Tony Ornato met with January 6 committee twice



Among the topics Ornato discussed with the committee, the source said, were then-President Donald Trump’s knowledge of then-Vice President Mike Pence’s whereabouts during the attack on the US Capitol and whether Trump could have done more to encourage the rioters to calm down and leave the building.

Ornato’s answers to those questions and more have not been revealed by the committee. The details of some parts of the depositions were first reported by Politico.

A Secret Service official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told CNN that Ornato denies telling Hutchinson that the former President grabbed the steering wheel of his presidential SUV or an agent on his detail.

The official said the Secret Service has notified the committee that both Ornato and Bobby Engel, who was the agent in the car with Trump during the alleged incident, will be made available to testify again under oath.

A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment on Ornato’s interviews with the panel.

Members of the committee have expressed frustration with aspects of Ornato’s previous testimony, and some have suggested he lacks credibility.

Florida Rep. Stephanie Murphy, a Democratic member of the committee, told NBC that Ornato was evasive with the committee about the incident in question.

“Ornato did not have as clear of memories from this period of time as I would say Ms. Hutchinson did,” she said.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican who also serves on the panel, pointed to other former White House staffers claiming Ornato lied about their interactions with him.

“There seems to be a major thread here… Tony Ornato likes to lie,” Kinzinger wrote on Twitter.





Source link

Takeaways from the blockbuster victories conservatives secured at the Supreme Court


The cascade of sweeping rulings was the culmination of a generational effort to transform the high bench with the appointment of reliably conservative justices.

Here’s a look at what the court accomplished this term, and what its decisions mean for the future:

Red states — with the green light from the Supreme Court — moved quickly to enact abortion bans and extreme restrictions, and abortion rights advocates scrambled to slow enforcement of the new prohibitions.

The ruling was a major victory not just for anti-abortion activists, but also for the conservative legal movement writ large, which saw Roe v. Wade as chief among several examples of the Supreme Court creating rights that lack explicit references in the Constitution’s text.

Abortion law Q&A: How a Supreme Court opinion in a blockbuster case could impact abortion rights

Practically speaking, the Dobbs opinion means that state and federal lawmakers now have the ability to enact abortion restrictions up to and include outright bans, though they are already facing court challenges from abortion rights advocates who argue that certain state constitutions protect a right to an abortion.

That the court overturned a 49-year-old precedent — and one rooted in a deeply divisive issue, affecting the most personal decision facing pregnant people and their families — was remarkable.

“Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens,” the liberal justices wrote jointly in their dissent.

Raising the legal bar for states and localities defending gun safety laws

The 6-3 conservative majority made gun safety laws much more vulnerable to legal challenge in a case, called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, that concerned New York’s restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.

The type of discretionary permitting regime — in which a gun owner must get special, discretionary approval to carry the firearm publicly — that was struck down in the case has been embraced by only a handful of other states, though those states contain some of the largest population centers in the country.

Law enforcement officials: Supreme Court gun ruling will make our jobs harder
The bigger repercussion of the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas is that lower courts have now been instructed to view gun restrictions more skeptically. He wrote that the Constitution “presumptively” protects conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text. It will be up to the government that is seeking to implement a new restriction to prove to the courts that the “regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Thomas said.

Under Thomas’ new test, courts must assess whether the regulation at hand has some historical parallel to how firearms were approached at the timing of the Constitution’s framing. Thomas emphasized that the historic notions of guns applied to modern firearm technology, yet he said the absence of a historical analog for a regulation could make the regulation unconstitutional.

A climate change case that weakens executive branch agency power

The Supreme Court dealt a major blow both to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change and the broader authority that executive branch agencies have to regulate across a variety of policy areas.

The court did so Thursday in a case called West Virginia v. EPA, where the justices were reviewing a lower court decision that said that the Environmental Protection Agency, under a 1970 provision of the Clean Air Act, had expansive power to issue rules targeting carbon emissions at power plants. A 6-3 conservative majority reversed that ruling, using a legal rationale that now may be wielded against a host of other types of regulations where government agencies are accused of overstepping their authority.

The justices in the EPA case fleshed out a legal doctrine known as the Major Questions Doctrine, which says that for an agency to issue a rule with major economic or political impacts, it must have received an explicit instruction from Congress to do so.

How the Supreme Court ruling will gut the EPA's ability to fight the climate crisis

The court — reviewing a never-implemented Obama administration climate rule that the Biden administration has not sought to revive — said Congress had not given the EPA the authority to implement the sweeping regulations that Obama’s EPA had put forward. The ruling will likely boost future challenges to a climate rule for power plants that the Biden administration has been working to roll out. And it could provide fodder for lawsuits against other types of federal climate regulations, like those aimed at car emissions or emissions from the oil and gas industry.

It also stands to implicate the regulations coming from other agencies across the federal government, as decades of congressional gridlock have made executive agencies a chief source of policymaking.

Weakening the walls between church and state

The conservative court reshaped the playing field around questions regarding religious liberty and the separation between church and state.

In one case, the 6-3 majority said Maine could not exclude religious education from the voucher program it offers parents who live in rural areas without public schools. In another case, the court — again ruling on ideological lines — sided with a public high school coach who suffered professional reprisals for praying on the field after football games.
Supreme Court says Boston violated First Amendment rights of group seeking to raise a Christian flag outside City Hall

Not every religious liberty case before the court was as divisive. An 8-1 court ruled that Texas must allow a death row inmate’s spiritual adviser to “lay hands” on him in prayer during his execution. And the court voted unanimously against Boston for its refusal to raise a Christian flag atop a flagpole outside City Hall as a part of a program celebrating Boston’s greater community.

According to Mark Rienzi — the president of the religious liberty advocacy group, the Becket Fund — the through line connecting the Boston flag case to the cases concerning Maine’s voucher program and the praying high school football coach was the Supreme Court clarifying how governments should view the Establishment Clause.

Rienzi said that governments for decades at all levels had internalized an interpretation of the Establishment Clause that prompted them to treat those making religious expression worse than other kinds of actors.

Overall, the lesson to the court is ” ‘Hey governments, this is not the way you are supposed to do it,’ ” Rienzi told CNN.

Complicating the path for blocking immigration policies in court

While immigrant rights advocates secured a near-term win with a ruling that said immigration law allowed President Joe Biden to end a controversial Trump-era immigration policy, that ruling — and another from earlier in the term — will likely hamstring future legal efforts seeking to stop allegedly unlawful immigration policies.

In the pair of rulings, the Supreme Court restricted the authority that lower courts have to block the implementation of certain immigration policies alleged to be unlawful. In the earlier case, Garland v. Gonzales, the 6-3 conservative majority said lower courts could not offer classwide relief in such cases — which concern policies having to with arrest, detention and removal of immigrants. That case was then cited in the court’s end-of-term decision regarding the so-called Remain in Mexico policy put in place by the Trump administration.

Supreme Court says Biden can end Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' immigration policy

The holding suggests that from now on, in cases concerning those types of policies, lower courts can grant relief that affects individual challengers but won’t be allowed to issue orders that broadly bar immigration officials from carrying out certain practices.

That could have wide-ranging ramifications for immigration policy. Over the last five years, a slew of legal challenges against immigration policies have disrupted the implementation of those measures.

Big picture, it appears the legal process for halting certain immigration policies in court will be much slower and arduous for immigrant advocates. The timeline for those cases to reach the Supreme Court is already long, and the high court accepts only a limited number of cases each year.

Making it more difficult to hold government officials accountable for unconstitutional conduct

In a pair of cases, the court limited the options for bringing civil lawsuits against individual government actors who have allegedly acted unconstitutionally while carrying out their official duties.

In a case called Egbert v. Boule, the court narrowed a precedent it had set in the 1971 ruling known as “Bivens,” which had allowed for an individual to sue a federal officer for damages if his fundamental rights were violated. In the Egbert case, the justices said unanimously that a federal border control agent could not face individual civil liability for alleged retaliation under the First Amendment.

In a part of the majority opinion from which the three liberals dissented, Thomas also severely limited the circumstances in which a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim could be brought against a federal officer.

The ruling had the effect of expanding the immunity protecting federal officials from private lawsuits, even if it didn’t overturn “Bivens” outright.

Supreme Court limits ability to enforce Miranda rights

Later in the term, the court also undermined the so-called Miranda right protections — i.e. the warning suspects are supposed to receive from law enforcement that they have a right to remain silent and to obtain counsel — in a case called Tekoh v. Vega. The court said that a law enforcement official’s failure to provide a Miranda warning didn’t by itself make the official vulnerable to a civil lawsuit alleging a Fifth Amendment violation.

The ruling did not eliminate the Miranda right, as evidence obtained when it’s been violated would still be excluded from trial. But critics of the ruling said that, without the additional legal risk of a potential civil suit, law enforcement officials will feel less of an incentive to comply with their Miranda obligations.

CNN’s Ella Nilsen and Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.



Source link

23-year-old man shot inside Marcus Cinema in Oakdale, suspect flees


OAKDALE, Minn. — Police in Oakdale are investigating after a 23-year-old Hugo man was shot inside Marcus Cinema in Oakdale Tuesday evening.

According to police, officers were dispatched to the theater, located on 5677 Hadley Ave. N., on the report of a shooting. When they arrived, the victim was found in theater 17 with suspected gunshot wounds.

The suspected shooter had reportedly fled the theater prior to their arrival and has not yet been apprehended, police said. Police do not believe this to be a random act.

The victim was taken to Regions Hospital in St. Paul where he required surgery. Police say remains hospitalized and is expected to recover.

Those inside the theatre at the time of the shooting say the ensuing scene was chaotic.

“All of the sudden, police officers shout to get out, there was probably three at the door,” said Angie Wright, who was seeing a movie at an adjacent theater. “There was a little bit of chaos of, is this real, is this really happening? Everyone moved outside to a completely chaos situation where they were searching in cars and trying to find who the shooter was.”

Others say the panic set in when loved ones called to relay the news of the shooting.

“I think it’s just probably every parent’s worst nightmare, really,” said Chris Meads, whose daughter was at the movies at the time of the shooting. Meads says he and his wife got a call shortly after.

“It’s the idea that you’ve got your daughter sitting a movie theatre, and literally one theatre over from them, you’ve got someone bleeding from a gunshot wound to the chest,” he said. “It’s just the idea that you’re that

close to something. You start to think about all the other shootings that have occurred, and you start to think about how it could have been something just as significant. ”

“You’ve seen a lot of episodes or reenactments of shootings, like in the Colorado theatre a few years back. That’s what pops into your head right away, like, is this my time?” Wright said.

The movie theater says it will remain closed during the investigation. There were no other injuries.

Anyone with information is asked to call Oakdale police via Washington County Dispatch at 651-439-9381.



Source link

Pioneering NASA official on aerospace industry: ‘Bro-culture’ is bad for business




New York
CNN Business
 — 

Lori Garver spearheaded the NASA program that paved the way for SpaceX to return human spaceflight to the United States after a decade-long wait. In her new book and in a recent interview she reflects on that success, the controversial cast of characters driving this new space race, and the cultural issues that permeate the aerospace industry at large.

And the former NASA deputy administrator, when asked by CNN Business how SpaceX’s future might play out, had a message for Elon Musk: Don’t trip on your ego, adding that the perils and politics of spaceflight are already potential risks to the company’s future.

In her new memoir, “Escaping Gravity,” Garver wrote about her feelings watching the success of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, the initiative that brought about the first privately owned human spacecraft that culminated in SpaceX’s historic 2020 astronaut launch.

“SpaceX has a huge lead and is running faster than any of the competition, including all the big aerospace companies,” she wrote. “To me, that is both fantastic and scary at the same time.”

She adds that, “[e]scaping gravity is not a simple maneuver and in the coming years it will be impossible to beat it safely every time. The private sector will have to answer to its customers for missteps that lead to bad outcomes. Only time will tell if they will be given the opportunity to correct their errors and continue as NASA has been allowed to do in the past.”

In an interview with CNN Business, Garver also said she was disheartened to read recent reporting alleging toxicity within SpaceX’s corporate culture amid Musk’s erratic behavior on Twitter and a broader “bro culture,” as she put it, that permeates the aerospace industry.

Garver warned that if companies don’t get serious about addressing issues like harassment and lack of inclusivity, “they will lose workforce.”

“These rockets don’t build themselves,” she said. “The best and the brightest, they aren’t going to put up with behavior that is truly a distraction…The bro culture could succeed in the past because the predominant number of engineers were white males. That is no longer the case. And we absolutely benefit from all comers. All views.”

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment for this story, nor has it responded to routine inquiries from reporters in years.

In her book, Garver also recounts the harassment she said she endured during her career in aerospace, which spanned NASA as well as various other corporate and government jobs. Being objectified was simply “a part of being a woman working in aerospace when I was in my twenties and thirties,” she said.

In her book, she recalls one NASA supervisor who once “told me to come into his office so I could get my birthday spanking” in front of several colleagues.

In a separate incident, Garver recalled being in Moscow in her thirties when “a senior aerospace contractor who had been over-served pushed his way into my hotel room, shoving me onto the bed.”

“I was able to get out from under him and run into the hall, finding a colleague to intervene,” she wrote.

“I never reported the incident to NASA or to his employer. Embarrassed and assuming it would be my own career that suffered, I—like so many others—swept such occurrences under the rug,” she wrote. “I’m ashamed for many reasons, but mostly because the behavior likely continued.”

“It is time to end justifications for rooted misconduct as well as the field’s predominance of people—including in its leadership—who look and think the same way,” Garver wrote. “Progress toward diversity, equity, and inclusion has been much too slow.”

When Garver was selected to become NASA’s second-in-command in 2009, she said she had already been thinking for decades about shaking up the space agency’s contracting policies. The old way, known as “cost-plus” contracting, in some ways gave NASA’s corporate partners a blank check to get projects done, and they were routinely delayed and over budget.

The contracting method that Garver and a small contingent of others pioneered for human spaceflight programs at NASA is what’s come to be known as the commercial contracting structure. It allows companies to compete for contracts before NASA doles out fixed amounts of money. If projects run over budget, it is up to the contractors to cover the cost. But many aerospace stakeholders pushed back, arguing that human spaceflight programs were too technologically complex and expensive for multiple companies to attempt.

It was a contentious and fraught battle to attempt to change the system, Garver recalls.

“Senior industry and government officials took pleasure in deriding [SpaceX] and Elon in the early years,” Garver wrote in her book. “To me, this seemed irresponsible.”

At one point, Garver described herself as one of Musk’s “most ardent supporters [and] defenders.”

Ultimately, the Commercial Crew Program was approved and funded by Congress. SpaceX and Boeing were both chosen for multi-billion dollar contracts, and two years ago, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft safely delivered its first crew of astronauts to the International Space Station. The company has since completed three additional launches for NASA astronauts as well as two purely commercial missions for wealthy thrillseekers. (Boeing is still working to get its Starliner spacecraft operational but completed a test flight last month.)

SpaceX’s success won over many of the Commercial Crew Program’s former skeptics.

Still, Garver admits that she did not expect SpaceX would be the standout in the commercial space race. When she was first imagining this new approach to awarding contracts, it was “so long before the billionaire investors in space” were part of the public imagination. “We always thought it would be [legacy] aerospace companies,” such as Lockheed Martin or Boeing, she told CNN.

“It’s not something we envisioned for a number of reasons,” she said. “First being that we didn’t envision billionaires amassing this many billions.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story omitted the context to Garver’s quote about not reporting an incident to NASA.





Source link

Opinion: Why codifying Roe will land right back at the Supreme Court



Editor’s Note: Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, formerly served as chief counsel to then-Vice President Joe Biden, as an appellate lawyer in the Justice Department and as special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. View more opinion on CNN.



CNN
 — 

President Joe Biden, and many others, have rightly called for Congress to codify Roe v. Wade, establishing in law a national right to choose abortion. He said Thursday that he would even favor lifting the filibuster “to codify Roe v. Wade in the law.”

After all, the Supreme Court explained its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision as returning the abortion question to the people and their elected representatives.

Right now, there are too few Senate votes to pass such a law. But that could change if the Democrats maintain all their seats in the Senate and flip one or two seats with senators who favor abolishing the filibuster. Of course, the politics might go the other way: if Republicans take the House and Senate, one can expect some of them to push for a national ban on abortion.

Constitutionally, however, there is a problem with thinking that federal legislation will resolve this issue and keep abortion from returning to the Supreme Court. Even if Congress passes a law codifying Roe v. Wade, that does not mean that the brazen precedent-busting Dobbs Supreme Court will not have five votes to strike down the new law.

That is the problem with those who say that the court is simply returning this issue to the people. If Congress tries to pass a law, either way, that law will likely land right back in the justices’ lap. The Supreme Court retains the power to reverse the people’s will as expressed in the actions of Congress. That is what the power of judicial review means. To quote the most famous case in constitutional law, Marbury v. Madison, it is for the courts to “say what the law is.”

Drafters of any federal Roe protection must not be starry-eyed. First off, people should stop using the term “codifying Roe.” The phrase is misleading. Codifying in this case means to enact a statutory right, which is possible, but the term “Roe” refers to a Supreme Court ruling and Congress has no power to reverse a particular Supreme Court ruling and reinstate a precedent that has been overturned.

In 2000, when Congress tried to overrule Miranda v. Arizona, for example, the court said “no” in a case called Dickerson v. United States: “Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.” Three years earlier, they said the same thing in City of Boerne v. Flores: “Congress does not enforce a right by changing what the right is… [Congress] has no power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation.” In short, the moment a Roe codification is signed by the President, it will be challenged as unconstitutional, and we could be right back where we started – in the Supreme Court.

The current codification bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, rests in part on the theory that Congress has power over “commerce,” and abortions involve commerce. But there are weaknesses in this argument. First, the court, not Congress, ultimately determines what is commerce.

Even when Congress has created an incredibly strong factual record showing a commercial connection, the court has sometimes seen fit to reject it. In the 2000 case, United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court said that a sexual assault was not commerce, and therefore any national economic law allowing survivors to sue their attackers was unconstitutional – despite a “mountain of data” showing a link between women’s economic prospects and gender-based violence.

Second, if abortion is a crime as its opponents argue, then Morrison’s reasoning applies, barring congressional action. Morrison changed the court’s old liberal commerce analysis – where Congress could legislate on anything even vaguely connected to commerce – and barred Congress from addressing local, non-economic activity. A court bent on striking down Congress’s ability to restore Roe could describe abortion in non-economic terms, as an assault on fetal life, just as the court in Morrison described gender-based attacks as crime. At that point, no downstream “effect” on women or national commerce would matter to the constitutional question.

Third, now that Dobbs has given “fetal life” a constitutional interest, it is possible that a law extinguishing that constitutional interest could be considered fatally inconsistent with Dobbs itself.

To be sure, there are counterarguments and counter-precedents, showing that Congress has broad power to regulate markets and health care, but the very same court that wants to send abortion to the states, is also the court that has, since the mid-1990s, been cutting back on women’s rights and Congress’ power to protect women – even questioning the constitutional basis for Congress to pass the Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s health insurance program.

One might think that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause should come to the rescue. The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said that the abortion question was one of equality, not the right to privacy.

Over the past 20 years, however, the Supreme Court has created a set of rules that limit Congress’ power to provide remedies for Fourteenth Amendment violations. Any law that Congress passes must be “congruent and proportional” to the constitutional violation.

Worse, Dobbs says that women have no equality interest in a procedure that can only be applied to women, reviving a much-criticized refusal of the Supreme Court in Geduldig v. Aiello to deem pregnancy discrimination unconstitutional.

Sad, but true: The Constitution provides no right against a company firing you because you are pregnant; that right only exists because of Congress, and only because the right was focused on commerce. Who knew that commodities would have more federal equal protection than women, but that is essentially what Dobbs holds.

Some might say this is fine: If Congress cannot codify Roe, it cannot impose a national abortion ban. But that does not follow from existing Supreme Court precedents. It is possible, depending upon how the laws are drafted, for the court to strike down a Roe codification and uphold a national abortion ban. How?

The Supreme Court could strike down a Roe codification because the court gets to decide constitutional questions. Meanwhile, if the national ban is written in the right way, it could survive that attack and find an easy home within the commerce clause. Such a ban would focus on commercial transactions – barring payment for abortion or uncompensated abortion services. The law would be more narrowly focused on commerce than the current Roe codification bill.

Is there an answer to this for Roe codification advocates? Yes. Very, very careful drafting, a raft of Senate and House hearings and clear thinking about the opposition. The bill must not say that it is changing constitutional law, it cannot rely upon the term “right to abortion,” for after Dobbs, there is none.

The drafters must focus on language that has already been upheld under the commerce clause involving the regulation of medical procedures. They should include language that specifically rejects, as a factual matter, the narrow Morrison analysis: “Congress finds that abortion is an economic activity and cannot be reduced to an operation or assault.”

Hearings must be conducted to show a factual basis for the link between commerce and abortion.

Members should emphasize why women’s actual life has constitutional protection that transcends the constitutional protection of potential life. They should rebut the Dobbs’ analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, making clear that women are equal “citizens” under the “citizenship” clause of that amendment and that denying women the power to make medical decisions violates that amendment.

They should write language in the bill that would invoke the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Ninth Amendment, which the Dobbs majority did not address, since these texts could support an abortion right. They should rebut various originalist arguments made in the opinion that are based on shaky history.

The bottom line: the court is very definitely not “out” of the abortion business. It has just begun.



Source link

Rafael Nadal overcomes Ricardas Berankis to reach Wimbledon third round


It was the second time in the tournament that Nadal had dropped a set after his victory against Francisco Cerundolo earlier in the week as he begins his pursuit of a 23rd grand slam title.

The Spaniard will likely have to improve on the grass in order to claim his third Wimbledon title, particularly with top seed and rival Novak Djokovic playing in such a dominant manner the previous day.

“Every day is a challenge, that’s the truth. All the opponents are difficult,” Nadal said in his on-court interview.

“We are playing against the best players of the world … Every day is an opportunity to improve, and today, I’m through, so that gives me the chance to keep going — very happy for that.”

Nadal is bidding to complete a calendar grand slam this year having already won the Australian and French Opens.

After Nadal took the first two sets, Berankis, ranked No. 106 in the world, hit back in the third thanks to an early break of serve.

A 50-minute delay for rain ensued in the fourth to allow time for the roof to close, but Nadal was already 3-0 up in the set and soon wrapped the match in just over three hours once play resumed.

The 36-year-old faces Italian 27th seed Lorenzo Sonego in the third round on Saturday.



Source link

EU agrees rules to tame ‘Wild West’ crypto market


Globally, crypto assets are largely unregulated, with national operators in the EU only required to show controls for combating money laundering.

Representatives from the European Parliament and EU states thrashed out a deal on the markets in crypto assets (MiCA) law, which is expected to come into force around the end of 2023.

“Today, we put order in the Wild West of crypto assets and set clear rules for a harmonized market,” said Stefan Berger, the center right lawmaker who led negotiations on behalf of the parliament.

“The recent fall in the value of digital currencies shows us how highly risky and speculative they are and that it is fundamental to act,” Berger said.

Crypto winter has had a chilling effect on Coinbase and Robinhood

MiCA will be the first comprehensive regime for crypto-assets in the world and will contain strong measures to guard against market abuse and manipulation, added Ernest Urtasun, a Green Party lawmaker in the parliament.

The new law gives issuers of crypto assets and providers of related services a “passport” to serve clients across the EU from a single base, while meeting capital and consumer protection rules.

The United States and Britain, two major crypto centers, have yet to approve similar rules.

Crypto assets came under pressure after the collapse of TerraUSD and luna tokens last month, with major US cryptocurrency lending company Celsius Network this month freezing withdrawals and transfers.

Bitcoin collapsed this month to around $17,600, and was trading around $18,900 on Thursday, well below its late March level of $48,200 as investors nurse losses.

Negotiations on Thursday focused on issues such as supervision and energy consumption of cryptoassets.

“We have agreed that crypto asset providers should in future disclose the energy consumption and environmental impact of assets,” Berger said.

EU states will be the main regulators for crypto companies, though the bloc’s securities watchdog ESMA will have powers to step in if investor protection or financial stability is threatened, lawmaker Urtasun said.



Source link

Kaitlin Armstrong, accused of killing an elite cyclist, is captured in Costa Rica after 43 days


Kaitlin Marie Armstrong, 34, was found Wednesday at a hostel on Santa Teresa Beach in Provincia de Puntarenas, the Marshals Office said in a news release. She will be deported and returned to the US, the agency said.

On May 17, police issued a homicide warrant for Armstrong. The affidavit mentions details such as video showing a vehicle similar to hers near the Austin, Texas, home Wilson was staying in shortly before her body was found.

On May 18, Armstrong used a fraudulent passport to board a flight from Newark Liberty International Airport to San Jose, Costa Rica, the US Marshals said.

The slain victim was a star skier and champion cyclist

Wilson, 25, was a gifted multi-sport athlete. She was a standout skier in her younger years before shifting to cycling.

Mo Wilson transitioned from skiing to biking after college.
“In alpine skiing, Moriah rose to the level of a nationally ranked junior skier, placing 3rd in the 2013 U.S. Junior National Championship Downhill event,” her obituary states.
Wilson was also the captain of her high school soccer team, according to her Dartmouth athletic profile.

After college, she moved away from skiing toward competitive biking.

Wilson particularly excelled at “gravel racing,” a relatively new category of cycling that some consider a hybrid of road cycling and mountain biking.

A profile in VeloNews published the day she died referred to her as “the winningest woman in the American off-road scene.”
Wilson had several wins this year, including the Shasta Gravel Hugger and Rock Cobbler in California, according to the article. She also won the 137-mile Belgian Waffle Ride by 25 minutes over the second-place finisher.

At the time of her death, Wilson was just days from participating in the Gravel Locos bike race. The day after the race, an event organizer remembered her on Facebook as a “role model, a shy compassionate person, a spirited tactical racer and a competitor that genuinely cared about those competing against you.”

What happened during Wilson’s final hours

On May 11, the day of her death, Wilson told her friend she was going for an afternoon swim with Strickland, according to an arrest affidavit filed in Travis County District Court. Wilson was staying with a friend as she prepared for the upcoming Gravel Locos race in Hico.

How events unfolded after the killing of cyclist Anna Moriah Wilson

Strickland told investigators that after they swam, he and Wilson got dinner. Afterward, Strickland said, he dropped her off at her friend’s home but did not go inside, according to the affidavit.

Austin Police responded to the home later that evening, shortly before 10 p.m. CT, and found Wilson with multiple gunshot wounds. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

On May 19, authorities filed an affidavit saying Strickland admitted to trying to hide his communications with Wilson from Armstrong by changing Wilson’s name on his phone and deleting texts.

The affidavit cites a tipster who alleged Armstrong came to believe Strickland and Wilson’s romantic relationship was ongoing as of January 2022.

Armstrong had contacted Wilson several times and in one instance told her to “stay away” from Strickland, one of Wilson’s friends told investigators, according to the affidavit.

Woman suspected of killing cyclist was dropped off at Newark Airport, authorities say
Strickland is quoted by the Austin American-Statesman as saying that he had a “brief romantic relationship” with Wilson from late October to early November 2021, while he was separated from Armstrong.

Wilson’s family said she was not in any romantic relationship at the time of her death.

“While we will not elaborate about the ongoing investigation, we do feel it’s important to clarify that at the time of her death, those closest to her clearly understood, directly from Moriah, that she was not in a romantic relationship with anyone,” the family said in a statement last month.

Strickland and Armstrong reconciled and resumed their relationship about a month later, he told the paper. Strickland said his relationship with Wilson then became “platonic and professional” and he considered her a “close friend,” he said.

“There is no way to adequately express the regret and torture I feel about my proximity to this horrible crime,” Strickland told the Austin American-Statesman. “I am sorry, and I simply cannot make sense of this unfathomable situation.”

CNN’s Hannah Sarisohn, Dakin Andone, Emma Tucker and Eric Levenson contributed to this report.



Source link

Democratic congresswoman among more than 100 arrested at SCOTUS abortion rights protest


“When I first heard Roe was overturned, I immediately thought of who would be most harmed by this decision: a young girl who is a survivor of rape, a woman who cannot afford to travel to another state to access critical care, an expecting mother with an ectopic pregnancy whose life is in danger because she cannot have an abortion,” the Democratic congresswoman said in a statement Thursday. “So, when I think of all these women — and more — the decision to join in a peaceful demonstration to make clear we will not allow the clock to be rolled back on abortion rights was easy.”

Thursday’s protest joins a number of demonstrations across the nation in recent days in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade. The ruling last week ended a person’s federally protected right to an abortion, leaving the matter to the states.
US Capitol police detain Rep. Judy Chu, a Democrat of California, for blocking an intersection with abortion rights demonstrators near the US Supreme Court in Washington on June 30, 2022.

Abortion rights protesters on Thursday marched to the US Supreme Court, holding signs, singing and chanting slogans, including: “We won’t go back, we won’t go back, our human rights are under attack.”

The group collectively sat down on the corner of Constitution Ave. NE and First St. NE, just a few feet from the Supreme Court and US Capitol grounds in what organizers said was an act of civil disobedience. The protesters faced several verbal warnings from US Capitol Police officers telling them the gathering was illegal, before several of them were arrested.

“We arrested 181 people for Crowding, Obstructing or Incommoding (DC Code § 22–1307) for blocking the intersection of Constitution Avenue, NE and First Street, NE,” the US Capitol Police tweeted.
President Joe Biden said earlier Thursday that he would support making an exception to the Senate filibuster — the 60-vote threshold in the chamber needed to pass most legislation — in order to codify abortion rights and the right to privacy through legislation passed by Congress, but the chances face an uphill battle.
Chu said that she is ramping up her calls to abolish the filibuster and pushing to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, which she sponsored and passed in the House of Representatives last year, but was blocked Senate Republicans in February with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia voting with Republicans in opposition.

“Lives are at stake and this fight is far from over,” the congresswoman said.





Source link