List of All Articles with Tag 'rl'

We have a pretty loaded slate in the MLB today, and you can add on top of that the College World Series and the 2023 NBA Draft for an exciting sports day, especially for June.Maybe your attention is going to get pulled away from the MLB to get a look at all seven feet and five inches of Victor W...

American pig farmers are losing so much money that some may soon start selling the corn they would

Vice President Kamala Harris has said she knows of young people choosing which college they want to attend based on how restrictive the abortion laws are in that state. Commenting in an interview for the Roe v Wade retrospective on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, Ms Harris said her goddaughter told her that her friends wanted to attend schools in states where there was more freedom in terms of reproductive rights. Ms Harris told the roundtable: “When the decision came down she told me ‘Do you know what’s happening? My friends – whatever gender – are starting to make decisions about where they will actually go to college depending on what’s happening in that state.’” “Because of course, if you look at it, I think the number is something like 23 million women of reproductive age live in states that have banned abortion, and what that is gonna mean for those 23 million, for the myriad of health care issues that are at stake ... It’s having a real impact on all types of decisions people make,” she added. The show took a look back at the decision to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade decision that legalised abortion in the US in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled that “unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional”. In 2022, the Supreme Court, packed with three Trump-era appointees, overturned Roe v Wade and returned decisions on abortion freedom to the states. Since then, a number of states have introduced effective abortion bans that limit the procedure to the very early days of pregnancy – often before women are aware they are pregnant. Some states have also criminalised assisting women with accessing abortion, and limited abortion to cases of rape or incest. Ms Harris said that the Supreme Court’s decision last year had infringed on women’s rights. “The idea that the highest court in our land just did that and rolled back rights that had been recognized was incredibly shocking,” she said on MSNBC. She said that after she learned the news of the ruling, she called her husband and shared some “words not meant for television at this moment”. Ms Harris went on to say that the ruling means that some have to “suffer in silence,” the thought of which made her “angry and sad”. Read More Where abortion laws stand in every state a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe A year after fall of Roe, 25 million women live in states with abortion bans or tighter restrictions Judge to weigh suspending Wyoming's first-in-the-nation ban on abortion pills US prepares for potential end of Roe v Wade - live When will there be a Roe v Wade decision? Why these prosecutors are refusing to enforce anti-abortion laws

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a multilateral development bank, is in talks to guarantee a climate-related bond being

The Polish Securities Commission is investigating potential insider trading in the shares of utility EC Bedzin SA after

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has defended the newspaper’s decision to publish a defensive column from US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who dismissed allegations of wrongdoing detailed in an investigative news outlet before it had even published its story. The conservative justice – who authored the court’s landmark opinion overturning Roe v Wade one year ago – failed to disclose private jet travel and a luxury fishing trip with a hedge fund billionaire who would later repeatedly ask the nation’s highest court to intervene on his behalf, according to ProPublica’s findings published on 21 June. ProPublica, which has published several investigative pieces outlining alleged ethical lapses among members of the court, had yet to publish its report before The Wall Street Journal ran his column with the blunt and accusatory headline “ProPublica Misleads Its Readers”. Later that day, the editorial board defended its decision to run his defensive piece. “The political assault on the Supreme Court continues, and the latest Justice in the grinder is Samuel Alito,” the board wrote. “As usual, this is a non-scandal built on partisan spin intended to harm the Justice and the current Court majority.” The Wall Street Journal did not return The Independent’s request for comment or explain how it commissioned Mr Alito’s column and how the newspaper made a decision to publish a response to ProPublica before anyone read its reporting. “Justice Alito clearly wanted his defense to receive public disclosure in full, not edited piecemeal. We saw ProPublica’s list of 18 questions and had a good idea of where the reporters were going. The story proved us right,” the editorial board wrote. “It is also hilarious to be denounced for betraying the media brotherhood for the offense of scooping the competition,” the board added, appearing to dismiss criticism that the newspaper provided a venue for a powerful figure before allegations against him were publicised at length as merely a resentful media story. “This is the same crowd that would prefer if we didn’t exist,” the board added. “Their pearl-clutching reveals the degree of media conformity when it comes to approved progressive political targets like Justice Alito.” The board stated that it is defending the Supreme Court “because someone has to,” alleging that the investigations are not about sincere ethics questions but are instead about “the left’s fury at having lost control of the Court” and instead to “destroy” it. ProPublica’s founding editor-in-chief Paul E Steiger served as the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 2007. Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica’s current editor-in-chief, told The New York Times that Mr Alito’s column “declared without anyone having read the article and without asking for our comment.” “We’re curious to know whether The Journal fact-checked the essay before publication,” he added. Read More Justice Alito tries to get ahead of damning report about billionaire gifts with defensive Wall Street Journal op-ed Wall Street Journal under fire for Justice Alito op-ed: ‘This has simply broken my brain’ Deb Haaland and Tribal leaders welcome Supreme Court decision upholding Indian Child Welfare Act Supreme Court rules Alabama discriminated against Black voters in major victory for voting rights

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said returning US inflation to 2% is crucial to support the long-term health

Turkey’s state-run banks didn’t intervene to prop up the lira on Thursday, even after a central bank interest-rate

The Mexican peso is looking increasingly overvalued, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc, after a stunning rally that

Deloitte Haskins & Sells resigned as auditors to Think & Learn Pvt., better known as Byju’s, citing a

Federal prosecutors have given former president Donald Trump’s legal team access to much of the unclassified evidence against him, including multiple recordings of Mr Trump made during interviews of him since the end of his presidency. Attorneys working under the supervision of Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith revealed the existence of the recordings in a late Wednesday court filing which detailed what has been turned over to Mr Trump’s lawyers thus far as part of the legally-mandated “discovery” process, in which the government reveals what evidence it intends to use against a criminal defendant at trial. Specifically, the document says the government has turned over copies of “any written or recorded statements” made by Mr Trump or his co-defendant, Walt Nauta. Prosecutors said that category of evidence includes multiple “interviews” of Mr Trump by “non-governmental entities,” such as the 21 July 2021 interview referenced in the indictment of the ex-president. During that interview, Mr Trump spoke to two people who were assisting his ex-chief of staff, Mark Meadows, with the writing of a book about his former administration, and discussed a document which the ex-president claimed to be a war plan for attacking a foreign country. At the time, Mr Trump described the document as “secret information” and noted that he was not able to declassify it because he was no longer president. The batch of documents provided to Mr Trump’s defence team also includes transcripts of testimony given by witnesses to grand juries in Washington, DC and Florida during the government’s investigation into his alleged mishandling of national defence information, as well as other materials obtained by the government by way of subpoenas and search warrants, such as surveillance footage from his Mar-a-Lago property. Prosecutors wrote that the tranche of evidence made available to the ex-president’s attorneys “includes the grand jury testimony of witnesses who will testify for the government at the trial of this case”. Under the terms of a protective order issued last week by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, Mr Trump is barred from viewing the evidence against him outside the presence of his attorneys. The order states that Mr Trump “shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff,” and prohibited either of them from retaining copies of the materials themselves or taking any notes with them after viewing any of the materials. The protective order and the restrictions it places upon Mr Trump are meant in part to prevent him from directing his followers to harass any witnesses against him or any FBI or DOJ personnel involved in the case. Magistrate Judge Reinhart also ordered that the discovery materials be kept only by Mr Trump’s legal team and stored securely on premises controlled by them. Read More Ivanka and Jared split over attending Trump 2024 launch – follow live Why was Donald Trump impeached twice during his first term? Four big lies Trump told during his 2024 presidential announcement

Rishi Sunak said he is “absolutely confident” he will meet his pledge to halve inflation this year, after