Social Media

Topic Reminder: "BREAKING NEWS! Iran potentially triggers World War 3" There are many other topics on the Israel/Hamas war here https://aseannow.com/forum/432-the-war-in-israel/

The moment I saw what happened during the Hamas-led attack on October 7 – the horrendous massacre of more than 1,000 Israelis – I knew Gaza as we knew it would cease to exist. The Israeli war that has ensued since then has been nothing short of a disaster. Most of the Strip’s infrastructure and housing stock has been destroyed to some degree by Israeli bombs, and entire families have been wiped out in a campaign that, at times, appears indiscriminate. I have experienced this up close with the loss of more than 31 of my family members to Israeli airstrikes on both of my childhood homes, in Gaza City and Rafah. My entire family is now homeless and several of its members have been permanently maimed. Allegations of Israel using AI tools to target Palestinians based on their probability of being a militant are particularly disturbing. For weeks, I have desperately sought even the slightest of explanations for what could have justified the airstrikes on my family homes, which killed dozens of women, elderly people and children as young as three and four months old. I know my family well and have kept in close contact with them since leaving Gaza; they are not involved with Hamas. But perhaps, along with many other civilians across Gaza, they fell victim to error-prone technology that accelerated targeting acquisition for political purposes with little regard for sparing civilian lives. The scale of needless death and destruction in Gaza – along with Israeli military and settler violence in the West Bank, which preceded October 7 – has enraged the global conscience and pro-Palestine advocates and activists, and rightly so. The problem, however, is that those energies are not being harnessed constructively, in a way that would promote the best interest of Gazans beyond freeing them from Israeli oppression. Instead of rejecting violence and acknowledging Hamas’s destructive impact on the Palestinian people, some have fuelled hateful rhetoric against co-existence with Jews and Israelis, and given new life to the narrative that Hamas champions. Within the pro-Palestine discourse, there is little space for diverse opinions and thoughts, with any dissent or difference of opinion being labelled treacherous and cowardly. Some of the very people who regularly tell us how Arabs and Muslims are not monolithic are quick to dismiss diverse views and enforce rigid conformity of what it means to be pro-Palestine and what a resolution to the conflict should entail. There has also been a clear and indisputable rise in overt anti-Semitism and an irresponsible attempt in many corners to hold all Jewish people accountable for the actions of Israel. I was appalled by the failure of many who claim to support Palestinian rights to see and acknowledge the humanity of the Israeli civilians who were mercilessly and randomly killed without any regard for the legal, moral and even religious protections they should have been afforded as non-combatants. Some were quick to proclaim that all Israelis are guilty of occupation and are complicit in the injustices against the Palestinian people and, therefore, they’re all legitimate military targets. This twisted thinking is not only unethical, but it is comparable to some subsequent proclamations by Israelis that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. The mutual dehumanisation between many Israelis and Palestinians since then is one of the primary reasons to speak out against Hamas, the war and the binary narrative that has taken shape. Hamas and its leader, Yahya Sinwar, have helped to drag Gazans into that war without any strategic vision beyond violent extremism and messianic nihilism. Having grown up in Gaza, I experienced Hamas’s rise to power and their gradual grip over the Strip and Palestinian politics and society, hiding behind a resistance narrative and using extremist politics to sabotage prospects for a peaceful resolution to the conflict with Israel. Months before October 7, tens of thousands of Gazans protested in the streets in defiance of Hamas, just as they had in 2019 and 2017. The “We Want to Live” protest movement decried living conditions and unemployment in Gaza, as well as the lack of a political horizon for meaningful change in the territory's realities and opportunities. Hamas’s regime consisted of a criminal and despotic enterprise that used Gaza as a haven for the group's members and affiliates and turned Palestinians there into aid-dependent subjects reliant on the international community. Hamas enriched itself in the process of turning Gaza into a “resistance citadel” that was part of a nefarious regional alliance with Iran. The blockade on Gaza after Hamas’s takeover in 2007 is in no small part the result of its violent decisions that bore terrible consequences for the people while the group insulated itself from the consequences. One cannot separate the injustices experienced by Palestinians in Gaza due to Israeli policies from Hamas’s role as a governing administrative body that also wants to operate as a militant resistance group simultaneously. When asked at the beginning of the war why Hamas never built a single bomb shelter for civilians, one of the group’s senior leaders, Musa Abu Marzouk, said Hamas builds tunnels to protect themselves but that the protection and well-being of Gazans is the responsibility of the UN and the international community. This attitude sums up almost two decades of Hamas’s rule in Gaza, in which the group instigated futile wars with Israel that failed to liberate an inch of Palestinian land and would instead get Gazans killed and batter the Strip. Hamas would then benefit from the reconstruction funded by the international community and the work of humanitarian NGOs, absolving itself from its governance responsibilities and facing little consequences for its violent and destructive actions. Though the Israel and Palestine issue has always entailed divisive politics, high tensions, and difficult dynamics, the discourse has become incredibly toxic since October 7 – having effectively broken down completely. Both sides are so entrenched in their respective narratives that little to no dialogue or constructive engagement has taken place. Unfortunately, some pro-Palestine activism has been dominated by extreme voices that have normalised Hamas’s actions against civilians, claiming it to be a natural expression of resistance and an inevitable result of occupation. Protests, university campuses and social media are full of rhetoric and slogans promoting the armed resistance narrative and framing dialogue, co-existence and peace as cowardly and undesirable. Those voices have obfuscated Hamas’s culpability and have understated Palestinian authorities’ own agency and consistent leadership mistakes and errors that have contributed to the failure of the Palestinian national project. Much of the Pro-Palestine activism, as it stands today, has been largely ineffective in promoting pragmatic options that actually help the Palestinian people and improve their prospects beyond feel-good proclamations and statements. While many are motivated by sincere feelings of sympathy for the terrible suffering in Gaza, they are often misinformed about the realities of Hamas, its governance and its alliances. Most also overlook just how useful Hamas has been to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Machiavellian and anti-Palestinian designs. Mr Netanyahu has long leveraged the group as a means to keep the Palestinians politically divided and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Hamas has played that role dutifully by sabotaging an imperfect yet viable peace process, thereby empowering right-wing extremists in Israel. Since October 7 I have spoken out against both Hamas and the conduct of the war, and engaged with Jewish and Israeli audiences, some of whom are hearing a Palestinian voice and perspective for the first time. An intellectual renaissance is sorely needed in the pro-Palestine movement, to build new alliances with Jewish and Israeli audiences and to develop a substantially different ethos based on pragmatism and the end of zero-sum rhetoric and mutually exclusive approaches. My experience, even amid an immensely destructive and harrowing war that is annihilating Gaza, is that it is possible to be pro-Palestine while maintaining the humanity of Israelis who have a right to live in safety and security, just as the Palestinian people have an undeniable right to live free from military occupation and perpetual dehumanisation by extremist policies. Finding the slightest common ground is not easy, but it is fully attainable and possible. This requires pragmatic compromises and realising that time is not on the Palestinian people’s side. The world is growing tired of having to rebuild Gaza every few years. While I can understand how it can be difficult for many in Gaza and the West Bank to see things differently (although many do not) because of the day-to-day struggles of life under an unjust occupation, it is frustrating and disheartening when so many diaspora allies, intellectuals, academics and activists fail to change course and try something different. It is incumbent upon those of us who have privilege and access to safety, resources and free expression to speak up and out and help the Palestinian people develop a new programme and movement that propels their just and urgent cause forward. One only needs to look to other parts of the Arab world and the destructive impact of extremism since the Arab uprisings in 2011 to realise the incompatibility of groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood with the aspirations of the masses in the post-colonial modern world. What is needed is a comprehensive rebranding and rejuvenation of what peace actually means in a Palestinian context – a definition that stands apart from what has been offered by Palestinian leaders. It involves a pragmatic acceptance that after 75 years of setbacks, Israel’s people are there to stay, and we must find a way to establish a shared future that embraces and acknowledges each other's mutual existence. Naturally, this will also require significant steps by the Israeli government and people to acknowledge the rights of Palestinians to exist on their land as sovereign people and to reverse decades of an expanding occupation. Many Israeli politicians often point to Gaza under Hamas as evidence of the failure of Palestinian control – how it doesn’t lead to peace and instead results in perpetual violence and terrorism. But a post-Hamas Palestinian leadership must view the reconstruction of Gaza after the war as an opportunity to prove and demonstrate the viability of the kind of governance of which Palestine is truly capable: one that can effectively usher in an independent and sovereign state. Indeed, peace can and must be rebranded as the only way to prevent further death and occupation of Palestinian lives and land – peace is courageous and worthy of pursuing. 18.04.24 Source

Amidst a turbulent political landscape, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is boldly pushing forward with a comprehensive foreign aid package despite facing fierce opposition from within his own party. The ambitious initiative, aimed at providing critical military support to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, has garnered early Democratic support while igniting a firestorm of dissent among Republicans. Johnson's strategy encompasses a multipronged approach, offering separate votes on military assistance to key allies alongside a broader Republican national security agenda. However, the plan has triggered a backlash from various factions within the GOP, including spending hawks concerned about the national debt, isolationists prioritizing domestic issues, and border security advocates disappointed by the omission of tougher measures. The Speaker's leadership has come under intense scrutiny, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) leading the charge to oust him from power. Greene's resolution to remove Johnson is looming over the upcoming votes on Ukraine, threatening to escalate tensions within the party. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has pledged support for Johnson's removal if Greene's resolution advances, highlighting the growing rift among Republicans. Despite the mounting opposition, Johnson remains steadfast in his commitment to the foreign aid package, dismissing the ouster effort as "absurd" and focusing on fulfilling his duties as Speaker. His recent endorsement by former President Trump at Mar-a-Lago provided a significant boost, offering reassurance amidst the turmoil. While Johnson faces internal challenges, he has found unexpected support from Democrats eager to advance the aid package. However, concerns remain about the inclusion of certain provisions and the exclusion of border security measures, further complicating the legislative process. The GOP's reaction to Johnson's plan has been mixed, with conservatives praising the opportunity for separate votes while criticizing the omission of key priorities. Johnson's decision to prohibit border security amendments has fueled frustration among hard-liners, highlighting the delicate balancing act he faces within his party. Despite the discord, no other Republicans have publicly joined Greene and Massie in their push to remove Johnson. Many are wary of the potential consequences of such a move, opting instead to voice their grievances internally. As tensions escalate within the GOP, Johnson's leadership is put to the test. With the fate of the foreign aid package hanging in the balance, the Speaker navigates a precarious political landscape, seeking to unite his fractured party while advancing key national security objectives. 17.04.24 Source

Nigel Farage has condemned what he describes as "cancel culture" following the police's intervention to shut down the National Conservatism conference in Brussels. The conference, which featured speakers such as Hungary's Viktor Orban and Conservative MPs Suella Braverman and Miriam Cates, was disrupted by local officials who cited concerns about public safety. The Mayor of Brussels district Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Emir Kir, issued an order banning the conference, stating that the far-right is not welcome in the area. However, conference organizers have contested this decision, arguing that there was no public disturbance and no valid reason to shut down the event. Police arrived at the venue during the event, but did not force attendees to leave immediately. Instead, they implemented measures to prevent new participants from entering. This marks the third venue change for the conference, with previous locations canceling due to alleged political pressure. Farage criticized the shutdown, emphasizing that the conference attendees were peaceful and respectable individuals. He accused authorities of attempting to suppress a particular ideology rather than addressing any genuine public safety concerns. Tory MP Suella Braverman, one of the scheduled speakers, condemned the police's actions, asserting that they were undermining free speech. She defended her presence at the conference, stating that she intended to discuss important issues such as border security. The National Conservatism movement, characterized by its advocacy for traditional values, has faced criticism in the past. Some of its speakers have been accused of promoting divisive and dangerous ideologies. However, proponents argue that they are defending essential principles against perceived threats. The incident in Brussels echoes previous disruptions at National Conservatism events, including protests and venue cancellations. Despite the challenges, speakers like Braverman and Cates have continued to participate in these conferences, highlighting issues they believe are crucial to address. The clash between free speech and perceived extremist ideologies underscores the ongoing debate surrounding political discourse and public gatherings. As authorities navigate these tensions, questions remain about the limits of expression and the role of government intervention in regulating public events. 17.04.24 Source

The White House has firmly rejected an invitation for President Biden to testify before House impeachment investigators, asserting that the investigation is essentially concluded. In a letter conveyed through attorney Richard Sauber, President Biden's special counsel, the administration rebuked the ongoing impeachment inquiry led by House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), dismissing it as a baseless pursuit lacking in factual merit. Sauber's letter, obtained by The Hill, condemned the impeachment investigation spearheaded by Comer, highlighting its failure to substantiate any wrongdoing by President Biden. It criticized Comer's persistence in promoting unfounded allegations despite ample evidence to the contrary, accusing the committee of disregarding factual realities. Comer's initial letter to President Biden, sent in March, was criticized for containing dubious claims aimed at implicating the president in alleged improper business dealings involving family members. The letter also underscored Comer's focus on scrutinizing President Biden's past involvement in Ukraine, an aspect that has drawn increased attention following the recent arrest of a former FBI informant for fabricating allegations against Biden. Sauber's response emphasized Comer's discussion of potential criminal referrals rather than pursuing impeachment charges, suggesting that the impeachment inquiry had reached an impasse. The letter highlighted dwindling support for the impeachment effort within the GOP ranks and questioned the viability of the evidence gathered by Comer and his fellow investigators. While Comer had suggested President Biden testify, the administration's refusal to comply was clear. Comer criticized Biden's reluctance, drawing parallels to Hunter Biden's refusal to testify publicly about alleged corrupt practices. He lamented the president's unwillingness to address pertinent questions regarding his interactions with his son's business associates, including Mykola Zlochevsky, a key figure in the Ukraine energy sector. In response, Comer expressed disappointment at President Biden's refusal to engage with the investigative process openly, urging transparency and accountability from the administration. He reiterated the importance of addressing the inquiries raised in the invitation, emphasizing the need for clarity on matters concerning potential corruption within the Biden family. As the impeachment inquiry continues to face skepticism and waning support, the standoff between House investigators and the White House underscores the partisan divisions and political tensions surrounding the issue. Despite the administration's dismissal of the investigation, questions persist about the extent of President Biden's involvement in alleged improprieties, ensuring that the debate over accountability and transparency will endure. 17.04.24 Source

The proliferation of pro-Nazi content on X, as uncovered by a recent NBC News investigation, underscores the concerning reality of extremist ideologies finding a platform in the digital age. Despite X's purported efforts to curb hate speech, the review revealed at least 150 verified "Premium" accounts actively sharing or amplifying content that glorifies Nazi ideology, Holocaust denial, and antisemitism. These accounts, accessible only through paid subscriptions, have been found to disseminate speeches by Adolf Hitler, praise Nazi soldiers, and promote debunked conspiracy theories denying the Holocaust. What's more alarming is the substantial engagement these posts receive, with some garnering millions of views within a mere week. X's policies ostensibly prohibit the glorification of violence and hate imagery, yet the investigation unveiled a significant gap in enforcement. Many pro-Nazi accounts continue to operate unchecked, monetizing their content through premium subscriptions and attracting advertisers, including well-known corporations like SiriusXM and The Hollywood Reporter. This revelation is not just a matter of content moderation; it's indicative of a broader societal issue. The normalization of extremist views on mainstream platforms like X poses a grave threat, allowing hate groups to recruit, radicalize, and spread their toxic ideologies to millions of users worldwide. Furthermore, the failure to curb the proliferation of pro-Nazi content contradicts X's stated commitment to combating hate speech. It not only undermines the platform's integrity but also perpetuates a dangerous cycle of online radicalization, where hate speech thrives unchecked, and vulnerable communities are left exposed to harm. The rise of pro-Nazi content on X is symptomatic of a larger trend of online radicalization, where echo chambers and algorithmic recommendations fuel the spread of extremist ideologies. As hate crimes continue to surge in the U.S., platforms like X must take proactive measures to mitigate the spread of harmful content and protect marginalized communities from harm. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach. First and foremost, X must strengthen its content moderation efforts, employing advanced algorithms and human moderators to swiftly identify and remove hate speech. Additionally, the platform should enforce stricter penalties for users found violating its policies, including permanent bans for repeat offenders. Moreover, X must work closely with external organizations and experts in combating hate speech and extremism to develop effective strategies for prevention and intervention. This may involve implementing educational initiatives to raise awareness about the dangers of online radicalization and providing resources for users seeking to disengage from extremist communities. At the same time, advertisers must also play a role in holding platforms accountable for the content they host. By withholding ad revenue from platforms that fail to adequately address hate speech, advertisers can exert pressure on companies like X to prioritize the safety and well-being of their users. Ultimately, the fight against online extremism requires collective action from all stakeholders – platforms, users, advertisers, and policymakers alike. By working together to combat hate speech and promote inclusivity and tolerance online, we can create a safer and more equitable digital environment for all. 17.04.24 Source

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has sparked controversy once again with his recent statements advocating for mob violence against protesters. After facing backlash for his previous comments encouraging people to take matters into their own hands against peaceful demonstrators, Cotton is now doubling down on his endorsement of aggressive actions. In a tweet shared on Tuesday morning, Cotton shared a video depicting climate protesters in France being forcibly removed from a road by angry drivers, seemingly approving of the aggressive approach. This comes just a day after he faced criticism for suggesting that protesters blocking the Golden Gate Bridge would have been thrown off if the incident had occurred in Arkansas. Cotton's remarks have drawn widespread condemnation, with many expressing disgust at his apparent endorsement of vigilante violence. Even MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, among others, voiced his disapproval, highlighting the seriousness of a United States senator advocating for such actions. While some may cheer Cotton's statements, it's important to remember that advocating for violence against others is not only morally wrong but also illegal. Assault and battery are serious offenses under the law, and promoting such behavior sets a dangerous precedent. Critics have pointed out the irony of a Harvard-educated senator endorsing actions that directly contradict the principles of law and order. Instead of encouraging mob violence, leaders like Cotton should be promoting peaceful dialogue and constructive solutions to address grievances. As the debate continues, Cotton's remarks serve as a reminder of the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting the rights of all individuals, even those with whom we may disagree. 17.04.24 Source

Piers Morgan Criticizes Treatment of Trump Amid Hush Money Trial Piers Morgan, known for his interactions with Donald Trump, has sharply criticized the handling of Trump's New York hush money trial, accusing Americans of "losing their minds" over the former president's treatment. During an appearance on Fox News, Morgan expressed dismay at the perceived demeaning treatment of Trump, particularly during his trial proceedings. Morgan questioned the effectiveness of the trial, especially for those on the left, suggesting that such actions could potentially bolster Trump's chances in future elections. Trump, facing charges related to falsifying business records concerning a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, maintains his innocence amidst the 34 felony charges brought against him. The trial's first day saw Judge Juan Merchan navigating issues of evidence admissibility and potential juror biases, with Trump expressing frustration over potential scheduling conflicts, including his son's high school graduation. Despite the judge's non-committal stance on the matter, Trump's concerns were widely reported, drawing attention away from trial proceedings. In a panel discussion on Fox News's The Five, Morgan criticized the trial as "utterly ridiculous" and accused the prosecution of engaging in "petty, self-harming acts of political suicide." He suggested that Trump should prioritize attending his son's graduation over court appearances, a sentiment echoed by some panelists. Morgan's stance on the trial reflects broader skepticism about its political motivations and potential impact on public perception. As a vocal supporter of Trump in the past, Morgan's commentary underscores the polarizing nature of the trial and its implications for both Trump and the American political landscape. 17.04.24 Source

A Gazan Perspective: Life Under Hamas Rule and the Desire for Change In the tumultuous landscape of Gaza, where political instability and conflict have become the norm, voices from within the enclave offer a poignant glimpse into the realities faced by its residents. Among them is Sami Obeid, a 65-year-old journalist who has witnessed Gaza's evolution firsthand. From the days of relative freedom of movement to the current state of isolation and hardship, Obeid's narrative reflects the profound transformations that have shaped Gazan society. Having spent eight years living in Tel Aviv during the 1980s, Obeid brings a unique perspective to the table. Fluent in Hebrew and well-versed in Israeli media, he offers insights that bridge the gap between Gaza and the outside world. As a political commentator and former broadcaster, Obeid has navigated the complex dynamics of Gazan society, providing a rare glimpse into its inner workings. In a recent interview with The Times of Israel, Obeid shed light on the challenges faced by Gazans in the wake of the conflict with Israel and the continued rule of Hamas. From the devastation wrought by recent hostilities to the day-to-day struggles of life under Hamas governance, his account paints a stark picture of existence in the enclave. Obeid's reflections on the recent conflict underscore the deep-seated grievances harbored by many Gazans towards Hamas. He asserts that the October 7 rampage orchestrated by Hamas was driven by a desire for revenge against a populace increasingly disillusioned with its rule. As Hamas militants unleashed violence on southern Israel, Gazans found themselves caught in the crossfire, facing the wrath of both their rulers and the Israeli military. Amidst the chaos and destruction, Obeid highlights the plight of ordinary Gazans who have borne the brunt of Hamas' militant agenda. With residential towers reduced to rubble and basic necessities in short supply, Gazans struggle to eke out a living amidst the ruins of their once vibrant communities. The absence of basic amenities such as electricity, water, and healthcare exacerbates their suffering, leaving them vulnerable to the whims of those in power. For Obeid, the desire for change is palpable. He echoes the sentiments of many Gazans who yearn for an end to Hamas' rule and the prospect of a better future. With nearly half of Gaza's population below the age of 18, there is a growing sense of frustration among the youth who have known nothing but hardship and conflict. Obeid sees annexation by Israel as a potential solution, arguing that it would offer Gazans a chance at citizenship and a pathway to a more stable existence. While Obeid's views may not be representative of all Gazans, they reflect a growing discontent with Hamas' authoritarian rule and the failures of Palestinian leadership more broadly. He envisions a future where Palestinians and Israelis can coexist peacefully, transcending the barriers of religion and ideology that have long divided them. His vision is one of reconciliation and mutual respect, grounded in the belief that dialogue and understanding are the keys to lasting peace. At the heart of Obeid's narrative is a plea for change – a call to break free from the cycle of violence and oppression that has defined life in Gaza for far too long. He urges Palestinians and Israelis alike to embrace a shared future based on mutual recognition and cooperation. While the path to peace may be fraught with challenges, Obeid remains hopeful that it is not beyond reach. As Gaza grapples with the aftermath of yet another conflict, voices like Obeid's offer a glimmer of hope amidst the despair. His perspective sheds light on the complexities of life in the enclave and the aspirations of its people for a better tomorrow. In a region rife with division and discord, Obeid's message serves as a reminder of the power of dialogue and understanding to overcome even the most entrenched conflicts. Ultimately, Obeid's story is a testament to the resilience of the human spirit in the face of adversity. Despite the hardships he has endured, he remains steadfast in his belief that a brighter future is possible – one where Gaza can emerge from the shadows of conflict and reclaim its rightful place in the world. As the voices of Gazans like Obeid continue to be heard, there is hope that their dreams of peace and prosperity will one day be realized. 17.04.24 Source

Unveiling the Legal Battle: Jan 6 Rioters, Trump, and a Supreme Court Showdown As the legal fallout from the January 6 Capitol riot continues, a pivotal Supreme Court case emerges, poised to challenge the convictions of rioters and potentially impact the charges against former President Donald Trump. At the heart of this legal saga lies Joseph Fischer's case, a former police officer from Pennsylvania, challenging the government's use of a white-collar crime law to prosecute him and others involved in the riot. Fischer's journey into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, began with attending the "Stop the Steal" rally in support of Trump's baseless claims of election fraud. Allegedly yelling "Charge!" and joining the mob that breached the Capitol, Fischer found himself charged with obstructing an official proceeding, along with hundreds of other rioters and Trump himself. Central to Fischer's defense is the contention that the government misapplied a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted after the Enron scandal, to prosecute him. The statute, intended to safeguard against witness tampering and corporate fraud, has been invoked to charge Fischer with obstructing an official proceeding. However, Fischer argues that the statute's language does not align with his actions and accuses the government of stretching its interpretation to fit his case. The crux of Fischer's argument revolves around the statute's wording, particularly the term "otherwise" in the provision prohibiting obstruction of official proceedings. Fischer maintains that this term should be interpreted narrowly and that his actions do not meet the threshold for prosecution under the statute. While some judges have sided with Fischer's interpretation, the majority have broadly construed the law, allowing it to apply to cases like Fischer's. As Fischer's case reaches the Supreme Court, the stakes are high for both him and Trump. A ruling in Fischer's favor could potentially invalidate the convictions of hundreds of rioters and undermine the charges against Trump himself. However, the implications of the Supreme Court's decision extend beyond Fischer's case, with broader ramifications for federal prosecutions of political misconduct. While Trump is not directly involved in Fischer's case, the outcome could impact the federal election interference case against him. Trump's legal team has raised similar arguments challenging the statute's application to his conduct during the 2020 election. However, federal prosecutors maintain that Trump's actions violated the statute's provisions, irrespective of Fischer's case's outcome. In light of these developments, Fischer's case represents a critical juncture in the legal aftermath of the January 6 Capitol riot. With the Supreme Court set to weigh in on the interpretation of a key statute, the repercussions could reverberate throughout the legal landscape, shaping the contours of future prosecutions and the boundaries of political accountability. As Fischer and Trump await the Court's decision, the nation watches with bated breath, anticipating the outcome of this pivotal legal showdown. 17.04.24 Source

President Biden's contemplation of a significant executive order to curb illegal border crossings has been protracted by the anticipation of legal challenges, political backlash, and operational limitations. Amid Republicans' elevation of the border issue for the 2024 election, Biden faces the delicate task of balancing a crackdown with progressive expectations and legal feasibility. Biden's potential executive action would hinge on utilizing Section 212(f) of the federal code, a provision previously wielded by former President Trump in his immigration policies. Despite the risks involved, including the need for congressional funding to enforce such measures, Biden is reportedly moving closer to a decision. The White House has notified Capitol Hill aides of impending briefings on the border plans, indicating a forthcoming announcement. However, Biden has publicly expressed reservations about invoking Section 212(f), acknowledging potential judicial setbacks while still considering its implementation. Navigating legal obstacles is just one aspect of the challenge for the administration. The practical and political risks loom large, especially amidst Republican opposition to border funding and progressive discontent over Biden's stance on issues like Israel. Securing additional resources to fortify the border requires congressional approval, a prospect made uncertain by partisan divisions. The collapse of a bipartisan border deal in Congress has left Biden with limited options, pushing him towards the Section 212(f) approach as a last resort. The timing of any executive action is crucial, given the fluctuating trends in illegal border crossings, which typically surge during warmer months. While executive measures may offer short-term solutions, they do not address underlying structural issues within the immigration system, such as inadequate infrastructure and resource constraints. Thus, even if Biden opts for a bold move at the border, it may only offer temporary relief without addressing the systemic challenges at hand. 17.04.24 Source

A new progressive Political Action Committee (PAC) called "Cavalry PAC" is aiming to provide support for Muslim candidates and naturalized citizens seeking federal office. Led by former Democratic Congressional candidate Kara Eastman and progressive media figure Cenk Uygur, the PAC filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and is set to launch imminently. Uygur, known for hosting "The Young Turks," made headlines with his short-lived Democratic presidential bid, which ended in March due to his ineligibility as a naturalized citizen under the Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" Clause. Despite his exclusion from primary ballots, Uygur challenged this limitation through legal action, emphasizing equal rights for naturalized citizens. The Cavalry PAC intends to continue this legal battle, allocating a portion of its resources to address ongoing litigation and potentially expand efforts to other states. Eastman, who previously ran for Congress in Nebraska's 2nd District, underscores the PAC's commitment to advancing the rights of naturalized citizens and supporting outsider candidates in grassroots elections. The PAC aims to allocate half of its funds to ongoing legal challenges and the remaining half to bolstering campaigns for Muslim candidates and other naturalized citizens seeking political office. With Eastman's experience as Uygur's former campaign manager and a shared dedication to progressive values, Cavalry PAC seeks to address systemic barriers faced by marginalized communities in the political arena. By providing financial support and advocacy, the PAC aims to empower underrepresented voices and promote diversity in federal leadership positions. 17.04.24 Source

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has found herself in a glaring spotlight of public scrutiny following her conspicuous silence in the wake of highly inflammatory "death to America" chants during a recent rally in Dearborn. As a rising star in the Democratic Party, Whitmer's reticence on such a charged issue has raised eyebrows and prompted questions about her leadership and political aspirations. The rally, organized by the Al-Quds Committee Detroit in support of Palestinians, witnessed disturbing chants denouncing America and Israel. Despite the overtly offensive nature of these chants, Whitmer has remained conspicuously silent, failing to condemn the rhetoric that even drew criticism from the White House. This silence stands in stark contrast to her previous swift condemnation of Islamophobic remarks, leaving many puzzled about her selective approach to addressing hate speech. https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1777062221111087507 In the aftermath of the rally, Whitmer's office has offered no official statement or response to inquiries about her stance on the matter. This silence has only fueled speculation about her motives and priorities, particularly given her ambitions for higher political office. Critics argue that Whitmer's silence reflects a calculated political strategy aimed at appeasing certain voter demographics ahead of the upcoming presidential election. As a key figure in the Democratic Party and vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Whitmer's allegiance to delivering Michigan for President Biden may be influencing her reluctance to address contentious issues that could alienate potential supporters. The Dearborn rally and its anti-American rhetoric underscore the complex dynamics at play within Michigan's political landscape, particularly concerning attitudes towards U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. With Arab American voters holding significant sway in the state, politicians like Whitmer must navigate a delicate balance between upholding democratic values and appeasing constituents with divergent views on international affairs. However, Whitmer's failure to denounce the "death to America" chants has drawn sharp criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. While some argue that her silence is a pragmatic political move to avoid alienating potential voters, others view it as a betrayal of her duty to uphold American values and condemn hate speech unequivocally. Moreover, Whitmer's reluctance to address the issue raises questions about her leadership and moral courage. As a public official, she has a responsibility to speak out against bigotry and intolerance, regardless of the political implications. By failing to do so, she risks undermining her credibility and tarnishing her image as a principled leader. In the end, Whitmer's silence on the "death to America" chants reflects the broader challenge facing politicians in an increasingly polarized political climate. As the debate over freedom of speech and the boundaries of acceptable discourse rages on, leaders like Whitmer must navigate carefully to uphold democratic values while appeasing their constituents and advancing their political ambitions. Note: According to a Fox News report Dearborn has now eventually condemned the chants. 17.04.24 Source

The British government's plan to send some asylum-seekers to Rwanda is poised to advance as a key aspect of a bill expected to become law this week. Here's what you need to know about the situation: Overview: The plan aims to address unauthorized migration to the U.K., with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak emphasizing the need to "stop the boats." It involves sending asylum-seekers who arrive via small boats across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently. The plan has faced legal challenges, including a U.K. Supreme Court ruling that deemed Rwanda an unsafe destination for asylum-seekers. Recent Developments: The proposed legislation, known as the Safety of Rwanda Bill, is set to pass Parliament after overcoming attempts to dilute its provisions in the House of Lords. Despite resistance, including amendments seeking to ensure compliance with international law, the bill is expected to proceed largely unchanged. Once enacted, the bill would facilitate deportations to Rwanda, though legal appeals by affected individuals could delay implementation. Criticisms and Opposition: Critics, including human rights groups, refugee charities, and legal experts, have raised concerns about the plan's legality and ethical implications. Some argue that Rwanda is not a safe destination for asylum-seekers due to reported human rights abuses and restrictions on freedom. The Labour Party, the main opposition, opposes the Rwanda plan, calling it unworkable and advocating for alternative approaches to address unauthorized migration. Future Prospects: The bill's passage into law could lead to the resumption of deportation flights to Rwanda, but legal challenges and procedural delays may prolong the process. Meanwhile, ongoing efforts to address unauthorized migration may involve exploring similar agreements with other countries, although specifics remain unclear. As the legislative process unfolds and debates continue, the fate of the Rwanda plan and its implications for migration policy in the U.K. remain subjects of considerable debate and scrutiny. 17.04.24 Source

Kelly Clarkson became emotional while discussing Arizona's Supreme Court decision to uphold a 1864 abortion ban with Hillary Clinton on "The Kelly Clarkson Show." Clarkson shared her own experiences of pregnancy complications, expressing the profound difficulty she faced and questioning the cruelty of forcing others to endure similar hardships. “I have been pregnant twice, hospitalized both times. I mean, literally I asked God … to just take me and my son in the hospital the second time, because I was like, it's the worst thing,” Clarkson said. “To make someone go through that? … You don't realize how hard it is.” Clarkson's raw emotion underscored the deeply personal toll that restrictive abortion laws can have on individuals, particularly those facing life-threatening situations. She highlighted the injustice of denying access to abortion, especially in cases of rape or incest, describing it as "insane" and emphasizing the need to protect women's reproductive rights. In response, Clinton echoed Clarkson's concerns, condemning the "cruelty" of such bans and criticizing their lack of exceptions for cases of rape or incest. She also pointed out the troubling history of the individual who authored the Arizona law, highlighting his multiple marriages and relationships with underage girls. “The old law in Arizona is without exceptions,” Clinton explained. “The man who wrote that law was married, I think four times and one of his wives was 12, two of his wives were 15.” Clarkson's pointed response reflected the frustration and disbelief felt by many in the face of such restrictive legislation. “I'm glad we're getting advice from an upstanding citizen of the community,” she remarked, underscoring the absurdity of taking moral guidance from individuals with questionable backgrounds. The emotional exchange between Clarkson and Clinton shed light on the deeply personal and far-reaching implications of abortion bans, emphasizing the importance of protecting women's rights and access to reproductive healthcare. As the debate over abortion continues, voices like Clarkson's and Clinton's serve as powerful reminders of the human cost of restrictive legislation. Source Explainer-What's next after Arizona's highest court upheld an abortion ban? Arizona's Supreme Court recently made a controversial decision, reviving a near-total abortion ban that dates back to the 19th century. Here's what you need to know about the conflict that could unfold as a result of this ruling: What is the Law That Was Revived? The law, enacted in 1864 before Arizona was even a state, prohibits all abortions except those necessary to save the mother's life. Notably, it lacks exceptions for cases of rape or incest and imposes a penalty of up to five years in prison for performing an abortion. Did the Court's Ruling Leave Room for Further Challenges to the Law? Yes. The Supreme Court's decision focused solely on whether the 19th-century law was repealed by a more recent 15-week abortion ban passed in 2022. It did not address the law's potential unconstitutionality on other grounds. Who Might Enforce the Law? While the law remains on the books, Democratic Attorney General Kristin Mayes and local prosecutors in populous areas like Maricopa County have declared they will not enforce it. Mayes has also asserted her authority to prevent any local prosecutor from pursuing abortion-related prosecutions. Governor Katie Hobbs, also a Democrat, has backed Mayes' stance with an executive order. How Could the Law Next Be Challenged in Court? The current situation could lead to further legal challenges. Planned Parenthood and Mayes' office could seek to block the law based on claims that it violates Arizonans' rights to liberty and privacy under the state constitution. The state Supreme Court has temporarily paused its decision to allow for such legal action. What Other Options Do Abortion Rights Supporters Have? Given the legal complexities, some believe that the most viable path forward for abortion rights supporters in Arizona is political rather than legal. Democratic lawmakers have attempted to repeal the ban legislatively, but faced opposition from the Republican majority. Additionally, organizers have gathered enough signatures to place a ballot measure before voters in November, aiming to establish a right to abortion. Similar efforts are underway in other states. As the debate over abortion rights continues in Arizona, legal and political battles are likely to intensify, shaping the landscape of reproductive rights in the state for years to come. 17.04.24 Source

Update: Sydney church stabbing declared a 'terrorist attack' Hundreds of people gathered outside the Assyrian Orthodox Church - about 35km south-west of the city centre - and clashed with police. Two officers were injured, one with a broken jaw after he was hit with a brick and fence paling. Twenty police vehicles were also damaged, with 10 left unusable. The violence similarly left paramedics retreating for cover in the church, where they were "holed up" for more than three hours. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened an emergency meeting of national security agencies, calling the attack "disturbing". "NSW is on edge and there's understandable community anxiety at the moment," said state premier Chris Minns. He appealed for calm, echoing calls from religious and community leaders. 16.04.24 Source

The acknowledgment raises anew questions about the veracity of the terrorist group's claims about the war. (April 15, 2024) The Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza says it has “incomplete data” for one-third of the Palestinian fatalities it claims to have documented from its current war against Israel. The acknowledgment in a report on the social networking app Telegram last week raises anew questions about the veracity of its casualty count from the war. The April 6 report said that Hamas had “incomplete data” for 11,371 of the 33,091 recorded Palestinian deaths it claims, and is missing one or more key data points including identity number, full name, date of birth, or date of death. In a report three days earlier, the ministry admitted the “incompleteness” of 12,263 records. It was not immediately clear why, after three more days, that figure dropped to 11,371. Before its admissions of incomplete data, the ministry asserted that the information in more than 15,000 fatality records had stemmed from “reliable media sources.” However, the ministry never identified the sources in question and Gaza has no independent media. David Adesnik, director of research at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), said, “The sudden shifts in the ministry’s reporting methods suggest it is scrambling to prevent exposure of its shoddy work. “For months, U.S. media have taken for granted that the ministry’s top-line figure for casualties was reliable enough to include in daily updates on the war. Now we’re seeing that a third or more of the ministry’s data may be incomplete at best—and fictional at worst,” he added. Joe Truzman, a senior research analyst at FDD, said, “It is important to recognize that Hamas is deeply invested in shaping the narrative that emerges from Gaza, particularly regarding the number of casualties in the war. “Moreover, this control of data extends beyond the statistics provided by the Hamas-controlled Health Ministry, as there is also a deliberate effort to downplay the number of terrorists who have been killed by Israel in the war,” he added. The Israel Defense Forces has said that at least 13,000 of the Palestinians killed in the war against Hamas in Gaza, and another 1,000 slain inside Israel during the Oct. 7 invasion, were terrorists. Last month, a statistics expert asserted the Hamas claim that 70% of the casualties of the war were women and children was “statistically impossible” and “not reliable at all.” 16.04.24 Source

The courtroom drama surrounding former President Donald J. Trump took an unexpected turn as he appeared alternately irritated and fatigued during pretrial motions ahead of his criminal trial. As arguments were presented and tensions ran high, Mr. Trump seemed to nod off at times, only to jolt back awake as his lawyer passed him notes. Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Trump exchanged whispers and notes with his lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, while maintaining a stoic demeanor. However, his emotions occasionally broke through as he smirked, scoffed, and expressed frustration, particularly when his request to miss court for his son Barron's graduation was not immediately granted by Judge Juan M. Merchan. Despite his moments of irritation, Mr. Trump appeared to understand the seriousness of the situation when Justice Merchan warned of potential consequences for disrupting the proceedings, including ejection or jail time. However, the former president briefly showed a glimpse of humor when he chuckled at one of his own social media posts targeting his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who is expected to testify for the prosecution. The courtroom scene highlighted the high stakes and intense scrutiny surrounding Mr. Trump's criminal case, which centers on allegations that could impact his political future. As the trial unfolds, all eyes will be on how the former president navigates the legal proceedings and their potential implications. 16.04.24 Source

In a candid interview with The Spectator's editor Fraser Nelson, former Prime Minister Liz Truss delves into her new memoirs and shares her insights on pressing global issues and political developments. Here are the highlights from the exclusive conversation: 1. Ukraine and Trump: Truss expresses her belief that Ukraine would be safer with Donald Trump at the helm, citing his actions as more significant than his rhetoric. She contrasts Trump's approach with what she perceives as weaknesses in the Biden administration's dealings with Iran and other authoritarian regimes. 2. Lee Anderson and the Conservative Party: Truss suggests that Lee Anderson should not have been expelled from the Conservative Party over his comments, expressing a desire for a more robust Conservative manifesto. She acknowledges the gap between the Tories and Reform UK in the polls, emphasizing the need for bolder policies. 3. Abolishing the Supreme Court: Truss criticizes the concentration of power in unelected bodies, advocating for the abolition of the Supreme Court. She highlights instances where she believes such institutions have hindered government policy implementation. 4. Mini-Budget and LDI Situation: Truss reflects on her decision to proceed with her mini-Budget despite being unaware of the vulnerability of the UK pension market to liability-driven investments (LDIs). She attributes this oversight to the Bank of England's failure to address underlying financial market issues. 5. Immigration: Truss agrees with her colleague Braverman on the need to reduce immigration but criticizes unrealistic targets set by Braverman. She points out practical challenges and discrepancies in the Office for Budget Responsibility's modeling. Throughout the interview, Truss emphasizes the importance of strong leadership and decisive action in addressing complex challenges facing the UK and the world. Her insights shed light on her vision for a better conservatism and a stronger, safer future. Watch Full Interview below: 16.04.24 Source

The rise of South Korea's 4B movement, advocating for women to abstain from heterosexual relationships, has sparked global attention as the country grapples with record-low birth rates and pervasive gender inequality. Originating in 2019, the movement's four principles, denoted by "bi" or "no," include rejecting heterosexual marriage, childbirth, dating, and sexual relationships. While seemingly extreme, the movement reflects deep-rooted societal issues, including high rates of intimate-partner violence and a substantial gender pay gap. South Korea's political landscape further complicates the situation, with growing polarization between men and women. President Yoon Suk Yeol's dismissal of structural sexism and his campaign blaming feminism for the country's demographic challenges exacerbate tensions. The widening gender divide in political preferences underscores the broader societal rift. Women's increasing educational attainment contrasts with persistent income disparities, fueling discontent among young men who perceive discrimination against them. Misogynistic online communities and derogatory terms directed at educated women highlight the backlash against feminism. Amidst this backdrop, movements like "escape the corset" and 4B emerge, reflecting women's resistance to societal expectations and gender-based violence. The phenomenon of women voluntarily abstaining from heterosexual relationships resonates with historical precedents, including feminist movements advocating for celibacy as a political statement. In the West, movements like #MeToo have empowered women to share experiences of harassment and violence, prompting some to reconsider the risks associated with heterosexual relationships. However, while celibacy may offer a refuge for some women disillusioned by past experiences, it remains a marginalized phenomenon. Unlike earlier feminist movements, modern celibacy often arises from a sense of resignation rather than liberation. Women feel compelled to forgo intimate relationships due to a lack of acceptable alternatives and ongoing societal pressures. While the 4B movement may gain traction in contexts like South Korea, where pro-natalist policies and restrictive beauty standards intersect with gender inequality, its widespread adoption in the West appears unlikely. Despite persistent challenges, heterosexuality remains the default norm for most women, underscoring the enduring influence of patriarchal structures. As societies grapple with evolving gender dynamics and the fallout from movements like 4B, the quest for gender equality and inclusive relationships remains paramount. While celibacy may offer temporary respite for some, true progress lies in dismantling entrenched systems of oppression and fostering environments where all individuals can pursue fulfilling, equitable relationships, free from coercion and discrimination. 16.04.24 Source

Amidst global efforts to combat climate change, new analysis reveals a concerning trend: China significantly increased its coal power capacity in 2023, despite previous pledges to "strictly control" this fossil fuel. The addition of 47.4 Gigawatts (GW) of new coal power in China surpasses the combined amount added by the rest of the world, raising alarms about the impact on climate change and air pollution. This surge in coal power capacity comes at a critical juncture, with UN climate chief Simon Stiell warning that humanity has "two years to save the world." The move contradicts China's promise to reduce coal consumption starting in 2026 and align with the Paris Agreement on climate. Meanwhile, global coal capacity outside China also increased for the first time since 2019, signaling a concerning reversal of the commitment made at the COP26 climate conference to transition away from coal. While some analysts view this as a potential "blip," others, like Marshall Islands climate envoy Tina Stege, condemn fossil fuel support as "unacceptable." Professor Piers Forster of the UK government's Climate Change Committee echoes these concerns, emphasizing the need for strong regulations to prevent the utilization of excess coal power capacity. The proliferation of coal plants in China, despite President Xi's pledge to control new coal power, raises questions about the country's commitment to climate action. However, experts point out that the increase in coal power capacity may not necessarily lead to a corresponding rise in CO2 emissions, as China is also expanding its renewable energy capacities. China has made significant strides in solar power and is on track to achieve its 2030 clean power goals ahead of schedule. Yet, challenges persist, including power shortage fears exacerbated by a recent drought that impacted hydropower supplies. The rigid grid system in China makes it difficult for provinces to share power, leading many to invest in their own coal plants. Moreover, China is not alone in its reliance on coal power, as seven other countries also added new coal capacity in 2023. However, the global increase in coal power is partly attributed to wealthy countries delaying plant closures amid energy crises. As the world grapples with the urgent need to mitigate climate change, the reliance on coal power underscores the imperative to accelerate the transition to clean energy alternatives. With coal power remaining a major source of emissions globally, decisive action is needed to phase out this fossil fuel and avert catastrophic consequences for the planet. 16.04.24 Source

Title: The Impending Crossroads for Democrats: Why Biden's Replacement at the Convention May Be Inevitable As the political landscape begins to shift and the specter of the upcoming presidential election looms large, a cloud of uncertainty hovers over the Democratic Party. At the heart of this uncertainty lies a pressing question: Should President Joe Biden remain the party's nominee for the November election? For nearly two years, speculation has swirled around Biden's candidacy, with voices from within the party questioning his viability as the standard-bearer. Prominent figures like David Axelrod and Ezra Klein have voiced concerns about Biden's ability to lead effectively, prompting discussions about the need for a potential replacement. Last November, Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, suggested that Biden might consider stepping aside from the race. His sentiment echoed the growing sentiment among Democrats that perhaps Biden's time in the spotlight had passed. Similarly, Klein, in a piece for The New York Times, argued that Democrats had a better option than Biden, citing concerns about his age and perceived cognitive issues. While the White House has staunchly denied any doubts about Biden's candidacy, cracks in the facade have begun to appear. Three major vulnerabilities have emerged as potential threats to Biden's reelection bid: the resurgence of a focused Trump campaign, the populist independent candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and growing disillusionment among the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. Trump's reemergence on the political scene has injected a sense of urgency into the Democratic Party's strategy. With his massive base, formidable fundraising capabilities, and disciplined campaign, Trump poses a significant challenge to Biden's reelection prospects. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s populist appeal and bipartisan appeal present another formidable obstacle for the Democrats. However, perhaps the most pressing concern for Biden and the Democratic Party is the erosion of support among far-left and young liberal voters. Recent primaries in Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have revealed a troubling trend, with a significant percentage of Democrats voting "uncommitted" or for alternative candidates. This growing disenchantment stems from dissatisfaction with Biden's policies, particularly his handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict. In light of these challenges, the prospect of replacing Biden at the party's convention in August looms ever larger. While the 2020 election may have secured Biden's victory, the narrow margin of victory and the shifting political landscape underscore the need for a more robust and united front in the upcoming election. As Democrats grapple with these uncertainties, the path forward remains unclear. However, one thing is certain: the decision regarding Biden's candidacy will be pivotal in shaping the party's future and its ability to secure victory in November. 15.04.24 Source

The culmination of a three-year legal battle has brought forth a significant verdict: Bruce Lehrmann, a political staffer, has been found by a civil court to have raped Brittany Higgins inside Australia's Parliament House. This ruling comes after Lehrmann sued Network 10 for defamation over a 2021 TV interview with Higgins, in which she recounted the traumatic incident. Throughout the proceedings, Lehrmann consistently denied any sexual encounter with Higgins, claiming they had merely shared an Uber back to their office after a night out. However, Justice Michael Lee dismissed Lehrmann's defamation case, stating that he was "hellbent" on having sex with Higgins and disregarded her consent entirely. The verdict marks a pivotal moment in a case that has captivated and horrified the nation, triggering widespread protests and a cultural reckoning. While the standard of proof in defamation cases is lower than in criminal proceedings, Justice Lee found the evidence surrounding the core rape allegation to have "the ring of truth." The trial, spanning over five weeks, heard from numerous witnesses and delved into various aspects of the case, including allegations of cover-ups and misconduct. At times, the proceedings took unexpected turns, with claims emerging about payments for exclusive interviews. In response to the ruling, Network 10 expressed support for Higgins, describing the judgment as a "triumph for truth" and vindication for her bravery in speaking out. Similarly, Lisa Wilkinson, the presenter involved in the interview, expressed relief for women across Australia. As Lehrmann exits the courtroom, he faces not only the weight of the legal verdict but also the prospect of significant financial liabilities in the form of legal costs. The exact sum will be determined in due course. Overall, the outcome of this case underscores the importance of addressing sexual assault allegations with diligence and sensitivity, while also highlighting the broader issue of workplace culture and accountability within the corridors of power. 16.04.24 Source

Trump is heading into the courtroom. Donald Trump stopped in the hallway outside of the courtroom to rail against the case he faces today. The former president called it an “assault on America” and yet again falsely accused President Joe Biden of orchestrating the charges. He then entered the courtroom and took his seat. Click for Live Updates 15.04.24

A religious leader has been stabbed and up to three others injured in an attack at a church in Sydney's west. The attack happened at Christ The Good Shepherd Church in Wakeley just after 7pm while a bishop was giving a service that was being livestreamed online. Multiple police and ambulance crews arrived a short time later, and remain on the scene. The injured include four men, believed to be aged in their 60s, 50s, 30s, and 20s. They have all been taken to hospital. There are also reports the emergency department at Liverpool Hospital is in lockdown. The church had advertised tonight's sermon was being delivered by His Grace Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. 15.04.24 Source