Archive by Author

Trump documentary by Jan. 6 panel witness to debut on Discovery+ July 10

The new documentary on former president Trump, his inner circle and his family is slated to debut this weekend on Discovery’s streaming service.

The filmmaker behind the series, Alex Holder, recently testified to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

The first episode of “Unprecedented” will air on Sunday, July 10, and feature never-before-seen footage and interviews with Trump and members of his family.

Holder, in public statements issued through his attorney, has said the Trump family had no control over what would be contained in the documentary.

During a trailer of the series published recently, Trump is seen on camera telling Holder, “I think I treat people well, unless they don’t treat me well, in which case you go to war.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Amazon Prime members to get free food deliveries through Grubhub deal

Amazon and Grubhub announced a deal Wednesday that will allow Amazon Prime subscribers in the United States to get free delivery from certain restaurants.

The e-commerce giant also has an option to purchase a 2 percent stake in Grubhub as part of the deal. Amazon can purchase a further 13 percent stake at a “formula-based price,” calculated primarily by the number of new customers added in the deal.

Amazon Prime subscribers will be able to sign up for a free one-year membership of Grubhub’s premium service starting Wednesday, according to a press release from Just Eat Takeaway.com, the Dutch company that owns Grubhub.

“I am incredibly excited to announce this collaboration with Amazon that will help Grubhub continue to deliver on our long-standing mission to connect more diners with local restaurants,” Grubhub CEO Adam DeWitt said in a statement. 

The deal comes as the food-delivery industry struggles after the surge in demand driven by the COVID-19 pandemic abates.

Just Eat has been considering a sale of Grubhub just over a year after purchasing the platform for $7.3 billion. Grubhub lost roughly $410 million in 2021.

News of the deal sent shares of Grubhub’s competitors down Wednesday, with Uber sliding more than 3 percent and DoorDash falling by 9 percent.

Amazon has previously added food delivery perks to Prime members in the United Kingdom and Ireland through a partnership with Deliveroo.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fox News hires new legal counsel in defamation case with Dominion

Fox News has added a new lawyer as part of its legal team in its fight with Dominion Voting Systems, which is suing the cable news giant for defamation after it aired false claims about voter fraud following the 2020 election.

Fox has hired Dan Webb, a veteran defense attorney and high-profile lawyer, as part of its legal team as it moves to have the case brought by Dominion dismissed.

Webb is the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and was the special counsel investigating the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. More recently, he was appointed to serve as special counsel investigating how officials in Chicago handled a case involving actor Jussie Smollett.

Webb’s “vast experience in trial litigation will add depth to our legal team, ensuring the protection of the First Amendment and the fundamental right to a free press remain intact,” Fox said in a statement to The Hill on Wednesday.

Late last month, a Superior Court Judge in Delaware denied a motion from Fox Corp. to dismiss the suit, saying Dominion had sufficiently shown Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, who own and operate Fox News’s parent company, might have knowingly allowed unproven claims about voter fraud to be aired on the channel.

In a court filing, Dominion argued the Murdochs “decided to promote former President Trump’s narrative after Trump’s condemnation of Fox damaged its stock and viewership.”

Fox’s legal team has sought to have the case dismissed on First Amendment grounds, arguing many of the false claims about voter fraud aired by the network were made by guests on the channel.

“Limiting the ability of the press to report freely on the American election process stands in stark contrast to the liberties on which this nation was founded,” Fox said in a statement on Wednesday, adding it was “confident we will prevail in this case as the First Amendment is the foundation of our democracy and freedom of the press must be protected.”

Fox is also facing a lawsuit from a separate voting systems company, Smartmatic, over similar claims about voter fraud. Both Dominion and Smartmatic have sued other smaller cable news channels, including One America News and Newsmax, over claims made on those networks about the companies and their software.

Source: TEST FEED1

Do public officials have the right to censor users who interact with them online?

Several weeks ago, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order preventing a Texas social media law from going into effect. The Texas law, which prevents large social media platforms from removing posts based on the views that they express, would have stopped Twitter from banning former President Trump from its platform in the wake of Trump’s tweets about the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. At least until the Supreme Court squarely addresses the merits of the Texas law, social media platforms will retain the right to censor comments and even ban users.

Whether large companies should be able to censor content is an issue of major importance, as many of our day-to-day social interactions occur on these platforms. Yet an equally pressing issue, and one that has received much less media attention, is whether and to what extent people who hold public office – especially the more than 500,000 state and local elected officials – can censor users who interact with the public official’s social media page.

Few of us can name our state and local representatives, but state and local government decisions impact our daily lives to a greater extent than national-level policy. School boards, and not the federal government, are primarily responsible for K-12 education policy. State and local elected leaders make decisions about COVID-19 regulations, welfare benefits, housing, gun control and the bulk of criminal justice issues, among many others.

It is troubling, then, that state and local officials often censor users’ comments, or block them from engaging with their social media pages altogether, thereby cutting off their constituents from political engagement. Unlike the private companies that host the platforms on which public officials post their content, public officials must conform their conduct to the First Amendment’s mandate of free and open expression.

Federal courts have coalesced behind the theory that social media platforms should be considered “limited public forums” for First Amendment purposes. Whereas the government cannot impose content restrictions on speech in “traditional public forums” – spaces like sidewalks and parks that have a historical pedigree of being open to the public for speech and expressive conduct – the government can limit the topics available for discussion in limited public forums. 

But like traditional public forums (and all public property), it may not censor one’s viewpoints on an otherwise permissible topic. So, if you can talk about football, you can’t keep the Patriots fans from joining the discussion.

From court decisions thus far (including those from the Second, Fourth and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals) we can discern at least a few significant indicia for determining whether a public official’s social media page constitutes a limited public forum or is merely the official’s personal page. We should look at whether the page is “draped with the trappings of office,” such as a government seal or official contact information; whether the official uses it to announce government policy; and most importantly, whether the official uses the platform to engage with citizens on policy matters. 

On the other hand, if the official uses the page only to interact with friends and family, and if it lacks policy related information and references to official duties, a court would almost certainly find the page to be private.

Though helpful, these contours are broad, and the scale of the issue (500,000 plus accounts) is daunting. We must therefore take steps as a society to ensure that everyone has access to their local politicians and source of policy information and reduce pervasive First Amendment violations. 

First, we need to increase constitutional literacy about proper online behavior for public officials. Now that social media has created a ubiquitous albeit intangible space for self-expression, a working knowledge of the Constitution’s strictures for online behavior is a must for all public officials — from local school board members to senior federal officers. 

Second, constituents should discourage their officials from using social media pages in a hybrid public-private manner. Hybrid social media use makes it difficult for courts to decide whether a page is a limited public forum or a private page. 

State and federal laws could help; a law might, for example, require that any official’s public page be designated as “public” or “for official purposes” on the social media website. That could be a weighty indicator for courts to consider in determining whether a page is a limited public forum, though such a designation does not necessarily prevent an official from using a nominally private page to inappropriately advance a policy agenda. 

But the best approach would be for the public to start holding their officials accountable when they use purportedly private social media pages for public purposes. 

Applying our centuries-old Constitution to our modern, technological world is difficult (something that law students learn in their first year), but it is worth the effort. Though legislatures and courts have begun to grapple with the growing importance of social media as a medium for public debate, there is room – and a significant need – for the public itself to engage with these First Amendment questions and to police unconstitutional conduct. 

Ultimately, the electors, not the elected, are best positioned to ensure that government leaders do not selectively exclude certain voices from the online public square.

Sarah Ludington is a clinical professor of law and the director of the First Amendment Clinic at Duke University School of Law. Christian I. Bale is a lawyer in Wilmington, Del. Lauren Smith is a lawyer in Washington, D.C.

Source: TEST FEED1

UN urges US to adhere to women's human rights convention after overturn of Roe v. Wade

The US is coming under increasing scrutiny from the international community after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, with the United Nations women’s rights committee urging the US to adhere to a pact it signed that included allowing legal abortion. 

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) wants the US to stay true to its commitment that was signed in 1980, called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 

That committee expresses solidarity with women and girls in the US and called on all parties to end criminalizing abortion and to at minimum allow legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, threats to life or health of the pregnant woman and girl and severe fetal impairment. 

The CEDAW Convention is considered the only near-universal treaty that comprehensively protects women’s human rights, including their sexual and reproductive health rights. It was created in an effort to promote women’s rights and bring, “the female half of humanity into the focus of human rights concerns.” 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The US signed onto the convention but has yet to ratify it – one of just seven countries, including Iran, Somalia and Sudan, that also have not ratified the Convention despite signing on to it.  

In light of the US Supreme Court striking down the constitutional right to abortion, the Committee said in a statement that it, “expresses its solidarity with women and girls in the United States and resolutely urges the United States of America to adhere to the Convention.” 

The committee also emphasized that access to safe and legal abortion helps reduce maternal mortality rates, prevents adolescent and unwanted pregnancies and ensures women’s right to freely decide over their bodies. 

The US is already experiencing a dismal maternal mortality rate, with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimating about 700 women die from pregnancy-related complication annually—which is the highest maternal mortality rate of any high-income nation in the world. 

This isn’t the first time the U.N. has criticized the US over its abortion policy, with Melissa Upreti, chairwoman of the U.N.’s working group on discrimination against women and girls, saying last year Texas’ “fetal heartbeat bill” was, “structured sex and gender-based discrimination at its worst.” 

That Texas law took effect in September and bans abortions after six-weeks of pregnancy, only making an exception for medical emergencies. It also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers if they have a suspicion that the new law is being breached. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Many Americans won't use virtual options once COVID-19 pandemic is over: poll

Americans are ready to return to normal more than two-years into the pandemic and many say they do not plan to attend virtual events when it is over.  

A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and The SCAN Foundation found that 62 percent said it is unlikely they will attend virtual events after the pandemic.  

More than half said they are not likely to continue using telehealth services.  

Yet, American adults polled generally view online services positively and think they should continue after the pandemic. Nearly half said they believe telehealth services, remote work, and online community events are good things.  

“Rather than this either-or, I think we’re more likely to be facing a hybrid future,” Donna Hoffman, director of the Center for the Connected Consumer at the George Washington School of Business, told the Associated Press. 

“People have found convenience in some of these virtual options that just makes sense, and they don’t necessarily have anything to do with like keeping you safe or the pandemic even though they came of age during the pandemic,” Hoffman added.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The poll also found that people are already engaging in activities they enjoyed before the pandemic. Nearly 80 percent expect to go out to a bar in the next few weeks.  

Still, more than half of Americans think a COVID-19 vaccination is necessary to return to public life, and less than a quarter said indoor masking is vital.  

Almost 70 percent of the total U.S. population is fully vaccinated, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.  

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

HERE’S WHEN ADULTS GAIN THE MOST WEIGHT: STUDY 

HERE ARE THE BEST-RUN CITIES IN AMERICA: REPORT 

FIVE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION YOU SHOULD KNOW 

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES FLORIDA ‘STOP WOKE ACT’ 

MOST SAY COST OF LIVING IS HOLDING THEM BACK FROM AMERICAN DREAM 

Source: TEST FEED1

Former DHS official: Right 'recognizes' disinformation 'as a way to whip up people'

A leading expert on disinformation on the internet and in media is arguing conservatives are using the proliferation of false or misleading claims to advance their political agendas.

Nina Jankowicz, who briefly chaired the Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board, said “we’re in a really bleak situation here in this country,” when it comes to the spreading of partisan or misleading information on social media and elsewhere on the internet.

That trend, she said, can come with severe national security ramifications.

“It’s hard to imagine how we get back from this,” Jankowicz told the New York Times this week. “… when this is how our elected representatives are behaving — when we can’t agree on, you know, what is the truth.”

The American right specifically, Jankowicz claimed, is seizing on the increasingly hot political discourse online and the spread of bad information.

“The right recognizes it is a way to whip up people in a furor,” Jankowicz said. “The problem is there are very real national security issues here, and not being able to talk about this in a mature way is a real disservice to the country.”

After DHS announced the creation of the board, Republican elected officials and conservative pundits raised concerns about Jankowicz’s past criticism of former President Trump and other Republicans.

Some warned the board, which was established under the Biden administration in the spring, represented an Orwellian “ministry of truth,” and an effort to suppress conservative thought.

Jankowicz faced a torrent of harassment online from critics after she was named to the post.

DHS paused the initiatives of the board in May, saying that while its work was “grossly and intentionally mischaracterized,” by critics, the “false attacks have become a significant distraction.” Jankowicz also resigned from the board the same month.

Source: TEST FEED1

Debra Messing on White House call: I got Joe Biden elected, what's the point to voting

Former “Will & Grace” star Debra Messing had some pointed things to say about the White house during a call last month held after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, CNN reports.

Messing expressed frustration on the call with the White House’s actions in office, saying that she had gotten President Biden elected and seemingly had little to show for it.

Messing questioned why she was being asked to do anything and that there did not seem to be a point to voting during the call, according to CNN.

The frustrations expressed by Messing are reflective of irritation within Democratic circles over the seeming powerlessness of the White House and Biden to enact change.

“It’s infuriating,” one top Democratic strategist told The Hill, venting frustrations about Biden and his team. “Our house is on fire and it seems like they’re doing nothing to put the fire out. They’re just watching it with the rest of us.” 

Polling numbers suggest Biden’s party is in for a difficult midterms this fall, while also pointing to a broader and more general malaise.

A recent Gallup poll revealed that just 23 percent of Americans have confidence in the institution of the presidency, down 15 percentage points from a year ago. 

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre sought to defend the administration’s efforts towards campaign promises during a press conference held Tuesday, while also pointing out the president’s successes, such as the bipartisan gun legislation passed after a school shooting in Texas.

“This is a president that has been working tirelessly day in and day out since he’s walked into this administration fighting for the American public,” said Jean-Pierre. “That is what matters to him. That is what is important is delivering every way that he can to make sure that we get things done.”

Source: TEST FEED1

We can't keep shooting at moving targets with COVID

I am concerned about the emerging BA.5 omicron SARS-COV-2 subvariant and I am not alone. 

Single-stranded RNA viruses, including this one, are not stable and when there are trillions of copies around the globe there is a high risk of frequent mutations spinning off new variants and subvariants.  

On the one hand, we are fortunate that the last several spinoffs have all been omicron, which affects primarily the upper airways rather than the lungs. On the other hand, with each succeeding subvariant, there is more immune evasion, meaning that the two-year-old vaccine — and especially, natural immunity from prior infection — are less and less effective at preventing reinfection. 

Don’t get me wrong: There is still protection from severe disease, and it continues to make sense to “count” recent infection as being protective and for the public to continue to take vaccine boosters on top of this. But when the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently approved the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine for children as young as 6 months old, one difficult question was exactly how much protection the vaccines offered them against the latest subvariants. Clearly, the answer remains there is some protection, beneficial for most and especially important in kids at high risk of severe outcomes. 

But with the highly transmissible BA-5 omicron subvariant beginning its steady march across Europe, the United Kingdom, and on into the United States, the question raises why can’t existing vaccines be modified rapidly to match it? Wasn’t that what we were promised when they were first approved? The BA-5 subvariant so far seems to be the most elusive and perhaps more severe than other iterations of omicron. So where are our updated tools to fight it?  

The answer is that there are three things in the way of a rapid turnaround that could produce a booster more suited to the current state of the pandemic. The first is too much public resistance to the vaccine and COVID fatigue.  

The second problem is too much regulation. With the old flu vaccine, for example, we rely on experiments done in ferrets to determine coverage for the latest strain. Production then takes about 9 months but using the same animal model the MRNA vaccines and these new boosters could be produced in a matter of weeks. But the FDA first needs to approve this pathway as the road to accelerated emergency use authorization.  

The third problem is a lack of funding. One of the most unique features of the historic Operation Warp Speed was the pre-payment for hundreds of millions of vaccine doses, an unprecedented public-private partnership that bore fruit in less than a year. The Biden administration has offered nothing similar, a huge omission in the face of millions of new cases.

To be clear, the long-term solution is to provide vaccines (currently being studied) to target more of the virus than just the spike protein, vaccines that could be used universally against all coronaviruses, and/or the kind of nasal barrier vaccine being developed by Dr. Akiko Iwasaki at Yale, which could prevent infection altogether. In the meantime, it makes great sense for the government to bolster the development and production of new antivirals and monoclonal antibodies as well as the kind of MRNA boosters to target an emerging variant in real-time, not one which is developed to protect us from a variant which is gone by the time the vaccine comes out.

Yes, the original vaccines continue to keep most of us out of the hospital, but we can and should try to better. Anemic public health policy doesn’t match a virus that is still causing extensive widespread illness and wreaking havoc across the globe. 

Marc Siegel, M.D., is a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Health. He is a Fox News medical correspondent and author of the new book, “COVID; the Politics of Fear and the Power of Science.”

Source: TEST FEED1