UN chief: Rule of law risks becoming `Rule of Lawlessness'



Hayashi Yoshimasa, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, signs a guest book as he meets with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres at United Nations headquarters, Thursday, Jan. 12, 2023. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)


EDITH M. LEDERER
Thu, January 12, 2023


UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Thursday that the rule of law is at grave risk of becoming “the Rule of Lawlessness,” pointing to a host of unlawful actions across the globe from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and coups in Africa’s Sahel region to North Korea’s illegal nuclear weapons program and Afghanistan’s unprecedented attacks on women’s and girls’ rights.

The U.N. chief also cited as examples the breakdown of the rule of law in Myanmar since the military ousted the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021 leading to “a cycle of violence, repression and severe human rights violations,” and the weak rule of law in Haiti which is beset by widespread rights abuses, soaring crime rates, corruption and transnational crime.

“From the smallest village to the global stage, the rule of law is all that stands between peace and stability and a brutal struggle for power and resources,” Guterres told the U.N. Security Council.

The secretary-general lamented, however, that in every region of the world civilians are suffering the effects of conflicts, killings, rising poverty and hunger while countries continue “to flout international law with impunity” including by illegally using force and developing nuclear weapons.

As an example of the rule of law being violated, Guterres pointed first to Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine.

The Ukraine conflict has created “a humanitarian and human rights catastrophe, traumatized a generation of children, and accelerated the global food and energy crisis,” the secretary-general said. And referring to Russia’s annexation of four regions in Ukraine in late September as well as its 2014 annexation of Crimea, he said any annexation resulting from the threat or use of force is a violation of the U.N. Charter and international law.

The U.N. chief then condemned unlawful killings and extremist acts against Palestinians and Israelis in 2022, and said Israel’s expansion of settlements -- which the U.N. has repeatedly denounced as a violation of international law -- “are driving anger and despair.”

Guterres said he is “very concerned” by unilateral initiatives in recent days by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new conservative government, which is implementing an ultra-nationalist agenda that could threaten a two-state solution.

“The rule of law is at the heart of achieving a just and comprehensive peace, based on a two-state solution, in line with U.N. resolutions, international law and previous agreements,” he stressed.

More broadly, the secretary-general said the rule of law is the foundation of the United Nations, and key to its efforts to find peaceful solutions to these conflicts and other crises.

He urged all 193 U.N. member states to uphold “the vision and the values” of the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to abide by international law, and to settle disputes peacefully.

The council meeting on strengthening the rule of law, presided over by Japan’s Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi whose country decided on the topic, sparked clashes, especially over the war in Ukraine, between Russia and Western supporters of the Kyiv government. Nearly 80 countries spoke.

“Today, we are beset by the war of aggression in Europe and conflicts, violence, terrorism and geopolitical tensions, ranging from Africa to the Middle East to Latin America to Asia Pacific,” Hayashi said.

“We, the member states, should unite for the rule of law and cooperate with each other to stand up against violations of the Charter such as aggression” and “the acquisition of territory by force from a member state,” he said in a clear reference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the council “an ironclad commitment” for the U.S. and a fundamental principle of the United Nations is that “no person, no prime minister or president, no state or country is above the law.”

Despite “unparalleled” advancements toward peace and prosperity since the U.N. was founded on the ashes of World War II, she said some countries are failing in their commitment to the U.N. Charter’s principles -- “the most glaring example” Russia -- or are “enabling rule breakers to carry on without accountability.”

Thomas-Greenfield called for those who don’t respect sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights and fundamental freedoms to be held accountable, naming Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Belarus, Cuba, Sudan and Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers.

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused the West of using the council meeting “to sell the narrative about the apparent responsibility of Russia for causing threats to international peace and security, ignoring, however, their own egregious violations.”

He said that before last Feb. 24, “international law was repeatedly flouted,” claiming the roots of the current situation “lie in the astonishing desire of Washington to play a role of global policeman.”

Nebenzia pointed to numerous instances including NATO bombings in former Yugoslavia and Libya, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq “using a false pretext” of the presence of weapons of mass destruction, of the “war on terror” in Afghanistan -- and he blamed the West for what Moscow calls the current “special military operation.”

Ukraine’s First Deputy Foreign Minister Emine Dzhaparova said “it’s very black and white" that Russia is responsible for the crimes in Ukraine and should be held accountable."

She also warned the Security Council: “The law of force that Russia has been barbarically practicing today over Ukraine gives a very clear signal to everyone in this room: No one is secure any more."

Even as NY nurses return to work, more strikes could follow


Protestors march on the streets around Montefiore Medical Center during a nursing strike, Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2023, in the Bronx borough of New York. A nursing strike that has disrupted patient care at two of New York City's largest hospitals has entered its third day.

 (AP Photo/John Minchillo)


AMANDA SEITZ
Thu, January 12, 2023 


WASHINGTON (AP) — Even as 7,000 nurses return to work at two of New York’s busiest hospitals after a three-day strike, colleagues around the country say it’s just a matter of time before frontline workers at other hospitals begin walking the picket line.

Problems are mounting at hospitals across the nation as they try to deal with widespread staffing shortages, overworked nurses beaten down by the pandemic and a busted pipeline of new nurses.

That's led to nurses juggling dangerously high caseloads, said Michelle Collins, dean at the college of nursing and health at Loyola University New Orleans.

“There’s no place that’s immune from what’s happening with the nursing shortage,” Collins said. “It’s everywhere.”

Union leaders say the tentative contract agreement ending the strike by nurses at Mount Sinai Hospital and Montefiore Medical Center, each privately owned, nonprofit hospitals that hold over 1,000 beds in New York City, will relieve chronic short staffing and boost pay by 19% over three years.

The walkout, which ended Thursday, was just the latest dispute between nurses and their employers.

Last year, six unions representing a total of 32,000 nurses launched strikes outside of hospital systems around the country, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Those strikes represented about a quarter of all the major strikes in the U.S. last year, an increase from the year before.

Describing hospital environments where nurses are unable to take breaks because they are assigned too many patients — some of whom are pleading for care from frontline workers — the president of the American Nurses Association, Dr. Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, said some nurses may think their only option is to strike.

“Nurses don’t feel like their voices have been heard with this exact topic,” she told The Associated Press Wednesday. “Nurses are now feeling like they need to strike. That could continue.”

In California, nurse unions at two hospitals are likely to strike this year when their contract expires, said former nurse Peter Sidhu, who now works for the state union. Sidhu, who fields objections from nurses across the state who say their caseloads are unsafe, has received 7,000 such complaints in Los Angeles County hospitals since December. He said objections have at least doubled since before the pandemic began.

“What I’ve seen is that in areas where we’ve traditionally had good staffing, even they are getting bombarded with patients and a lack of resources,” Sidhu said.

Nurse shortages were plaguing some hospitals years before COVID-19 hit, and signs of a crisis loomed, with a large swath of the workforce nearing retirement age.

A policy brief from the Department of Health and Human Services last year found that over half of nurses were over the age of 50, a much higher percentage compared with the overall U.S. labor workforce, where only a quarter of people are 55 or older.

Aspiring nurses are lining up to replace those retirees but even that silver lining has hit a snag, with widespread faculty shortages at nursing colleges. In 2021, nearly 92,000 qualified nursing school applicants were denied entry into a program, largely because of a shortage of educators, according to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

The American Nurses Association asked Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to declare the nursing shortage a national crisis in late 2021.

“Nurses have remained steadfast on the front lines since the beginning of the pandemic, while overcoming challenges, risks to their personal health and safety such as limited personal protective equipment and the physical, emotional and mental health burden of the COVID-19 virus,” the association’s president at the time wrote in a letter to the secretary.

Becerra hasn’t declared a crisis but has met with association and other health care leaders to discuss the shortage.

“This has been an ongoing issue for a while,” Mensik Kennedy said Wednesday. “We really need to work collaboratively with Congress and our health care system to address these issues. Nurses can’t solve these issues by ourselves.”

The federal agency has pumped more money into its National Health Service Corps program, which covers student tuition for health workers who serve in high-need communities. Since 2019, the program has nearly doubled the number of nurses and nurse faculty it sponsors.

The number of nurses working in the profession is starting to rebound to pre-pandemic levels, said Dave Auerbach, the director of research at the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission.

But hospitals, especially, are still struggling to lure those nurses back to working in their wards, he noted.

“That sounds like more of an issue of the attractiveness of the working conditions of the jobs,” Auerbach said. “Some of it is outside of the control of the hospitals in those jobs.”

Sidhu left his job as an ICU nurse last year when a third COVID surge struck, after being among the first to volunteer for the COVID unit when the pandemic hit.

He’s noticed a cultural shift in the profession. Fewer nurses want to work 12-hour shifts, multiple days a week. Many are taking jobs at clinics, where weekend or overnight shifts aren’t required. Others have moved to jobs in telehealth, working from the comfort of their home.

Some are simply burnt out from working in a hospital.

“Prior to the pandemic, I knew every once and a while, I’m going to have a bad night,” Sidhu said. “Now, every time you walk into the facility, you’re not just worried about what patients you’re going to have -- now you have four (patients) and you know you’re not going to have resources.”

Still, strong interest in the profession led Loyola University New Orleans to start an accelerated program this year aimed at second-career students who already have a bachelor’s degree.

April Hamilton, a 55-year-old food writer, cooking teacher and mother from Baton Rouge, La., will walk into her first class when that new nursing program starts Tuesday.

She’s read the headlines about staffing shortages and stressful working conditions in hospitals. She’s also seen the tough work nurses do firsthand: four years ago, she was in the hospital around-the-clock when her daughter spent 40 days in the intensive care unit, recovering from a fall that resulted in an amputated hand and 20 surgeries.

“Witnessing my daughter’s miracle fuels me,” Hamilton said. “I’m ready. I want to be part of the solution.”

Southwest Airlines Made an Unforced Error

The airline had a major meltdown that left passengers stranded. It didn't have to.

MICHAEL TEDDER
JAN 11, 2023 

To people who know the aviation industry, Southwest’s (LUV) -  holiday meltdown was as frustrating as it was predictable.

During the winter holidays, Southwest began canceling or massively delaying flights, including nearly 75% (or 4,000 domestic flights) on the day after Christmas alone. As the week between Christmas and New Year’s went on, more than 16,700 flights were impacted, which could end up costing Southwest $825 million, at least.

The primary culprit was, of course, the massive winter storms that tore through the country at the end of December. This affected every airline, but Southwest was very clearly not able to weather the storm as well as its competitors; it had far more outages and cancellations than any other airline.

Southwest’s Breakdown Was a Long Time Coming

Last year, Southwest’s employees began picketing and having demonstrations at public events where the company’s management had begun congregating, in order to bring attention to the airline’s need to update its flight programming software, which by many accounts was decades overdue for an overhaul.

Aviation experts have been warning Southwest about its outdated software for years. The exact cost of updating this software is unknown, but if it wasn’t expensive, the airline probably wouldn’t have put it off for years and years.

According to ZD Net Business, Southwest pilots allege that “the company’s technology is simply not up to the task of efficiently scheduling staffing. To such a degree that pilots often have their flights changed and find themselves out of position, sometimes not being able to immediately return home.”

Furthermore, Southwest’s employees have accused the company’s management, including CEO Robert Jordan (who took over in 2022), of not spending enough to recruit and train the pilots and staff necessary for the airline to run smoothly.

Instead, the company’s reputation for sterling customer service has taken a hit while, protestors allege, executives have decided to pay themselves large bonuses and pay shareholders dividends.

Of course, that’s how corporations and the stock market work, one could argue. But you could also argue there’s a time and place for that sort of payout, and when an airline is seen as badly under-resourced, it's just a bad look, and bonuses can wait for another time.

Robert Alexander/Getty Images

The Public Is Taking it Out on Southwest Employees

The result of Southwest's executive decisions were thousands of miserable and stranded travelers. Many of whom, unfortunately, took out their justified frustrations out on customer service representatives, who were not responsible for the problem.

It's easy to see where this could lead, and how Southwest's headaches could get much worse. At the moment, Southwest has a bad public image, because it doesn't have enough employees or a reliable infrastructure, and therefore can't function as well as its competitors.

It's not going to be easy for Southwest to repair its public image, or to regain the trust of its employees or customers. The company has announced plans to hire 8,000 more employees this year, but it remains to be seen if that's just lip service, of if management is willing to spend enough to recruit people who might be wary of coming onboard.

Southwest's clear first step is to hire more employees so the airline can function properly. But if you are known as a company where your employees get yelled at, well, who is going to want to take that job? And if no one wants to work for Southwest, how is this ever going to get turned around?

When you're in a hole, the saying goes, stop digging. But has Southwest dug itself in too deeply?

EXXON KNEW! LET'S SUE!
ExxonMobil's secret projections of the climate crisis were astonishingly accurate, and a legal expert says that's 'a stick of dynamite' for the oil giant's court battles

Morgan McFall-Johnsen,Paola Rosa-Aquino
Thu, January 12, 2023 

A new analysis found ExxonMobil scientists accurately predicted the climate crisis as early as 1977

.REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

ExxonMobil scientists knew about the coming climate crisis in precise detail, a Harvard study found.

The analysis is "dynamite" for an array of lawsuits against ExxonMobil, legal experts told Insider.

The company said in a statement: "those who talk about how 'Exxon Knew' are wrong in their conclusions."

ExxonMobil scientists predicted the climate crisis with astounding accuracy as early as 1977, a new Harvard study reveals.

The new analysis on the precision of company scientists' predictions could be powerful fuel for cities and states that are suing ExxonMobil, accusing the fossil-fuel corporation of violating consumer-protection statutes, lying to investors, or committing racketeering.

"This analysis is a stick of dynamite in these cases," Patrick Parenteau, professor and senior fellow of climate policy at Vermont Law School, told Insider in an email. "It is the kind of incriminating evidence that can really influence a jury."

Published in the peer-reviewed journal Science on Thursday, the study compares early ExxonMobil climate models to those from other scientists at the time, and to the actual rise in global temperature that has occurred since then.

According to the study, 63% to 83% of global warming projections from the company's scientists have turned out to be accurate matches of real-life temperature rises in the decades since.

These projections had an average "skill score" of 66% to 78% — higher than the scores ranging from 38% to 66% reported by NASA scientist James Hansen when he testified to Congress in 1988.

A graph from the study, showing ExxonMobil's projections compared to observed changes in temperature.Supran et. al.

Despite having this precise information about the consequences, ExxonMobil publicly denied that global warming would happen, spent decades attempting to discredit public research that predicted it, and touted the myth that the planet was actually cooling.

At the same time, the company shored up its infrastructure against the coming climate changes.

"That is arguably quite malicious conduct to not only continue your business, but to indeed accelerate production," Karen Sokol, a professor specializing in climate law and policy at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, told Insider.

"Right now we're at a point where it's getting increasingly painful and expensive to exit a fossil fuel economy," she said, pointing to the energy crisis in Europe. "There was a time when we could have done this in a much calmer way where there wasn't as much damage."

Todd Spitler, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil, sent the following statement to Insider via email: "This issue has come up several times in recent years and, in each case, our answer is the same: those who talk about how 'Exxon Knew' are wrong in their conclusions."

"Some have sought to misrepresent facts and ExxonMobil's position on climate science, and its support for effective policy solutions, by recasting well intended, internal policy debates as an attempted company disinformation campaign," Sptiler added. "ExxonMobil's research in climate science has resulted in nearly 150 papers, including more than 50 peer-reviewed publications that the Company has made available to the public. ExxonMobil's understanding of climate science has developed along with that of the broader scientific community."

Despite having accurate predictions about global warming, the oil giant denied it would happen

.Carlos Barria/Reuters

An investigation by InsideClimate News previously revealed that ExxonMobil's scientists began warning its executives about the dangers of burning fossil fuels in 1977, when the company was called Exxon.

The company's products could release so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that global temperatures rise 2 to 3 degrees Celsius, those scientists predicted.

That's exactly the track global warming is on right now. The new analysis reveals far more detail about those early Exxon scientists' projections, digging into the data from internal company documents.

"It's one thing to kind of have the impression that they were vaguely aware of global warming decades ago, but it's another to see the numbers and realize that they actually knew as much as anybody," Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard historian of science who led the analysis, told Insider. "Arguably, they knew all they needed to know."

Sokol called the new study "impressive."

"This study makes it more unassailable that Exxon knew the truth internally and lied publicly," Matt Pawa, an environmental attorney who has previously won a case against ExxonMobil over groundwater pollution, told Insider.

He added that the new research could make a big difference for lawsuits against the company "because they're being sued for knowing the truth, lying about it, and causing massive harm."

A bevy of lawsuits against ExxonMobil could make the company pay up — if they ever see a day in court

The analysis is relevant to a bevy of ongoing legal cases against the oil giant.

Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and the City of Hoboken have all sued ExxonMobil, alleging the company deceived the public about fossil fuels being a major cause of climate change and violating consumer protection laws.

Other cases accuse ExxonMobil of failing to disclose to investors that future oil and gas resources might not be assets at all, since they might have to be left in the ground in order to stay within the planet's carbon budget. Those "stranded assets" are now a real possibility, due to global climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement.

A woman standing where her home was before Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

The new analysis is also relevant to a class-action lawsuit recently filed by 16 Puerto Rican municipalities under the RICO statute normally used to prosecute organized crime. That case alleged that ExxonMobil — and other oil companies — engaged in a coordinated, multibillion-dollar scheme in order to convince consumers that fossil fuels do not alter the climate in order to bolster their bottom line.

But the outcome of most of those lawsuits largely depends on whether defendants like ExxonMobil are able to get their state-level cases into federal court, where judges may be more friendly to fossil-fuel companies than state juries would be. The RICO case is an exception, since it's already filed in federal court.

Sokol said the merits of the cases against ExxonMobil are strong and probably warrant punitive damages under the law. But that doesn't necessarily mean that fossil fuel companies will ever have to pay up.

"My fear is that they'll completely evade the merits and there won't even be a day in court," she said.

Drag Shows Are the Next Target for Republican Lawmakers



Kelsey Butler and Ella Ceron
Wed, January 11, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- In their latest anti-LGBTQ push, conservative lawmakers from multiple US states have recently introduced a series of bills targeting drag performances, particularly those with kids in attendance.

Legislators from at least seven states — Arizona, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas — have proposed anti-drag laws in recent months.

“This is really brand new,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign. “Prior to this, there had been attacks on drag story hours at libraries by conservative entities and there had been a lot of critiques, but not legislative attacks.” There were at least 141 anti-LGBTQ protests, threats and violent actions against drag events and venues in the US last year, a report from LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD found.

One bill proposed Friday in Arizona would make it a misdemeanor to put on a drag performance in a public place. The change would classify drag as an “adult cabaret performance” similar to topless dancers or strippers, according to the bill text. Another bill introduced in the state last week would ban the use of state money for drag shows for anyone under 18, essentially prohibiting appearances at schools and public libraries.

In November, a Texas lawmaker introduced a bill that would classify venues that host drag shows as “sexually oriented” businesses, making it a misdemeanor to admit anyone under 18 years old. Michigan lawmakers last year announced legislation that would allow parents to sue schools for up to $10,000 if they hosted drag shows.

Conservative politicians are targeting drag entertainers as part of a larger anti-LGBTQ push, specifically around issues of gender identity. Florida Senator Marco Rubio in May criticized drag story hours for placing “young children in close proximity with adults who are intentionally and explicitly sexualized.” Other GOP politicians have made similar comments.

Lil Miss Hot Mess, a board member of Drag Story Hour, in October said events like story hours are “reading books to children, encouraging them to use their imagination to envision a more just and fabulous world.”

“I was proud to file legislation that would ban any type of drag show that is sexual in nature from being performed in any place where kids will be around to see it,” tweeted Tennessee State Senator Jack Johnson after proposing a drag-show ban in the state. Another Tennessee bill seeks to classify drag performers as adult entertainers and require them to obtain licenses.

“Leader Johnson’s bill is not anti-drag,” Molly Gormley, Johnson’s press secretary, said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg News. “Characterizing it as such is disingenuous at best. The bill is aimed at protecting children from being exposed to sexually explicit drag shows inappropriate for children. It is similar to laws that prohibit children from going to a strip club.”

Violence and protests have accompanied the rise in anti-LGBTQ sentiment and rhetoric. The Proud Boys, an extremist far-right group, has shown up to and in same cases shut down events in California and Texas, and a man firebombed a donut shop in Oklahoma after it hosted a drag event. Colorado-based Club Q, where a deadly shooting killed five people, had hosted a drag performance earlier in the day and was promoting a drag brunch for all ages the next day.

Chris Sanders, the executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ rights nonprofit worries the legislation will lead to more incidents. “If the bills pass and drag is criminalized or relegated to 18 and up spaces only, that is dangerous for the performers,” he said. “It’s also leading to this long-term lie that somehow drag queens and trans people are dangerous to kids. Kids love costumes and they love imagination and creativity.”

 

THE GOOD OLD FIFTIES THE GOP WANTS TO GO BACK TOO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Like_It_Hot

Some Like It Hot - Wikipedia 

Some Like It Hot is a 1959 American crime comedy film directed, produced and co-written by Billy Wilder. It stars Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis and Jack ...

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio's lawyer blames Trump for January 6, says the ex-president 'unleashed this mob on the Capitol'

Oma Seddiq
Thu, January 12, 2023 

Enrique Tarrio, a leader of the Proud Boys, joins tens of thousands of Trump supporters to rally and march to declare the 2020 Presidential election results a fraud and the true winner to be President Trump, on November 14, 2020 in downtown Washington, D.C.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

An attorney for Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio blamed Trump for the January 6 riot.


Trump "unleashed this mob on the Capitol," the attorney argued on Thursday.


The Justice Department has charged Tarrio with seditious conspiracy in connection with January 6.

Former President Donald Trump was responsible for the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a lawyer representing Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio argued in a high-profile trial on Thursday.

"Trump told these people that the election was stolen. Trump told them to go there on January 6," attorney Sabino Jauregui told jurors in federal district court in Washington, DC during his opening statement. "And it was Trump, with his speech on January 6, that unleashed this mob on the Capitol."

The Justice Department has charged Tarrio with seditious conspiracy, alleging that under his leadership, members of the Proud Boys stormed the Capitol on January 6 to stop Congress from certifying then-President-elect Joe Biden's 2020 victory. Tarrio is on trial along with four other Proud Boys members: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola, each of whom have pleaded not guilty.

Trump, who's denied any responsibility over the riot, held a rally the morning of January 6. Toward the end of his speech, the ex-president told the crowd of thousands of his supporters to "fight like hell" — a phrase that the now-dissolved House select committee investigating the riot has said is evidence that Trump incited an insurrection.

Tarrio's lawyer noted the line in court on Thursday, saying Trump was "the one that told them march over to the Capitol and fight like hell."

"Enrique didn't say that," Jauregui told jurors. "Enrique didn't say anything to anybody on the grounds of the Capitol on January 6, but he just happens to be the leader of the Proud Boys."

Jauregui argued that Tarrio has been made a "scapegoat" for the violence that unfolded on January 6, despite not being on the ground that day. Tarrio had been arrested two days earlier for an unrelated incident — burning a "Black Lives Matter" flag at a historic church in Washington, DC.

But Tarrio, as the longtime Proud Boys chairman, directed the group to band together and stop the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to Biden on January 6, federal prosecutors alleged in opening statements on Thursday. The DOJ made its case that Tarrio sought to obstruct Congress' certification of the election results in part by sharing public and private messages they said he sent in the days before and on January 6.

"Make no mistake…," read one text from Tarrio sent at 2:40 p.m. after rioters broke into the Capitol, according to prosecutors. "We did this," read another text.

Jauregui pushed back on the DOJ's allegations against his client, accusing the government of cherry picking evidence.

"You will never see a message from Enrique Tarrio advocating to storm the Capitol," Jauregui said. "It's not gonna happen."

In his opening statements, Jauregui also defended the Proud Boys, an organization founded in 2016 that calls itself "Western-chauvinist." The group gained national attention in 2020 during protests in Washington, DC and has aligned itself with Trump, who told them to "stand back and stand by" during a 2020 presidential debate when asked to condemn white supremacists and militia groups. Watchdog groups have labeled the Proud Boys as extremist and a hate group.

"The Proud Boys are not a racist, sexist, homophobic organization. It's simply not true," Jauregui said, adding that they're basically "a drinking club."

"Chauvinist simply means that they think their side is the best," he added. "The Proud Boys think that America is the best."

The trial is expected to last more than a month. In another high-profile January 6 trial last fall, Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes and member Kelly Meggs were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Shark washes ashore in Massachusetts, and ‘something was not right,’ biologists say


Photo from John Chisholm, New England Aquarium

Brendan Rascius
Thu, January 12, 2023 

An emaciated shark washed ashore in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, amid an uptick in strandings in the area, a biologist said.

John Chisholm, a biologist at the New England Aquarium, was alerted on Jan. 10 to a porbeagle shark floundering in the shallow waters of Sagamore Beach, he wrote in a tweet.

Upon Chisholm’s arrival, the sickly creature was moved into deeper water, but died soon after and washed ashore at low tide, he said.

“When we finally recovered it we could see it was very very thin, another indication something was not right,” Chisholm told McClatchy News.

Michelle Passerotti, a doctor with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), performed a necropsy on the shark, revealing a “withered and unhealthy” liver and an internal parasite, Chisholm said. Samples were then taken to help determine the cause of death.

This is the fourth porbeagle stranding in the area reported this winter, which is “kind of unusual,” Passerotti told the Boston Herald. It’s unclear what has caused these deaths.

Porbeagles are a species of highly mobile mackerel shark commonly found in the colder waters across the globe.

“Many types of marine animals strand in this area,” Chisholm said. “The reasons vary, some are sick or injured, this time of year some are cold shocked and sometimes it’s just bad luck.”

Dolphins are particularly known to strand in the Cape Cod area, according to NOAA. Over 100 dolphins became stranded in there during the winter of 2012.

Because the cape is hook-shaped it can make navigating back to the open sea difficult for marine creatures, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

London Mayor Khan Warns of ‘Immense’ Brexit Damage to City



Emily Ashton and Julian Harris
Wed, January 11, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- London Mayor Sadiq Khan will warn of the “immense damage” Brexit is doing to the capital’s City financial district, and accuse the government of ignoring the wider impacts on Britain.

In a keynote speech to City leaders on Thursday evening, Khan will say it’s wrong to “pretend” that the UK’s exit from the European Union isn’t causing harm, according to a statement from his office.

“The reality is that the City of London is being hit hard by the loss of trade and talent to our competitors because of Brexit,” he will say. “London cannot afford to fall behind any of our international competitors.”

Khan’s comments follow polling showing many of those who voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum are having second thoughts. A YouGov survey last week found that a quarter of those Leave voters who regret their decision blame a general sense that things have got worse since Brexit. YouGov polling in November found that the wider public now think Britain was wrong to leave the EU, by 56% to 32%.

Khan, who campaigned for Remain and has long been vocal about the negative consequences of leaving the EU, will say he “simply can’t keep quiet about the immense damage Brexit is doing,” according to a draft of his speech briefed by his office.

“Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems,” he will say. “Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history or the consequences wished away.”

Brexit has reduced Britain’s GDP by 5.5%, cut investment by 11% and slashed goods and services trade by 7%, Khan said. Britons are also paying an extra £6 billion ($7.3 billion) to eat because of Brexit, he said, equivalent to £210 added to the average household supermarket bill over a two-year period.

Khan’s words could also be seen as a veiled criticism of Labour leader Keir Starmer who has dismissed calls to rejoin the EU’s single market, and embraced the language of Brexit with the promise of a “Take Back Control Bill” to hand more powers to communities.

Sadiq Khan calls for debate on rejoining single market and says ‘Brexit isn’t working’

Dominic Penna
Thu, January 12, 2023

Sadiq Khan - Tristan Fewings/Getty Images Europe

Sadiq Khan on Thursday called for a debate on Britain rejoining the single market and customs union as he warned that “Brexit isn’t working”.

Mr Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, went against the policy of the national party to advocate a return to closer economic ties with the European Union.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader has ruled out rejoining the single market if his party wins the next election, and last week appropriated a Vote Leave campaign slogan by promising to unveil a “Take Back Control Bill”.

In a speech to business leaders at Mansion House, Mr Khan said: “I simply can’t keep quiet about the immense damage Brexit is doing.

“Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems. Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history or the consequences wished away.”

Mr Khan suggested Britain’s economic difficulties were not “beyond repair” and could be eased by “a shift from this extreme, hard Brexit”, saying: “We need greater alignment with our European neighbours.”

He added: “That includes having a pragmatic debate about the benefits of being a part of the customs union and the single market.”

Detrimental effects when we can least afford it’

The Mayor acknowledged that “no one wants to see a return to the division and deadlock” of the years between the British public voting to leave the EU and Brexit finally happening on Jan 31, 2020, but stressed that Brexit had had detrimental effects “at a time when we can least afford it”.

Sir Keir last year pledged to “make Brexit work” without reopening negotiations on the UK’s trade deal.

Instead, Labour has said it would negotiate a new security pact with Brussels and implement measures that it says would ease tensions created by checks required by the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Asked about Mr Khan’s comments by reporters, Rishi Sunak’s official spokesman said: “Our position has not changed. The British people set out their view back in 2016, and the Government is busy enacting, particularly focusing on the benefits of Brexit with the Rule Bill among other things.”

Last week, polling for Opinium showed that Conservative voters are losing faith in the benefits of Brexit, with many now believing that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Bannon refuses to talk to his own lawyers in charity fraud case


Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo


Danielle Muoio Dunn
Thu, January 12, 2023 

NEW YORK — The state criminal trial against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon over his alleged involvement in charity fraud has been delayed by his refusal to speak to his team of attorneys.

Bannon and his Florida-based nonprofit, We Build the Wall, is charged with defrauding donors who gave money to construct a barrier along the Mexico border. In September, Attorney General Tish James said Bannon raised more than $15 million through the scheme and used the proceeds to “enrich himself and his friends.” He faces a maximum of five to 15 years in prison if convicted.

During a Thursday appearance in Manhattan Supreme Court, Bannon’s attorneys said they no longer communicate directly with their client due to “irreconcilable differences” over how to approach the case. Bannon has reached out to at least seven law firms in the past several weeks to find new representation, according to his current counsel.

“There has been a direct breakdown in communication,” said David Schoen, one of Bannon’s three outgoing lawyers who appeared in court Thursday.

Bannon, who has pleaded not guilty, entered the lower Manhattan courtroom Thursday voicing support for protesters in Brazil who falsely claim the results of the presidential election were rigged.

“Those are freedom fighters down there,” Bannon said.

Inside the courtroom, prosecutors complained that Bannon’s refusal to engage with his legal team has already caused procedural delays, but said they wouldn’t fight the request for new representation. State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan gave Bannon until Feb. 28 to find new attorneys.

A similar set of federal charges were brought against Bannon, 68, and three other people in the Southern District of New York in August 2020. He was arrested while onboard a luxury yacht off the coast of Connecticut and later pleaded not guilty, but was dropped from the case after receiving a pardon from then-President Donald Trump. Presidential pardons do not apply to state charges.

Steve Bannon Delays Trial by Ghosting His Own Lawyers

Jose Pagliery
Thu, January 12, 2023 

Photo by Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Lawyers revealed in court on Thursday that far-right media figure Steve Bannon has, for months now, ghosted his legal team—a tactic that has managed to slow down the New York case against him for his role in a scammy nationalist nonprofit that falsely promised to build a U.S.-Mexico wall.

On Thursday, even the state judge overseeing the case called Bannon out on the bald-faced delay tactic. But Justice Juan Merchan relented and still gave Bannon seven weeks to find new attorneys.

Bannon now has until Feb. 28 to find new lawyers to replace the ones he now scorns—like David Schoen, whose spectacular failure in federal court last year led Bannon to a conviction for contempt of Congress in another case.


In court in New York City on Thursday, the judge sparred with Schoen, who tried to help his client by hitting the brakes on the prosecution while arguing that Bannon doesn’t even have to provide a good reason for cutting him off.

Steve Bannon Cheers on Brazilian ‘Freedom Fighters’ Trying to Recreate Jan. 6

“There is a direct breakdown in communications, so Mr. Bannon and his lawyers don't communicate about this case directly,” Schoen revealed.

But Merchan saw through that defense strategy, citing legal precedent that makes clear a person can pick their own lawyer but not use that to setback a prosecution.

“Although a defendant has the constitutionally guaranteed right to be defended by counsel of his own choosing, this right is qualified in the sense that a defendant may not employ such right as a means to delay judicial proceedings,” Merchan read from a 1980 state appellate case.“Is this being done to delay official proceedings?” Merchan asked Schoen. Bannon’s lawyer demurred.

The courtroom soon devolved into a heated match, as the cool-headed judge had no patience for Schoen’s usual theatrics and lectures. At one point, Merchan cut off Schoen mid-sentence and ordered him and other lawyers to approach the bench for a private discussion—one that clearly ended badly.

As they walked away from the judge, Merchan scoffed.

"I'm sorry you feel like you were dragged into this courthouse," the judge said sarcastically. "You and your client will be treated the same as any other defendant in this courthouse."

Steve Bannon Gets Four Months in the Slammer as Judge Shreds His Defense

Bannon, a former banker and current right-wing media personality, advised former President Donald Trump and spent half a year as his White House chief strategist. Since then, he’s been mired in legal troubles stemming from his conspiracy-driven, anti-democratic activities. The Senate Intelligence Committee wanted him investigated by the feds over what they thought was his untruthful testimony about Russian interference in the 2016 election to get Trump into power. The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted him in July for his refusal to testify before the House Jan. 6 Committee investigating his role in fomenting the attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021 by Trump-loyal insurrectionists.

Bannon briefly faced federal charges for lining his own pockets by scamming MAGA diehards into funding a doomed GoFundMe project to build a wall between the United States and Mexico to keep out migrants. But Trump pardoned his friend and made the case go away.

The New York County District Attorney’s Office has been selectively reviving cases that conveniently disappeared during the Trump administration, and in September, the office announced a grand jury indictment against Bannon for that same case. This time, however, the case uses state charges against Bannon for duping New Yorkers into funding the wall. Bannon is accused of lying about the $15 million collected for “We Build The Wall,” and he was criminally charged with money laundering, scheme to defraud, and conspiracy.

On Thursday, prosecutors and defense lawyers argued over evidence in the case. Justin S. Weddle, who represents the “We Build the Wall” nonprofit, complained about how the DA’s office had turned over too much information, drowning them in documents that couldn’t possibly be reviewed in time for a trial.

Bannon’s lawyers, Schoen of Alabama and John W. Mitchell of New York, used it as an opportunity to try and detach themselves from the case. But Merchan wouldn’t let them, refusing to let any person charged with a crime in his courtroom remain “without counsel.”

Bannon Found Guilty of Obstructing Jan. 6 Probe

Mitchell pleaded to be let go, saying that the way Bannon will only talk to him through a third person “is indeed the most awkward situation,” stressing that “we're not providing effective assistance of counsel.”

But Merchan wouldn’t have it, forcing them to stick around for now and setting a strict deadline for Bannon to find new lawyers.

Dan Passeser, an assistant district attorney prosecuting the case, warned that the right-wing media personality was undermining the law enforcement effort by “seeking to hit pause indefinitely” with his lawyer swapping games.

“There will be delay. The extent of delay we'll have to wait and see,” the judge acknowledged.

In recent weeks, Merchan has proved to be less and less tolerant of the utter incompetence and obstruction of justice that has become commonplace in the era of Trump politics. During the Trump Organization’s tax fraud trial last month, he ripped into corporate defense lawyers for wasting time and unsealed documents showing how the company slowed down the investigation by lying. And on Tuesday, while sentencing Trump Organization finance executive Allen Weisselberg, Merchan berated him over the greedy way he cheated taxes and faked business records.

Steve Bannon has ghosted his 'We Build The Wall' defense lawyers for months in what prosecutors call a delay tactic

Jacob Shamsian, Laura Italiano
Thu, January 12, 2023 

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon enters the restroom as he leaves the New York State Supreme Court after a hearing in New York City, U.S. January 12, 2023.

REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

Steve Bannon was in Manhattan court Thursday for a hearing in his border wall charity scam case.

His lawyers told the judge that Bannon has refused to talk to them for months.

Bannon now has a deadline and an ultimatum: Choose new lawyers in 6 weeks or keep your current ones.

Right-wing agitator Stephen Bannon has been ghosting his defense lawyers in his "We Build The Wall" charity scam case for months, those lawyers said in a court appearance in Manhattan state court Thursday.

Prosecutors and the judge presiding over the case complained in court that Bannon's ongoing refusal to speak directly to his previously-chosen legal team risks delaying the case, which has sputtered along in the months since his September arraignment on charges of money laundering, conspiracy, and scheme to defraud.

David Schoen, one of Bannon's current lawyers, asked the judge to let him and another lawyer, John Mitchell, stop representing Bannon immediately.

The judge instead gave a typically rumpled-looking Bannon a deadline and an ultimatum: Either chose new lawyers before his next court date on February 28, or return to court with his current ones.

If Bannon persists in not getting a new legal defense team one may be appointed for him by the judge.

Bannon, who served as a 2016 campaign official and top White House advisor to Donald Trump, is facing six charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney's office, including money laundering and conspiracy.

Prosecutors allege he helped orchestrate a scheme through a nonprofit that claimed to be raising private funding to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.

The nonprofit raised $15 million from thousands of donors across the country with the false promise of building the wall as envisioned by former President Donald Trump, prosecutors said in a September indictment. In reality, prosecutors said, Bannon and others laundered funds through third-party entities to line the pockets of people running the organization.

'A direct breakdown in communications'

Bannon has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He walked into the courtroom in downtown Manhattan Thursday wearing his typical getup of a waxed olive jacket layered over a black button-down shirt, which was layered over a black polo shirt, along with tuxedo pants.

At the court conference, Schoen told Judge Juan Merchan that Bannon was no longer speaking with him or Mitchell. Both asked without success to be allowed to withdraw from the case.

"There has been a direct breakdown in communications," Schoen said, calling their differences over defense strategy "irreconcilable."

Since September, Schoen said, Bannon has only communicated with him and Mitchell through a third attorney, Adam Katz. Katz didn't show up to the Thursday hearing.

Despite their stated communication breakdown, Schoen and Bannon whispered to and smiled at each other while seated at the defense table only moments later, as a lawyer representing the wall-building fundraiser discussed discovery issues with the judge.

After the hearing, Schoen told Insider that he and Mitchell disagreed with Bannon about what defense to make, and how to prepare for the case.

"It's cordial — we're very friendly," Schoen said. "We just disagree about the case."

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon points as he leaves New York Supreme Court after a hearing in New York City, U.S., January 12, 2023

REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

Prosecutors didn't oppose Schoen and Mitchell's attempts to withdraw from the case, but opposed delaying the case's schedule — a point the judge ultimately agreed with.

"The law gives the court great discretion to move a case along in the public interest," Merchan said.

Merchan said the Manhattan District Attorney's office should "set aside" discovery evidence for whichever lawyers Bannon hired. He also allowed letters that were previously submitted to the court by Bannon's current lawyers, and which lay out their disagreements with Bannon, to remain under seal.

In August 2020, federal prosecutors in Manhattan brought a similar set of fraud charges against Bannon and three other people who they said had misused funds from the nonprofit to enrich themselves. But then-President Trump pardoned Bannon shortly before he left office.

Trump didn't pardon Bannon's three codefendants in the federal case, who were referred to as unindicted coconspirators in the Manhattan district attorney's indictment. Two pleaded guilty to their role in the scam, and the third was found guilty at trial.

Bannon was found guilty in July of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas issued by the panel investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. A Washington, DC, federal judge ordered him to serve four months in prison, but Bannon has staved off the sentence as he appeals the verdict.

On his way into the courthouse Thursday, Bannon was met by a small group of protesters demanding he be jailed for his role in the Capitol attack. As he left, he was heckled by a lone protester.



If Bannon's conviction in DC is upheld, it could weigh against him if he's also found guilty in the border-wall case, as the judge would be able to consider his criminal history.

The judge overseeing the case, Merchan, recently oversaw a trial in which the Trump Organization was found guilty of tax fraud. He's scheduled to sentence the company on Friday.

BECAUSE OF COURSE HE DID

Trump discussed striking North Korea with nuclear weapon, blaming another country: book


Julia Mueller
Thu, January 12, 2023

During his tenure in the White House, former President Trump floated the idea of striking North Korea with a nuclear weapon and blaming the attack on another country, according to the new afterword of a book from New York Times journalist Michael Schmidt.

Then-White House chief of staff John Kelly was reportedly concerned by both Trump’s provocative Twitter messages about the country and his private talks, according to excerpts of Schmidt’s “Donald Trump v. the United States” shared by NBC News.

“What scared Kelly even more than the tweets was the fact that behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Trump continued to talk as if he wanted to go to war. He cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility,” Schmidt writes.

According to the book, Kelly attempted to dissuade Trump from the idea, saying the U.S. would likely be found out if it went through with such a plan and underscoring the consequences and casualties likely in any conflict with North Korea.

But Trump seemed dogged about the idea of an attack, Schmidt reports, and further raised “the possibility of launching a preemptive military attack against North Korea.”

Trump during his presidency both threatened and praised North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, saying at one point that the pair “fell in love,” even as the two countries had tensions over nuclear weapons.

“North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.’ Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” Trump tweeted back in 2018.

Schmidt’s book, first published in 2020, is set to be released next week in paperback with the new afterword included.

 The Hill.

Trump discussed using a nuclear weapon 

on North Korea in 2017 and blaming it on someone else, book says

Rebecca Shabad

Thu, January 12, 2023 

WASHINGTON — Behind closed doors in 2017, President Donald Trump discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and suggested he could blame a U.S. strike against the communist regime on another country, according to a new section of a book that details key events of his administration.

Trump's alleged comments, reported for the first time in a new afterword to a book by New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt, came as tensions between the U.S. and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un escalated, alarming then-White House chief of staff John Kelly.

The new section of "Donald Trump v. the United States," obtained by NBC News ahead of its publication in paperback Tuesday, offers an extensive examination of Kelly’s life and tenure as Trump's chief of staff from July 2017 to January 2019. Kelly previously was Trump's secretary of homeland security. For the account, Schmidt cites in part dozens of interviews on background with former Trump administration officials and others who worked with Kelly.

Eight days after Kelly arrived at the White House as chief of staff, Trump warned that North Korea would be "met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before." When Trump delivered his first speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2017, he threatened to "totally destroy North Korea" if Kim, whom he referred to as "Rocket Man," continued his military threats.

Later that month, Trump continued to goad North Korea through his tweets. But Kelly was more concerned about what Trump was saying privately, Schmidt reports.

"What scared Kelly even more than the tweets was the fact that behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Trump continued to talk as if he wanted to go to war. He cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility," according to the new section of the book.

Kelly tried to use reason to explain to Trump why that would not work, Schmidt continues.

"It’d be tough to not have the finger pointed at us," Kelly told the president, according to the afterword.

Kelly brought the military’s top leaders to the White House to brief Trump about how war between the U.S. and North Korea could easily break out, as well as the enormous consequences of such a conflict. But the argument about how many people could be killed had "no impact on Trump," Schmidt writes.

Kelly then tried to point out that there would be economic repercussions, but the argument held Trump’s attention for only so long, according to the afterword.

Then, Trump "would turn back to the possibility of war, including at one point raising to Kelly the possibility of launching a preemptive military attack against North Korea," Schmidt said.

Kelly warned that Trump would need congressional approval for a pre-emptive strike, which "baffled and annoyed" Trump, according to the afterword.

Trump tweeted in early January 2018: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

Schmidt also writes that it was well-known among senior U.S. officials for several decades that North Korea sought to spy on U.S. decision-makers. So White House aides were alarmed "that Trump would repeatedly talk on unclassified phones, with friends and confidants outside the government, about how he wanted to use military force against North Korea."

Schmidt writes that there is no indication North Korea had a source in the White House, but he said it "was well within the realm of American intelligence assessment" that it could have been listening to Trump’s calls.

"Kelly would have to remind Trump that he could not share classified information with his friends," Schmidt writes.

According to the new section, Kelly came up with a plan he believes ultimately prompted Trump to dial back the rhetoric in spring 2018: appealing directly to Trump’s "narcissism."

Kelly convinced the president he could prove he was the "greatest salesman in the world" by trying to strike a diplomatic relationship, Schmidt writes, thereby preventing a nuclear conflict that Kelly and other top military leaders saw as a more immediate threat than most realized at the time.

The situation with North Korea consumed Kelly almost immediately upon his taking the job at the White House, which he had not actually committed to do before Trump tweeted that the post was his, according to the new section.

“Holy s--- — oh, I gotta call Karen,” Kelly said, referring to his wife, according to the afterword.

"Three days later, on Monday morning, Kelly met with his aides in a large conference room at a Department of Homeland Security office building a few blocks from the White House. Kelly was solemn. 'This is a great job,' he said, referring to the cabinet position he was leaving. 'That’s not a great job. But the president has asked me to do it.'"

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com