|
#1
Mar 18 - Pro-Trump attorney arrested after court hearing about leaked Dominion emails 4 people viewing this @news By Ymmot 1 hour ago |
A pro-Trump lawyer who tried to overturn the 2020 election was arrested Monday after a court hearing about her recent leak of internal emails belonging to Dominion Voting Systems.
There was an existing arrest warrant for the attorney, Stefanie Lambert, stemming from her failure to appear at recent court hearings in her separate criminal case in Michigan, where she was charged with conspiring to seize voting machines after the 2020 election. Lambert and a cadre of election deniers have disrupted one of DominionÂ’s many ongoing defamation lawsuits by publicly leaking thousands of the companyÂ’s internal emails in recent days, using the disclosures to resurrect false claims about voter fraud. The controversy erupted when Lambert provided the confidential Dominion documents to Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, who has embraced conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and has used his office to hunt for supposed voter fraud against Donald Trump. In the last 24 hours, Leaf has posted more than 2,000 internal Dominion documents on his social media account. Lambert had access to the Dominion files because she represents former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, who is being sued for defamation by the voting company over his 2020 election lies. As part of the case, they have access to “discovery” from Dominion, whose lawyers said they have already turned over more than a million documents. Lambert attended a hearing Monday in ByrneÂ’s defamation case in Washington, DC, but was never seen leaving the courtroom, and questions swirled among the other attorneys about whether she had been taken into custody. The judge told Lambert to stay behind as the hearing wrapped up. The other attorneys left the courtroom, and two federal marshals then went inside and locked the doors. Lambert was never seen exiting the courtroom. The marshals declined to say whether they arrested her, and she didnÂ’t answer messages seeking comment after the hearing. The US Marshals Service confirmed in a statement late Monday that Lambert was arrested. “The U.S. Marshals Service can confirm the arrest of Stefanie Lambert earlier this afternoon. Lambert is currently being held on local charges,” the statement said, referring to her Michigan-based criminal case. The Dominion leaks have, at least for now, diverted attention away from the alleged 2020 election-related defamation. More hearings will be needed to deal with the matter and for the judge to consider potential consequences for Lambert. DominionÂ’s lawyers also said in filings that company employees are already receiving new death threats in the wake of the disclosures. The messages posted online by Leaf contain names, email addresses, cell phone numbers and office addresses of Dominion employees. During the at-times testy hearing Monday, Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya peppered Lambert with sharp questions about the disputed Dominion materials. The judge ordered that Lambert be restricted from accessing the database containing the Dominion documents. “I will deal with the why later – but for now, I need to preserve the status quo,” Upadhyaya said, adding that “we need to prevent any future dissemination.” The judge said there would be a future hearing to determine whether Lambert violated a court order by leaking the Dominion files – and that Byrne would need to appear and answer questions. Dominion wants Lambert removed from the case and suggested in court Monday that she might have committed a crime by disseminating the files to Leaf. Lambert, Leaf and Byrne have claimed in court filings and public statements that the documents they disclosed contain evidence that Serbian nationals meddled in the 2020 election at DominionÂ’s request. “As has been public for years, Dominion has a small staff presence in Serbia, but any allegation that Dominion employees anywhere tried to interfere with any election is flatly false,” a Dominion spokesperson told CNN after the hearing. During the hearing, Lambert admitted that she gave the materials to Leaf, though she said she was allowed to because she was reporting a crime to “law enforcement.” She also called on Congress to investigate her claim that “foreign nationals” interfered with the 2020 election, which the US Intelligence Community has said was the most secure ever. “I did turn the documents over to law enforcement,” Lambert told the judge. Dominion blasted Lambert and Byrne in court filings before the hearing, saying their claims of Serbian meddling in the US election were “xenophobic” and noting that Lambert was nearly sanctioned for her role in a frivolous, conspiracy-laden election lawsuit. “It has been nearly four years – when does it stop?” Dominion lawyer Davida Brook said Monday in court, where she accused Lambert and Byrne of “using these lawsuits to spread yet more lies.” Dominion is suing several other pro-Trump figures who peddled similar lies about the 2020 election, including former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and right-wing cable networks Newsmax and One America News. Dominion settled a defamation suit against Fox News last year for $787 million in the largest publicly known defamation settlement in US history. ↪ source |
Read 0 comments » |
#2
Mar 18 - con gress....reaches deal to avoid yet another govt shut down 3 people viewing this @news By messy marv stan 3 hours ago |
|
Read 0 comments » |
#3
Mar 18 - SCOTUS wary of restricting gov. contact with social media in free speech case 3 people viewing this @news By HERMES 4 hours ago |
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared wary of limiting the Biden administration's contacts with social media platforms in a closely watched dispute that tests how much the government can pressure social media companies to remove content before crossing a constitutional line from persuasion into coercion.
The case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, arose out of efforts during the early months of the Biden administration to push social media platforms to take down posts that officials said spread falsehoods about the pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. A U.S. district court judge said White House officials, as well as some federal agencies and their employees, violated the First Amendment's right to free speech by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media sites' content-moderation decisions. The judge issued an injunction restricting the Biden administration's contacts with platforms on a variety of issues, though that order has been on hold. During oral arguments on Monday, the justices seemed skeptical of a ruling that would broadly restrict the government's communications with social media platforms, raising concerns about hamstringing officials' ability to communicate with platforms about certain matters. "Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Benjamin Aguiñaga, the Louisiana solicitor general. "I'm really worried about that, because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying the government can't interact with the source of those problems." Justice Amy Coney Barrett warned Aguiñaga that one of the proposed standards for determining when the government's actions cross the bound into unlawful speech suppression — namely when a federal agency merely encourages a platform to remove problematic posts — "would sweep in an awful lot." She questioned whether the FBI could reach out to a platform to encourage it to take down posts sharing his and other Louisiana officials' home addresses and calling on members of the public to rally. Aguiñaga said the FBI could be encouraging a platform to suppress constitutionally protected speech. The legal battle is one of five that the Supreme Court is considering this term that stand at the intersection of the First Amendment's free speech protections and social media. It was also the first of two that the justices heard Monday that involves alleged jawboning, or informal pressure by the government on an intermediary to take certain actions that will suppress speech. The second case raises whether a New York financial regulator violated the National Rifle a*sociation's free speech rights when she pressured banks and insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the gun rights group after the 2018 shooting in Parkland, Florida. Decisions from the Supreme Court in both cases are expected by the end of June. The Biden administration's efforts to stop misinformation The social media case stems from the Biden administration's efforts to pressure platforms, including Twitter, now known as X, YouTube and Facebook, to take down posts it believed spread falsehoods about the pandemic and the last presidential election. Brought by five social media users and two states, Louisiana and Missouri, their challenge claimed their speech was stifled when platforms removed or downgraded their posts after strong-arming by officials in the White House, Centers for Disease Control, FBI and Department of Homeland Security. The challengers alleged that at the heart of their case is a "massive, sprawling federal 'Censorship Enterprise,'" through which federal officials communicated with social media platforms with the goal of pressuring them to censor and suppress speech they disfavored. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty found that seven groups of Biden administration officials violated the First Amendment because they transformed the platforms' content-moderation decisions into state action by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" their activities. He limited the types of communications agencies and their employees could have with the platforms, but included several carve-outs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit then determined that certain White House officials and the FBI violated free speech rights when they coerced and significantly encouraged platforms to suppress content related to COVID-19 vaccines and the election. It narrowed the scope of Doughty's order but said federal employees could not "coerce or significantly encourage" a platform's content-moderation decisions. The justices in October agreed to decide whether the Biden administration impermissibly worked to suppress speech on Facebook, YouTube and X. The high court temporarily paused the lower court's order limiting Biden administration officials' contact with social media companies. In filings with the court, the Biden administration argued that the social media users and states lack legal standing to even bring the case, but said officials must be free "to inform, to persuade, and to criticize." "This case should be about that fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion," Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general, told the justices. Fletcher argued that the states and social media users were attempting to use the courts to "audit all of the executive branch communications with and about social media platforms," and said administration officials public statements are "classic bully pulpit exhortations." But Aguiñaga told the justices that the platforms faced "unrelenting pressure" from federal officials to suppress protected speech. "The government has no right to persuade platforms to violate Americans' constitutional rights," he said. "And pressuring platforms in in backrooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That's just being a bully." The oral arguments Several of the justices questioned whether the social media users who brought the suit demonstrated that they suffered a clear injury traceable to the government or could show that an injunction against the government would correct future injuries caused by the platforms' content moderation, which much be shown to bring a challenge in federal courts. "I have such a problem with your brief," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Aguiñaga. "You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people that it didn't happen to. ... I don't know what to make of all this because I'm not sure how we get to prove direct injury in any way." Aguiñaga apologized and said he takes "full responsibility" for any aspects of their filings that were not forthcoming. Justice Elena Kagan asked Aguiñaga to point to the piece of evidence that most clearly showed that the government was responsible for his clients having material taken down. "We know that there's a lot of government encouragement around here," she said. "We also know that the platforms are actively content moderating, and they're doing that irrespective of what the government wants, so how do you decide that it's government action as opposed to platform action?" The justices frequently raised communications between the federal government and the press, which often involve heated discussions. Justice Samuel Alito referenced emails between federal officials and platforms, some of which he said showed "constant pestering" by White House employees and requests for meetings with the social media sites. "I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media, our representatives over there," he said, referencing the press section in the courtroom. "If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?" Alito speculated that the reason why the federal officials felt free to pressure the platforms was because it has Section 230, a key legal shield for social media companies, and possible antitrust action "in its pocket," which he called "big clubs available to it." "It's treating Facebook and these other platforms like they're subordinates," Alito said. "Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the a*sociated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?" Fletcher conceded that officials' anger is "unusual," but said it's not odd for there to be a back-and-forth between White House employees and the media. Kavanaugh, though, said that he "assumed, thought, experienced government press people throughout the federal government who regularly call up the media and berate them." He also noted that "platforms say no all the time to the government." Chief Justice John Roberts — noting that he has "no experience coercing anybody" — said the government is "not monolithic, and that has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly." Roberts said one agency may be attempting to coerce a platform one way, while another may be pushing it to go the other direction. The NRA's court f*ght In the second case, the court considered whether the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services violated the NRA's free speech rights when she pushed regulated insurance companies and banks to stop doing business with the group. Superintendent Maria Vullo, who left her post in 2019, had been investigating since 2017 two insurers involved in NRA-endorsed affinity programs, Chubb and Lockton, and determined they violated state insurance law. The investigation found that a third, Lloyd's of London, underwrote similar unlawful insurance products for the NRA. Then, after the Parkland school shooting in February 2018, Vullo issued guidance letters that urged regulated entities "to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks" that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun rights groups. Later that year, the Department of Financial Services entered into consent decrees with the three insurance companies it was investigating. As part of the agreements, the insurers admitted they provided some unlawful NRA-supported programs and agreed to stop providing the policies to New York residents. The NRA then sued the department, alleging that Vullo privately threatened insurers with enforcement action if they continued working with the group and created a system of "informal censorship" that was designed to suppress its speech, in violation of the First Amendment. A federal district court sided with the NRA, finding that the group sufficiently alleged that Vullo's actions "could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action." But a federal appeals court disagreed and determined that the guidance letters and a press release couldn't "reasonably be construed as being unconstitutionally threatening or coercive," because they "were written in an even-handed, nonthreatening tone" and used words intended to persuade, not intimidate. The NRA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider whether Vullo violated the group's free speech rights when she urged financial entities to sever their ties with it. "Allowing unpopular speech to form the basis for adverse regulatory action under the guise of 'reputational risk,' as Vullo attempted here, would gut a core pillar of the First Amendment," the group, which is represented in part by the American Civil Liberties Union, told the court in a filing. The NRA argued that Vullo "openly targeted the NRA for its political speech and used her extensive regulatory authority over a trillion-dollar industry to pressure the institutions she oversaw into blacklisting the organization." "In the main, she succeeded," the organization wrote. "But in doing so, she violated the First Amendment principle that government regulators cannot abuse their authority to target disfavored speakers for punishment." Vullo, though, told the court that the insurance products the NRA was offering its members were unlawful, and noted that the NRA itself signed a consent order with the department after Vullo left office after it found the group was marketing insurance producers without the proper license from the state. "Accepting the NRA's arguments would set an exceptionally dangerous precedent," lawyers for the state wrote in a Supreme Court brief. "The NRA's arguments would encourage damages suits like this one and deter public officials from enforcing the law — even against entities like the NRA that committed serious violations." The NRA, they claimed, is asking the Supreme Court to give it "favored status because it espouses a controversial view," and the group has never claimed that it was unable to exercise its free speech rights. ↪ https://www.cbsnews.com/n .. a-free-speech/ |
Read 1 comments » |
#4
Mar 18 - Trump: ‘Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion’ 5 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 4 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 22 comments » |
#5
Mar 18 - Conservative social media influencer arrested, charged over Jan. 6 Capitol riots 2 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 4 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 19 comments » |
#6
Mar 18 - Hundreds of schools in path of solar eclipse cancel classes over safety concerns 17 people viewing this @news By HERMES 4 hours ago |
The kids will be over the moon. Hundreds of school districts from Maine to Texas that will experience near-total darkness during next monthÂ’s total solar eclipse will shut down or end classes early out of an abundance of caution. The move is an effort to keep students safe, both protecting their eyes from harmful solar radiation and ensuring they safely arrive home as thousands of out-of-towners crowd small-town streets to catch an optimal glimpse of the rare cosmic phenomenon. On April 8, the moon will pass between the sun and the Earth, briefly blocking out some or all of its light in one of the most stunning celestial events known to mankind. Most of the US will be able to see a less-thrilling — but still very neat — partial eclipse. But residents within a narrow 115-mile-wide band of the country, including 14 states, will be in a zone known as the path of totality, where broad daylight will be completely engulfed by darkness in a total solar eclipse, lasting for around four minutes. Stargazers beware: NASA warns watching the sun as itÂ’s slowly obscured by the moonÂ’s shadow without specialized eye protection designed for solar viewing can cause serious eye injury. With the start of the totality set to hit around the time school lets out across the US, many districts are giving kids the day off to be on the safe side. Meghan Piper, public information officer for Liverpool School District in central New York, told NewsChannel 9 that the district would be closed on April 8, following discussions with local emergency management offices. The district had originally planned to hold half a day of classes, but became concerned about getting kids safely to and from school in light of increased vehicular traffic as throngs of eclipse-gawkers descend on the area, she told the outlet. “School districts in other regions of the country that have experienced total eclipses like this have encountered those issues and the district decided to make the switch.” With parts of central and western New York directly in the totalityÂ’s path, dozens of schools are giving kids the day off or holding early dismissals. The totality begins in Buffalo at 3:18 p.m. EDT, according to NASA. Meanwhile, the superintendent of Livingston Public Schools in New Jersey sent a letter to parents this week alerting them it would be dismissing early that day after consulting with the districtÂ’s physician. With the eclipse expected in Livingston right around the time the 3 oÂ’clock school bell rings, some parents and staff had expressed concerns excited students might damage their eyes trying to sneak a peek. “Our physician added that the glare and distraction caused by the solar eclipse could also present a challenge with driving during this time, which might negatively impact the safety of our parents, staff, and bus drivers,” the letter read in part. More than a dozen school districts within the totality zone in Central Texas have announced they will be calling off classes on April 8, with Manor Independent School District declaring it a student holiday on its website, KVUE reported. “The decision came after consulting with local city organizations, Travis County Emergency Management, and the Manor Police Department and a*sessing the predicted extreme traffic conditions during the afternoon and evening of the eclipse,” the statement read in part. Parts of the Austin metro area will go dark as the eclipse reaches totality around 1:36 p.m. local time. In Central Indiana, a number of districts are shifting schedules, either canceling classes altogether or holding e-learning days instead. One school that will be in session that day, University High School in Carmel, is using the occasion to teach students about the cosmos, hosting an eclipse viewing party led by science faculty, Indy Star writes. It wasnÂ’t the only school district to acknowledge the significance of the eclipse, with one anticipating it from the start of the school year. Earlier this year, the superintendent of Rocky River City Schools in northeast Ohio reached out to parents to announce the districtÂ’s annual spring break would be extended by a day due to the timing of the eclipse, which will be in totality just as the school day usually ends. Nearby Canton City Schools announced back in February on the districtÂ’s Facebook page that it would have a “calamity day” on April 8, noting that “Ohio is expecting a traffic gridlock around our dismissal times.” The last total solar eclipse viewable in the US was Aug. 21, 2017, which NASA says was viewed by more than 215 million American adults, either live or online. The next solar eclipse to be visible from the contiguous United States wonÂ’t be until 2044. ↪ https://nypost.com/2024/0 .. fety-concerns/ |
Read 10 comments » |
#7
Mar 18 - Judge declines TrumpÂ’s request to block Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels testimony 3 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 5 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 1 comments » |
#8
Mar 18 - Drug maker capping inhaler prices 4 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 5 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 0 comments » |
#9
Mar 18 - Australia: Man falls to death from hot-air balloon 4 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 5 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 0 comments » |
#10
Mar 18 - Cohen says possibility of Trump receiving foreign money to pay bills is no joke 2 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 6 hours ago |
Quote:
↪ https://thehill.com/regul .. ls-is-no-joke/ |
Read 2 comments » |
#11
Mar 18 - Biden told Netanyahu major Rafah ground operation would be 'mistake'. 4 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
"A major ground operation there would be a mistake, it would lead to more innocent civilian deaths, worsen the already dire humanitarian crisis, deepen the anarchy in Gaza, and further isolate Israel internationally," said Sullivan. Biden had asked Netanyahu to send a senior team of military, intelligence and aid officials to Washington to "hear US concerns" about the current Rafah plan -- and discuss an "alternative approach" involving targeted raids on Hamas. Netanyahu agreed to "have this discussion and this engagement," Sullivan said. Sullivan described the call as "businesslike." Explaining why the two leaders had not spoken for 32 days, Sullivan said Biden reserves his calls for Netanyahu for "when he believes there is a key strategic moment." - 'War objectives' - ↪ https://www.ndtv.com/worl .. anyahu-5264758 |
Read 0 comments » |
#12
Mar 18 - Pakistani airstrikes k*ll 8, all women and children, in Afghanistan 3 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 1 comments » |
#13
Mar 18 - Potential Russia-NATO conflict just one step from WW3, Putin warns 3 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 4 comments » |
#14
Mar 18 - China comments on Swiss-proposed Ukraine peace talks 4 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 2 comments » |
#15
Mar 18 - Rishi SunakÂ’s father-in-law gifts $30 million in stock to infant grandson 3 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
@Yopa Real sh*t, no? |
Read 1 comments » |
#16
Mar 18 - Withdrawal of US troops from Niger on the table 4 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 1 comments » |
#17
Mar 18 - North Korea tests missiles as Blinken visits Seoul 3 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 0 comments » |
#18
Mar 18 - "ghislaine maxwell"...allegedly transferred to cushy prison unit in florida 4 people viewing this @news By messy marv stan 7 hours ago |
↪ https://www.thedailybeast .. on-unit-report
Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a new, “cushy” unit at her low-security prison in Florida, The Daily Mail reported Monday—a big change from the convicted s*x trafficker’s digs in the facility’s general population wing, which earned the nickname “the snake pit” due to its high rate of violence. Maxwell is currently serving out her 20-year sentence at FCI Tallahassee and was recently awarded a spot in the prison’s “honor wing,” officially dubbed D South, a smaller unit that houses up to 40 of the lockup’s better behaved inmates, according to the Mail “The conditions in D South are more like the sort of thing Maxwell will have experienced when she attended boarding school as a young girl,” a prison source told the British tabloid. “Everything is well-ordered, there’s less problems, less drama, f*ghts are unheard of. Everyone gets along because they are so happy to be there,” the source added |
Read 3 comments » |
#19
Mar 18 - 17 people slapped with charges for running $300 million cryptofx ponzi scheme 2 people viewing this @news By messy marv stan 7 hours ago |
↪ https://cointelegraph.com .. m-ponzi-scheme
According to the SEC, CryptoFX allegedly targeted crypto investors from the Latino community across 10 U.S. states and two foreign countries The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has charged 17 individuals with orchestrating a $300 million Ponzi scheme under the guise of crypto trading platform CryptoFX. CryptoFX was registered as a crypto trading platform in Houston in February 2020. In September 2022, the SEC filed an emergency action to halt all operations of CryptoFX, suspecting it of being an ongoing crypto-asset Ponzi scheme. About 18 months later, on March 14, the SEC identified 17 individuals allegedly involved in the scheme
Gurbir Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said: “We allege that CryptoFX was a $300 million Ponzi scheme that targeted Latino investors with promises of financial freedom and life-altering wealth from ‘risk free’ and ‘guaranteed’ crypto and foreign exchange instruments.” According to the SEC, CryptoFX allegedly targeted crypto investors from the Latino community across 10 U.S. states and two foreign countries. Grewal said that a Ponzi scheme of such a large magnitude requires many participants, and the SEC charged the principal architects and the perpetrators The SEC found several individuals linked to CryptoFX misappropriated investors’ funds by falsely promising investments into potentially lucrative cryptocurrencies and nonfungible tokens (NFTs). At the time, investors were lured in by the ongoing crypto bull market. The SEC requested that the court charge the individuals for violating various sections of the Securities and Exchange Act. In addition, the SEC wants the 17 individuals to “disgorge” or return the funds and additionally pay civil penalties for the violations On March 6, the SEC publicly postponed its decision on whether to approve options trading on spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) Its deferral gives the agency another 45 days — its maximum under the law is 90 days — to come to a final decision, which is April 24 |
Read 0 comments » |
#20
Mar 18 - New Biden-Harris ads highlight Donald Trump’s ‘failures’ to Black Americans* 2 people viewing this @news By Sh33d 7 hours ago |
Quote:
|
Read 2 comments » |
|