BALTIMORE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov 21, 2023--

PASADENA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct 17, 2023--

BEIJING Tesla Inc has cut prices in China for its Model Y long-range and performance versions starting on

Bernardo Silva has been offered a huge contract to join the mass exodus of players heading to the Saudi Pro League. The 28-year-old would prefer to stay in Europe at this stage, though, leaving Paris Saint-Germain leading the race ahead of Barcelona.

Borussia Dortmund punished Manchester United's defensive lapses on Sunday as the English Premier League giants wrapped up their North American tour with a 3-2 defeat to...

Wisconsin's Supreme Court will flip from majority conservative to liberal control in August and Democrats have high hopes the change will lead to the state's abortion ban being overturned and its maps redrawn to weaken GOP control of the Legislature and congressional districts. Democrats in the perennial battleground state focused on abortion to elect a liberal majority to the court for the first time in 15 years. The Democratic Party spent $8 million to tilt the court’s 4-3 conservative majority by one seat with the election of Janet Protasiewicz, who spoke in favor of abortion rights and against the Republican-drawn map in a campaign. Her April victory broke national spending records for a state Supreme Court race. Still, there are no guarantees. Republicans were angered when a conservative candidate they backed in 2019 turned out to sometimes side with liberal justices. While the court is widely expected to weigh in on abortion and redistricting, liberals also are talking about bringing new challenges to school choice, voter ID, the 12-year-old law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers and other laws backed by Republicans. “When you don’t know the extent of the battle you may have to fight, it’s concerning,” said attorney Rick Esenberg, president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. "It’s very concerning.” Some issues could take years to reach the court, said liberal attorney Pester Pines, who like Esenberg has argued numerous times before the state Supreme Court. Unlike under the conservative majority, Pines said the new liberal court will be unlikely to rule on cases before lower courts have heard them. “They're not going to do it," Pines said. There is already a pending case challenging Wisconsin's pre-Civil War era abortion ban, and a circuit court judge ruled earlier this month that it can proceed, while also calling into question whether the law actually bans abortions. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court within months. Protasiewicz all but promised to overturn the ban by repeatedly speaking out for abortion rights, winning support from Planned Parenthood and others. “When you’re a politician and you’re perceived by the voters as making a promise, and you don’t keep it, they get angry,” Esenberg said. There is no current redistricting lawsuit, but Democrats or their allies are expected to file a new challenge this summer seeking new districts before the 2024 election. The state Supreme Court upheld Republican-drawn maps in 2022. Those maps, widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country, have helped Republicans increase their hold on the Legislature to near supermajority levels, even as Democrats have won statewide elections, including Tony Evers as governor in 2018 and 2022 and Joe Biden in 2020. Protasizewicz declared those maps to be “rigged” and said during the campaign they should be given another look. Democrats also hope for new congressional maps improving their chances in the state’s two most competitive House districts, held by Republicans. “What we want to see is maps that are fair and that represent the will of the people and the actual make up of their state," Democratic strategist Melissa Baldauff said. Four of the past six presidential elections in Wisconsin have been decided by less than a percentage point. The outgoing conservative court came within one vote of overturning Biden's win in 2020. The new court will be in control to hear any challenges leading up to the election and in the months after. That includes voting rules. Courts have repeatedly upheld Wisconsin's voter ID requirement, in place since 2011, but some Democrats see a chance to challenge it again, particularly over what IDs can legally be shown. There is also a looming fight over the state's top elections administrator. “It seems to me that the most consequential topics that could come before the new court would have to do with elections," said Alan Ball, a Marquette University Law School history professor who runs a statistical analysis blog of the court and tendencies of justices. Considering comments Protasiewicz made during the campaign, “it’s really hard for me to imagine she would not side with the liberals on those issues,” Ball said. A national Democratic law firm filed a lawsuit on Thursday seeking to undo a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling last year banning absentee ballot drop boxes. The case could make its way to the state high court before the 2024 presidential election. Other sticky issues that have garnered bipartisan criticism, including powers of the governor, also could come before the new court. Evers surprised many with a veto this year putting in place a school spending increase for 400 years. Republicans said a challenge was likely. In 2021, the court struck down three of Evers' previous partial vetoes but failed to give clear guidance on what is allowed. A Wisconsin governor's veto power is expansive and used by Republicans and Democrats, but the new court could weigh in on whether it should be scaled back. Esenberg, who brought the previous case challenging Evers' veto powers, said he expected another legal challenge in light of the 400-year veto. Read More Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Wisconsin woman's killing, dismemberment trial to begin Monday after jury chosen, judge's ruling Biden is building his reelection bid around an organization Obama shunned What are the 10 largest US lottery jackpots ever won?

The encounter, as recalled by E Jean Carroll, was friendly at first. Ms Carroll, then a magazine feature writer and TV host, bumped into Donald Trump in the upmarket New York department store Bergdorf Goodman. As Ms Carroll wrote in her 2019 memoir What Do We Need Men For?, he recognised her as “that advice lady”. She knew him as “that real-estate tycoon”. Mr Trump supposedly told her that he was there to buy a gift for “a girl”, and asked for help to choose an appropriate item. She placed the incident in either late 1995 or early 1996, when the future president was married to Marla Maples. The pair made their way to the lingerie section, where Mr Trump suggested that she try on a lace bodysuit. She claims she jokingly said that he should try it on instead. As they reached the dressing rooms, Ms Carroll alleges that Mr Trump shoved her against a wall, put his hands underneath her dress and pulled down her tights. He then unzipped his pants, and “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me”, she wrote. A “colossal struggle” ensued, she said, and Ms Carroll eventually pushed him away and ran out of the dressing room. The episode was over in under three minutes, she wrote. After the allegations were first made in a book excerpt in New York magazine in June 2019, Mr Trump angrily denied it. "I've never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book — that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section,” he said in an official White House statement that month. Then days later in an interview in the Oval Office with The Hill, Mr Trump went even further. “I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?” Ms Carroll then filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr Trump alleging he had damaged her reputation, substantially harmed her professionally, and caused emotional pain. After writing her Ask E Jean column for Elle magazine for nearly 30 years, the magazine terminated her contract abruptly in December of that year. The magazine denied it was related to Ms Carroll’s allegations. Months after Ms Carroll filed against Mr Trump, the Department of Justice intervened and transferred the case to federal court, arguing that he was immune from prosecution as president at the time of the initial defamation. But the federal court disagreed with the position of the DoJ and allowed discovery in the case to continue. And when the former president failed to have the case dismissed last October, he took to Truth Social to again unleash his denial, and unwittingly at the same time allowed Ms Carroll to file the new defamation claim. In 2022, New York passed the Adult Survivors Act which allowed adult sexual assault survivors one year to sue their alleged abusers. Ms Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Mr Trump for rape and for additional alleged defamatory statements made by him in October 2022 where he called her a “complete con job”. It is this second case for which court proceedings began on 25 April. In a court filing earlier this year, Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote that the central issue in both cases is the same — whether Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll. “If he did not, then Ms Carroll’s sexual assault claim ... and her libel claims in both cases likely would fail. “If he did, then little would remain in either case except perhaps a few minor issues related to Mr Trump’s statements and determination of damages.” Ms Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan said they tried for three years to obtain Mr Trump’s DNA sample to compare it with stains found on the dress she was wearing on the day. After refusing to provide a sample, Mr Trump’s attorneys then made an 11th-hour offer to do so earlier this year. Judge Kaplan rejected the offer. As the case is being tried in civil court, the jury will likely be asked to find whether there is “a preponderance of evidence” to prove Ms Carroll’s claims, rather than the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Over the course of the trial so far, Ms Carroll’s witnesses have included the columnist herself, friends who she spoke to about allegations at the time, mental health experts, and a few of the more than two dozen women who have accused Mr Trump of sexual assault. Ms Carroll took the stand on 26 April, testifying that she and Mr Trump were shopping around the department store at the time when he asked her to try on a piece of lingerie that he was looking to purchase – a blue bodysuit. “He was having a good time, and so was I,” Ms Carroll said, adding that the two were harmlessly flirting with one another. As the two reached the dressing room, Ms Carroll said Mr Trump “shut the door and shoved me up against the wall.” “I was confused. I laughed,” Ms Carroll said. She said she pushed Mr Trump back but he “thurst” her into the wall again. From there, Ms Carroll described how Mr Trump pulled down her tights and inserted his fingers into her vagina. “It was extremely painful,” Ms Carroll recalled emotionally. “It was a horrible feeling. He put his hand inside me and curled his finger. As I sit here today, I can still feel it.” When asked if she screamed for help or told Mr Trump to stop, Ms Carroll said, “I’m not a screamer. I’m a fighter.” Ms Carroll alleges Mr Trump then inserted his penis and began to rape her. “I wonder why I walked in there, to get in that situation... I’m proud to say I got out of there,” Ms Carroll. After the assault, Ms Carroll said she left the department store quickly and called her friend, Lisa Birnbach. Later on, Ms Carroll would tell Carol Martin, an anchorwoman at ABC, about the assault, but did not confide in many others. Ms Carroll said she felt “very stupid” for going into the dressing room. She described how the alleged rape left her “unable to ever have a romantic life again.” Later on, Ms Carroll elaborated on her inability to form and maintain romantic relationships saying that because she was allegedly raped by Mr Trump after flirting with him, it hindered her ability to engage with men. For the defence, Mr Trump’s attorneys initially included him, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, and several others on their list of potential witnesses. But on 3 May, his lawyers announced that they would not be presenting any witnesses – or a defence case. After the legal teams rested their cases on 4 May, Judge Lewis Kaplan gave Mr Trump until 5pm on 7 May to decide if he was going to testify in the trial. The judge’s comments came after Mr Trump said he would cut his golfing trip to Scotland and Ireland short to “confront” Ms Carroll, but the deadline passed without the Trump legal team filing a motion to include Mr Trump in the proceedings. Ariana Baio contributed to this report Read More Trump misses deadline to testify in E Jean Carroll trial – despite vowing to ‘confront’ case Trump news – live: Trump misses last chance to testify in E Jean Carroll trial as closing arguments begin Who is Natasha Stoynoff? The journalist whose testimony could help bring down Trump

Novak Djokovic says the sporting world will be watching his "ultimate showdown" against Carlos Alcaraz in Sunday's Wimbledon final where history and a...

X says it has removed "hundreds of Hamas-affiliated accounts" and taken down thousands of posts since the attack on Israel by the Palestinian militant group.

A Singapore-based hedge fund has filed a winding-up petition in Hong Kong against Kaisa Group Holdings Ltd., potentially

A Georgia teacher is facing termination after reading a book about gender identity -- which some parents complained was controversial -- to her fifth grade class.

Airline ticket prices have peaked, at least in the market where budget carrier AirAsia operates, according to its