed by someone else.

Unfounded false flag claims often follow mass violence incidents, including Israel’s war on Gaza, the 2022 Uvalde school shooting and the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

Historians warn that social media rumours alleging that big news events are “false flags” should be viewed sceptically. Real false flag operations are logistically complex and tend to involve many people.

PolitiFact found no credible evidence to support the claim that the Israeli embassy employees’ shooting is a false flag.

What we know about the shooting

The X post said the shooting, which happened on a Wednesday, is a “false flag” because the museum had closed four hours earlier. The museum usually closes at 5pm on Wednesdays, except for the first Wednesday of each month, when it closes at 8pm.

However, the American Jewish Committee hosted an event on May 21 at the museum, scheduled to end at 9pm.

Preliminary investigations say the shooting happened after 9pm local time when the two victims, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, were exiting an event at the Capital Jewish Museum, said Pamela A Smith, the Metropolitan Police Department police chief, at a May 21 press conference.

Police identified the suspect as Elias Rodriguez, a 31-year-old man from Chicago, Illinois. Rodriguez chanted, “Free, free, Palestine” after he was arrested, Smith said. The Justice Department charged him with the murder of foreign officials and other crimes.

The shooting, which has widely been criticised, came as Israel’s actions in Gaza has caused a global outrage and protests calling for ceasefire.

Jeanine Pirro, interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, said on May 22 that the incident is being investigated as a hate crime and “terrorism”.

The Capital Jewish Museum is diagonally across the street from the FBI’s DC field office. FBI Director Kash Patel and the Israeli government have condemned the shooting.

There is no evidence that the shooting was a false flag. We rate this claim False.

Source link

Edison executives made false statements on wildfire risks, suit claims

Edison International officers and directors misled the company’s investors about the effectiveness of its efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire in the months and years before the devastating Eaton fire, a shareholder lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, points to repeated statements that the utility made in federal regulatory reports that said it had reduced the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by more than 85% since 2018 by increasing equipment inspections, tree trimming and other work aimed at stopping fires.

The complaint also raises doubts about news releases and other statements that Edison made soon after the start of Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Altadena.

“We take all legal matters seriously,” said Jeff Monford, a spokesman for Edison. “We will review this lawsuit and respond through the appropriate legal channels.”

The lawsuit claims that Edison’s early statements on the Eaton fire — in which it detailed why it believed its equipment was not involved in the fire’s start — were wrong.

“Edison obfuscated the truth by making false and misleading statements concerning its role in the fire,” the lawsuit claims.

More recently, Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International, said the leading theory for the fire’s start was the reenergization of an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon.

The investigation by state and local fire investigators into the official cause of the deadly fire is continuing.

The lawsuit was filed as a derivative action in which shareholders sue a company’s officers and directors on behalf of the company, claiming they had breached their fiduciary duties. It seeks financial damages from Pizarro, Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti and members of the company’s board of directors. Money recovered would go to the company.

It also directs Edison “to take all necessary actions” to reform its corporate governance procedures, comply with all laws and protect the company and its investors “from a recurrence of the damaging events.”

The lawsuit was brought by Charlotte Bark, a shareholder of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison.

“Prior to the outbreak of the Eaton Fire, the Company had a long history of not prioritizing the safety of those who lived in the areas it serviced, and paying fines as a result,” the lawsuit states. Since 2000, it says, Edison has paid financial penalties of $1.3 billion for violating utility safety regulations.

The complaint points to an October regulatory report that was the focus of a Times report. In the article, state regulators criticized some of Edison’s wildfire mitigation efforts, including for falling behind in inspecting transmission lines in areas at high risk of fires.

The lawsuit lists the major destructive wildfires that investigators said were sparked by Edison’s equipment in recent years, including the Bobcat and Silverado fires in 2020, as well as the Coastal and Fairview fires in 2022.

“The recurring wildfire incidents connected to the Company display that the Board has repeatedly failed to mitigate a risk that materially threatens Edison,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit accuses Pizarro, Rigatti and the company’s board of directors of “gross mismanagement” and claims that the defendants “unjustly enriched” themselves.

“Because the Individual Defendants failed to carry out their respective duties, the compensation they received was excessive and undeserved,” the suit states.

It asks the court for an order that would require the officers and directors to pay restitution, including returning the compensation they received that was tied to how well the company performed.

Source link